Posted on 06/26/2018 1:33:30 PM PDT by Jacquerie
THOMAS, J., concurring. I join the Court’s opinion, which highlights just a few of the many problems with the plaintiffs’ claims. There are several more. Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600 (1988). Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country. See United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537, 542–543 (1950); accord, Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 13–14). Further, the Establishment Clause does not create an individual right to be free from all laws that a “reasonable observer” views as religious or antireligious. See Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 6); Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 52–53 (2004) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). The plaintiffs cannot raise any other First Amendment claim, since the alleged religious discrimination in this case was directed at aliens abroad. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990). And, even on its own terms, the plaintiffs’ proffered evidence of anti-Muslim discrimination is unpersuasive. Merits aside, I write separately to address the remedy
2 TRUMP v. HAWAII THOMAS, J. I join the Court’s opinion, which highlights just a few of the many problems with the plaintiffs’ claims. There are several more. Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600 (1988).
Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country. See United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U. S. 537, 542–543 (1950); accord, Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 13–14). Further, the Establishment Clause does not create an individual right to be free from all laws that a “reasonable observer” views as religious or antireligious. See Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___ (2014) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 6); Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 52–53 (2004) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). The plaintiffs cannot raise any other First Amendment claim, since the alleged religious discrimination in this case was directed at aliens abroad. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990). And, even on its own terms, the plaintiffs’ proffered evidence of anti-Muslim discrimination is unpersuasive.
Merits aside, I write separately to address the remedy that the plaintiffs sought and obtained in this case. The District Court imposed an injunction that barred the Government from enforcing the President’s Proclamation against anyone, not just the plaintiffs. Injunctions that prohibit the Executive Branch from applying a law or policy against anyone—often called “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions—have become increasingly common.
District courts, including the one here, have begun imposing universal injunctions without considering their authority to grant such sweeping relief. These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system— preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.
I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. These injunctions did not emerge until a century and a half after the founding. And they appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on equitable relief and the power of Article III courts. If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.
What a great Justice he has been and decision this is. I am convinced this is s seminal court decision of enormous and immediate impact. The anti border communists are in total meltdown with uncontrolled crying and anxiety attacks similar to the defeat of criminal hillary.
Trump may immediately now shut down entry of all illegal aliens and he can return those here with impunity. We do not have to allow them in and give them lawyers. He just deems them “detrimental to the national interest” and it is OVER. I never thought I would live to see such a day. I hope he addresses the Nation tonight. We can;t wait for the mid terms. That is insane, That would allow another 250,000 of these parasite welfare seekers to come in. No SIR, This requires immediate action to stop any further entry and to remove those that have entered with one Executive order.
“Very simple - they DO NOT have the votes for that. That’s why Thomas didn’t get to write the majority opinion and instead was relegated to a concurring opinion on Page 47.
The key is to get MORE CONSERVATIVES on the Supreme Court, and once that is done, the lower courts will be STOPPED IN THEIR TRACKS.”
Thanks...That’s what I figured. Barring that(more conservatives on the court), President Trump should not cede anymore executive power to the courts. Easy for me to say, with his own party itching to impeach him...
I don’t know why took this long...the constitution could not be more clear. Of course those for commie bastards are not interested in the Constitution. Nor are the idiot judges in Hawaii that started this crap!!!
“Barring that(more conservatives on the court), President Trump should not cede anymore executive power to the courts. Easy for me to say, with his own party itching to impeach him...”
I do think Trump can now ignore more hits on his travel ban by the lower courts, but I also agree with you - the RINOs are JUST ITCHING for Trump to go against other court rulings...so they can join the Democrats and impeach him.
Actually I don’t see why Trump shouln’t just tell the idiots they are inferior in power and only the Supreme court could rule on it and they are just equal in power.
The system was set up with checks and balances. Appeals all the way up to SCOTUS is a legal process. New Legislation by Congress is a legal process. Impeachment by Congress is a legal process.
If Trump just ignores the court system instead of working the process, then all of the democrats and all of the RINO’s who want Trump impeached, get their reason to do so.
>> This. Is. HUGE <<
Maybe. I haven’t studied this matter fully, but Justice Thomas’ opinion was not joined by any other Justice - so it’s not SCOTUS warning out-of-control District Judges - it’s just Thomas.
Yes!
Damn straight.
If their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.
Do it.
>>Maybe. I haven’t studied this matter fully, but Justice Thomas’ opinion was not joined by any other Justice - so it’s not SCOTUS warning out-of-control District Judges - it’s just Thomas.<<
Perhaps but the fact it is “out there” I think is still a big deal. I wish I had time to do the analyses f the opinions to get a better handle to validate your or my assumptions/conclusions.
I say that will complete respect for you my FRiend. You may have insights I do not possess.
A man can hope... :)
Agree, it’s now out there and that’s a good thing. Justice Thomas is essentially asking for a case.
Nice...Justice Thomas is calling out the district courts for inapporpriate behavior and noting that they need to be reigned in.
BTW—I would not be surprised if ANOTHER court invalidates the travel band for some other BS reason.
They are true believers and would be offended at the suggestion that they would need to be paid before stomping on the Constitution.
Brilliant.
From Article III, Congress and the President can pass a law that prohibits universal injunctions by district courts.
Problem solved.
Of course, our popularly elected and neutered congress is incapable of doing such a thing. It might threaten reelection.
“I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions.”
Making every district court a supreme court that can issue rulings that affect the entire nation is asinine and unconstitutional.
If that’s the case, let’s find a district court judge who will decree all abortions unconstitutional and make the possession of tanks, machineguns and RPGs legal.
“Maybe. I haven’t studied this matter fully, but Justice Thomas’ opinion was not joined by any other Justice - so it’s not SCOTUS warning out-of-control District Judges - it’s just Thomas.”
Nor did any justice disagree with Thomas’ opinion and warning. Is the glass half empty or half full?
No, that paragraph is not about the president at all. It is about lower level courts that have jurisdiction over a small area... but that issue nation wide injunctions.
This happens all too frequently, as Justice Thomas stated. And it happens with or without any involvement of any particular official from homeless guy on the street down to President.
Re: your post 26,
Lower courts have no say on immigration. Justice Thomas said as such in his concurring opinion. Immigration is the purview of the executive; no mere rogue judge in Hawaii has any power to put a halt to it.
It’s the same issue with him being able to bar anyone he wants from the military: the Command in Chief of the United States military declared that no transgendered (yeah I know, mentally ill) persons were to be allowed to enlist in the US military. Some judge said he couldn’t do that; that judge was entirely outside their authority in declaring who may or may not enlist in the military.
In a sane, rational world, Trump would indeed have completely ignored them and continued on his constitutional way. But, half the electorate, and half the people in office are certifiably crazy, and as such the president has to tread very carefully.
We know he’s an unstoppable bulldozer, but even they have to make turns to get where they’re going.
There are several more. Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the President. See Webster v. Doe, 486 U. S. 592, 600 (1988). Nor could it, since the President has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country. See United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy,
Game. Set. Match.
Trump is staging them in military bases.
Trump fullfilled a campaign promise to keep those families together.
Now, Trump can send those families back to their homes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.