A lot of people seem to think the ruling affirms US president Donald Trump's attempt to repeal the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause by imperial edict ("Executive Order No. 14160").
That's not what it does:
The applications do not raise -- and thus the Court does not address -- the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act.
What the ruling addresses is whether a US District Court can issue an injunction compelling or forbidding the US government to do a particular thing in parts of the country outside its jurisdiction. For example, can the US District Court for the Northern District of California order the federal government to stop paying out farm subsidies not just in the Northern District of California, but also in Maine, Wisconsin, and Arkansas?
SCOTUS says that that's mostly a "no," and that makes sense. If different District Courts come up with different answers on Constitutional or Legal Issue X, it's SCOTUS's job to settle Constitutional or Legal Issue X nation-wide. The lower courts don't get to magically expand their jurisdictions and authorities.
I'm not saying that the principle will always produce good outcomes, but I can understand why 1) SCOTUS doesn't want jurisdictional chaos, with US District Courts issuing conflicting rulings and each court demanding that its ruling, rather than another court's ruling, be enforced nationwide; and 2) SCOTUS sees such jurisdictional chaos as contrary to original constitutional intent.
No comments:
Post a Comment