7 ms·

And that it took this long to get an answer to that question.

by entuno 7mo ago

loeg 7mo ago
This is relatively fast for an issue to move through the courts.
- kingofmen 7mo ago
  Yes. "Relatively". We really need a fast-track process for genuinely insane nonsense to get shot down in a matter of days, not months.
  - parineum 7mo ago
    The fast track is congress clarifying their own shit. Courts are slow, it's a feature not a bug.
  - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
    It takes a long time for something to get through all the appeals. Getting an injunction to put a stop to something during the appeals doesn't take that long. The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction.
    - jeffbee 7mo ago
      As pointed out in other comments this process is entirely by choice of the court. In other cases where they just felt like ruling on something they have put things on their emergency docket and ruled on them immediately. Letting this situation ride for a year was a choice by the court.
      - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
        Not doing something you could have done is frequently less of a choice and more of a lack of bandwidth to simultaneously consider everything which is happening at the same time. The vast majority of cases don't make it onto the emergency docket.
        loeg 7mo ago
        Many reasonable people would argue this was significant / enough of an emergency to justify devoting that bandwidth, even by the standards of the Supreme Court.
    - ceejayoz 7mo ago
      > The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction. The lower courts issued several such injunctions. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/us/politics/trump-tariffs-trade-strategy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/us/politics/trump-tariffs... "On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of International Trade dealt an early blow to that strategy. The bipartisan panel of judges, one of whom had been appointed by Mr. Trump, ruled that the law did not grant the president “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs on nearly every country, as Mr. Trump had sought. As a result, the president’s tariffs were declared illegal, and the court ordered a halt to their collection within the next 10 days." "Just before she spoke, a federal judge in a separate case ordered another, temporary halt to many of Mr. Trump’s tariffs, ruling in favor of an educational toy company in Illinois, whose lawyers told the court it was harmed by Mr. Trump’s actions."
      - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
        There were presumably lower court judges who didn't issue injunctions, or what are people objecting to?
        ceejayoz 7mo ago
        The appeals level stayed the injunctions temporarily, probably expecting a quick emergency docket ruling rather than a long delay.
        AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
        The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win more than which docket they think the Supreme Court is going to use. Cases going on the emergency docket are not common.
        ceejayoz 7mo ago
        > The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win… If multiple appeals courts thought this case was a winner for the administration, we have an even bigger problem. (Also, no. They might, for example, disagree on immediate irreparable harm, but not the overall merits.) > Cases going on the emergency docket are not common. Sure. But some of them look clearly destined for it. Including this one.
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  SCOTUS can move much quicker than this when they want to. And have fairly regularly to benefit this administration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Second_Trump_presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Second_Trump_pre... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.G.G._v._Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.G.G._v._Trump was vacated within days. "On Friday, March 14, 2025, Trump signed presidential proclamation 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act and asserting that Tren de Aragua, a criminal organization from Venezuela, had invaded the United States. The White House did not announce that the proclamation had been signed until the afternoon of the next day." "Very early on Saturday, March 15, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward filed a class action suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of five Venezuelan men held in immigration detention… The suit was assigned to judge James Boasberg. That morning, noting the exigent circumstances, he approved a temporary restraining order for the five plaintiffs, and he ordered a 5 p.m. hearing to determine whether he would certify the class in the class action." "On March 28, 2025, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, asking it to vacate Boasberg's temporary restraining orders and to immediately allow the administration to resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act while it considered the request to vacate. On April 7, in a per curiam decision, the court vacated Boasberg's orders…" TL;DR: Trump signs executive order on March 14. Judge puts it on hold on March 15. Admin appeals on March 28. SCOTUS intervenes by April 7.
  - zeroonetwothree 7mo ago
    That was on the emergency docket. This decision was the merits docket, which always takes much longer.
    - ceejayoz 7mo ago
      That's a distinction entirely invented by the court, and under their control. The emergency docket is whatever they want to treat as an emergency. The decision not to treat this as such - it's hard to imagine many clearer examples of "immediate irreprable harm" - was clearly partisan.
blibble 7mo ago
in the UK a similar unconstitutional behaviour by the head of government took... from the start of the "injury": - 8 days to get to the supreme court - 2 days arguing in court - 5 days for the court to reach a decision 15 days to be ruled on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...
- petcat 7mo ago
  That was the fastest Supreme Court ruling in UK history though... Similarly in the US, Watergate (Nixon impeachment) took only 16 days, and Bush v. Gore (contested election) took just 30 days to reach a Supreme Court judgement.
- GeoAtreides 7mo ago
  Ah,yes, british constitutional law. In a country where no parliaments can bind its successors it means there is no constitution and the constitutional law is a polite fiction poorly held together with tradition and precedent.
  - blibble 7mo ago
    it's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the US system
    - Freedom2 7mo ago
      The difference is that the US system is given by God, as commonly said by many Americans over the decades. And what power is greater than God?
      - ahmeneeroe-v2 7mo ago
        I've never heard anyone say this and I come from an extremely religious area.
  - llm_nerd 7mo ago

And that it took this long to get an answer to that question.

by entuno 7mo ago

And that it took this long to get an answer to that question.

loeg 7mo ago

This is relatively fast for an issue to move through the courts.

kingofmen 7mo ago
Yes. "Relatively". We really need a fast-track process for genuinely insane nonsense to get shot down in a matter of days, not months.
- parineum 7mo ago
  The fast track is congress clarifying their own shit. Courts are slow, it's a feature not a bug.
- AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
  It takes a long time for something to get through all the appeals. Getting an injunction to put a stop to something during the appeals doesn't take that long. The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction.
  - jeffbee 7mo ago
    As pointed out in other comments this process is entirely by choice of the court. In other cases where they just felt like ruling on something they have put things on their emergency docket and ruled on them immediately. Letting this situation ride for a year was a choice by the court.
    - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
      Not doing something you could have done is frequently less of a choice and more of a lack of bandwidth to simultaneously consider everything which is happening at the same time. The vast majority of cases don't make it onto the emergency docket.
      - loeg 7mo ago
        Many reasonable people would argue this was significant / enough of an emergency to justify devoting that bandwidth, even by the standards of the Supreme Court.
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    > The problem in this case is that Congress made such a mess of the law that the lower court judges didn't think the outcome obvious enough to grant the injunction. The lower courts issued several such injunctions. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/us/politics/trump-tariffs-trade-strategy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/us/politics/trump-tariffs... "On Wednesday, the U.S. Court of International Trade dealt an early blow to that strategy. The bipartisan panel of judges, one of whom had been appointed by Mr. Trump, ruled that the law did not grant the president “unbounded authority” to impose tariffs on nearly every country, as Mr. Trump had sought. As a result, the president’s tariffs were declared illegal, and the court ordered a halt to their collection within the next 10 days." "Just before she spoke, a federal judge in a separate case ordered another, temporary halt to many of Mr. Trump’s tariffs, ruling in favor of an educational toy company in Illinois, whose lawyers told the court it was harmed by Mr. Trump’s actions."
    - AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
      There were presumably lower court judges who didn't issue injunctions, or what are people objecting to?
      - ceejayoz 7mo ago
        The appeals level stayed the injunctions temporarily, probably expecting a quick emergency docket ruling rather than a long delay.
        AnthonyMouse 7mo ago
        The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win more than which docket they think the Supreme Court is going to use. Cases going on the emergency docket are not common.
        ceejayoz 7mo ago
        > The appellate court decides whether to stay the injunction based on how likely they think you are to win… If multiple appeals courts thought this case was a winner for the administration, we have an even bigger problem. (Also, no. They might, for example, disagree on immediate irreparable harm, but not the overall merits.) > Cases going on the emergency docket are not common. Sure. But some of them look clearly destined for it. Including this one.
ceejayoz 7mo ago
SCOTUS can move much quicker than this when they want to. And have fairly regularly to benefit this administration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Second_Trump_presidency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket#Second_Trump_pre... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.G.G._v._Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.G.G._v._Trump was vacated within days. "On Friday, March 14, 2025, Trump signed presidential proclamation 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act and asserting that Tren de Aragua, a criminal organization from Venezuela, had invaded the United States. The White House did not announce that the proclamation had been signed until the afternoon of the next day." "Very early on Saturday, March 15, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward filed a class action suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of five Venezuelan men held in immigration detention… The suit was assigned to judge James Boasberg. That morning, noting the exigent circumstances, he approved a temporary restraining order for the five plaintiffs, and he ordered a 5 p.m. hearing to determine whether he would certify the class in the class action." "On March 28, 2025, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, asking it to vacate Boasberg's temporary restraining orders and to immediately allow the administration to resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act while it considered the request to vacate. On April 7, in a per curiam decision, the court vacated Boasberg's orders…" TL;DR: Trump signs executive order on March 14. Judge puts it on hold on March 15. Admin appeals on March 28. SCOTUS intervenes by April 7.
- zeroonetwothree 7mo ago
  That was on the emergency docket. This decision was the merits docket, which always takes much longer.
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    That's a distinction entirely invented by the court, and under their control. The emergency docket is whatever they want to treat as an emergency. The decision not to treat this as such - it's hard to imagine many clearer examples of "immediate irreprable harm" - was clearly partisan.

blibble 7mo ago

in the UK a similar unconstitutional behaviour by the head of government took... from the start of the "injury": - 8 days to get to the supreme court - 2 days arguing in court - 5 days for the court to reach a decision 15 days to be ruled on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Minister_and_Cherry_v_Advocate_General_for_Scotland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...

petcat 7mo ago
That was the fastest Supreme Court ruling in UK history though... Similarly in the US, Watergate (Nixon impeachment) took only 16 days, and Bush v. Gore (contested election) took just 30 days to reach a Supreme Court judgement.
GeoAtreides 7mo ago
Ah,yes, british constitutional law. In a country where no parliaments can bind its successors it means there is no constitution and the constitutional law is a polite fiction poorly held together with tradition and precedent.
- blibble 7mo ago
  it's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the US system
  - Freedom2 7mo ago
    The difference is that the US system is given by God, as commonly said by many Americans over the decades. And what power is greater than God?
    - ahmeneeroe-v2 7mo ago
      I've never heard anyone say this and I come from an extremely religious area.
- llm_nerd 7mo ago