Tag Archives: courts

I’d Go One Step Further

Posted on by
Reply

In a Friday letter to the WSJ‘s Letters section, Samuel Estreicher and Rudra Reddy, of the New York University School of Law, reminded us of a suggestion for curbing Federal district judge arrogance in issuing nationwide—universal—injunctions:

Aside from raising the legal standard for issuing such injunctions, the Supreme Court should also consider procedural steps that could be taken to challenge a nationwide injunction once issued, such as an expedited appeal to the regional circuit or to the high court itself.

My one further step is this: automatically stay each universal injunction until its final review by the relevant appellate court and Supreme Court, or by the Supreme Court directly. In conjunction with this, require the appellate court or Supreme Court to take up the case within an explicitly defined number of days (not many) of the injunction having been issued, with that takeup done either by appeal or by the appellate court on its own initiative, whichever is necessary to meet the deadline. Apply the same time-constraint to the Supreme Court in the event of a direct appeal.

I’d give serious consideration, given the serious nature and wide scope of a universal injunction issued at the district level, to having the injunction’s appeal go directly to the Supreme Court. That Court is, after all, the only one with universal jurisdiction, and it’s the only Constitutionally mandated Court in the US.

And an incentive step: in the event the universal injunction is struck down, even if it’s allowed to stand as it applies solely to the litigants, the appellate/Supreme Court should overtly chastise the issuing district court judge for his overreach.

Government Funding of Speech

Posted on by
Reply

PBS has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the latter’s moves to defund the service.

The system is centering its beef on two things: free speech and the potential to upend public television.

Last thing first. The risk of upending public television is wholly irrelevant. What’s relevant here is what our Constitution and the statutes cited in their suit say. What our Constitution says about PBS‘ business model or about any public business model is…nothing. There is no Constitutional right to a particular business model, and disruptions to models occur all the time, ranging from competitors to changing consumers to governments’ decisions to donate money or not.

PBS‘ crying about its business model is just cynical fear mongering.

PBS‘ free speech argument might have some force, but that one is centered on President Donald Trump’s (R) commentary regarding how little he likes PBS‘ own commentary and editorial decisions. However, Trump’s comments are irrelevant, also; what is relevant here, too, is what our Constitution and the cited statutes and Trump’s defunding EO say.

What our Constitution says about funding PBS is…nothing. There is no Constitutional obligation for our government to donate any money to it or to any public enterprise. The cited statutes create no such obligation. What Trump’s Executive Order says is this:

Government funding of news media in this environment [today’s, vs mid-last century when Corporation for Public Broadcasting was created] is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.
…
No media outlet has a constitutional right to taxpayer subsidies, and the Government is entitled to determine which categories of activities to subsidize.  The CPB’s governing statute reflects principles of impartiality:  the CPB may not “contribute to or otherwise support any political party.”

And this [emphasis added]:

The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS.  Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter.  What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.

In the end, whatever Government, or Trump, say about others’ speech, neither Government in general, nor the Trump administration in particular, are obligated to fund it; the only obligation is to not block it except under a few tightly circumscribed situations: lying under oath, false advertising, making threats or otherwise inciting violence, and the like. This is supported by PBS‘ own words:

After careful deliberation, PBS reached the conclusion that it was necessary to take legal action to safeguard public television’s editorial independence, and to protect the autonomy of PBS member stations[.]

What better way to safeguard public television’s independence and protect the autonomy of PBS member stations than to stop receiving corrosive government money, a point Trump made in the opening of his EO?

It Doesn’t Matter

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has said that the Trump administration can go ahead with its plans to deport 500,000 “migrants” from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, ruling that the administration can cancel, as a preparatory step, the Temporary Protected Status the Biden administration had granted those illegal aliens. It’s only a partial victory, though, as the Court merely stayed a lower court ruling that barred the TPS cancelation while the matter works through the courts on its merits.

Two activist Justices dissented. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, centered her dissent on the premise of the

devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending.

I’ll omit comment on the cynicism of the “noncitizen” characterization. Whether cancelation and potential subsequent deportation are good or bad policy, whether the removal is disruptive of the lives of those 500,000, these are political and social considerations, and so they are wholly irrelevant here. What does matter, all that is relevant, is whether the Trump administration is acting within the law. That is all that an American court can adjudicate; political and social considerations are the province of the political branches of our government and are explicitly outside the scope of our judicial branch. The judicial branch has no jurisdiction whatsoever on purely political/social matters.

All that matters to the judges, all that should matter, is what the stature before them and the relevant clauses of our Constitution say, not what judges think they should say.

Mischaracterization

Posted on by
Reply

The Vera Institutes of Justice’s Santiago Mueckay has one in his letter in the WSJ‘s Letters section.

[T]he Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that immigrants are entitled to due process under the US Constitution.

This is a cynically offered strawman argument. No one is arguing that immigrants are not entitled to our Constitution’s due process protections.

Illegal aliens, though—the ones targeted by rapid deportation efforts—hold themselves outside our social compact, outside our government’s jurisdiction, by breaking into our country in violation of our laws and then hiding from our government. From that, illegal aliens have no claim to, and no right for, any of the protections of our Constitution.

Mueckay will have to play with his dolly without me.

No Compromise

Posted on by
Reply

Two lawyers, Joel Cohen and Bennett Gershman, think they have a solution to the exploding epidemic of nationwide injunctions being issued at the Federal district level by these bottom of the judicial hierarchy judges. They tried to lay out the problem:

From the justices’ questions in oral arguments last week, it was clear all are uneasy with the idea that trial judges have the authority to act as a “roving commission to correct every legal wrong that they can consider and to exercise general legal oversight over the executive branch,” as Solicitor General John Sauer put it.

The Justices are right to be “uneasy” about that. Aside from the overblown arrogance of a district judge issuing such an injunction, it leads to what we’re seeing now: judge-shopping to find the district most convenient to the case being presented and most likely to issue the desired national injunction. Then the lawyers added, however:

On the other hand, requiring everyone injured by an executive action to initiate his own lawsuit to gain relief seems unduly burdensome.

No, it isn’t burdensome to require everyone who claims an injury to enter into court to make that case. National injunctions not only include those claimants, they sweep up millions of others not injured in to the same case via the limitations imposed on everyone by that universal injunction—that’s the burden.

Then the lawyers offer their solution.

Judge Orrin Judd of the Eastern District of New York declared the US bombing of Cambodia unlawful and issued a permanent injunction against the government barring any military activities involving Cambodia. …
[R]ecognizing the decision’s potential impact, Judd granted the government a two-day stay to allow an appeal.

Fleshing this business out, the lawyers added,

The justices can place limits on such nationwide injunctions. When a district judge issues a nationwide injunction against the government, the court could require that he grant an automatic stay of, say, five days to allow an appeal to the circuit court, which would in turn be required to decide the case within, say, 30 days. The injunction, if affirmed, would no longer be the decision of a single judge. And if the circuit court gets the issue wrong, the Supreme Court could take it up quickly.

This is not an area where compromise is possible. Our Constitution must be adhered to in every particular, and that necessarily includes its structuring of our Federal government into three separate, coequal branches with only limited (if critically so) overlap among the branches.

In the present context, our Constitution makes the Executive Branch, particularly the President, the creator and operator of our nation’s foreign policy. Overlap: the President can engage with enemies militarily, but only the Legislative can declare war, and if the latter finds the former’s conflicts mistaken or lasting too long, it can cut off funding for the conflict.

Crucially, there is no overlap here between the Judiciary and the Executive. Lower courts are creations of the Legislative; their opinions on constitutionality are no more than that.

So it is with district court judges presuming to issue universal—nationwide—injunctions. These are bald and dangerous oversteps of our by-design separation of powers in our Federal government, and they must stop altogether. Given the number of activist judges issuing these opinions, they must be ended by the Supreme Court in no uncertain terms.

As the two lawyers wrote, courts can move quickly and efficiently, especially when a brief stay is granted, and there is an urgent need for expeditious review. Courts need no stay, temporary or otherwise, to move quickly and efficiently. They can do so when the matter, correctly limited to the litigants within the confines of the district, warrants the urgency.

Full stop.