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.
Why should clear common sense sound so alien to us in these evil days?
Every Thomas opinion is a history lesson. Please read it.
Hopefully the travel ban will be extended to Mexico, given all the issues we are having. He can just send all the illegals back without a hearing.
Nice...Justice Thomas is calling out the district courts for inapporpriate behavior and noting that they need to be reigned in.
How much money are the liberal justices pair for their corrupt votes?
That is the only question.
Congress should help him with that and impeach a few of the judges most likely to be forum shopped.
>>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.
<<
This can NOT be overlooked. Justice Thomas is saying “SCOTUS is getting tired of having local courts overstepping their clearly defined constitutional boundaries and we might take preemtive action.”
This. Is. HUGE!
Based on the obozo years we KNOW no one in the eGOP has the stones to file injunctive relief against clearly unconstitutional EOs (an inhibition NOT shared by the tantrum-throwing left) so we need not worry about this going against non-liberal administrations.
A federal district court judge should have no authority beyond his district. How could he? The nationwide sweep of these district court injunctions is breathtaking. Thomas is 100% correct.
Not only was this a WIN on the face of it, it was a WIN with some of the Justices pointing out that these P*ssant, Dem-appointed and SHOPPED FOR local judges, who have NO JURISDICTION anywhere other than where they SIT, are overstepping THE LAW!
Best. Election. Ever. EVER! MAGA! :)
It’s been an AMAZING week so far...and it’s only Tuesday!
But EVERY week has been thus since we were Blessed with President Trump and his/our Lovely Melania. :)
So, The President is duty bound to disregard such an order in districts outside the one where the judgement was issued.
Then to test, disregard to test constitutionality as a separate issue.
I only wish the suit could have been named “Trump vs That A-hole Judge In Hawaii Who We Now See Isn’t Half As Clever As He thought He Was”.
Danny! See my post #11. I just started typing before I read through all of the other comments.
Spot on! :)
“I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions. “
That’s an understatement. The question is why doesn’t SCROTUS vacate these universal injunctions(unconstitutional edicts)?
I can’t wait for all the liberal whining tomorrow about the union dues case that will be decided. That is going to be a huge decision as well.
If we can get Gorsuch’s to replace Ginsberg and Kennedy, then we’ll have a STRONG ENOUGH MAJORITY to not have to wait 15 months to deal with rouge lower courts - instead, we’ll get decisions in ONE WEEK, when they violate Supreme Court rulings - Trump simply takes the case DIRECTLY to the Supreme Court, and they IMMEDIATELY slap down the lower courts.
So if your Republican candidate for Senate is a ‘RINO’, just remember that EVERY RINO in the Senate today voted to put GORSUCH on the Supreme Court, and will almost certainly do it again, assuming that Trump’s pick is well-qualified (which of course will be the case).
So THINK REAL HARD before you sit out voting for RINO out of ‘principle’ (i.e., helping to elect a real Democrat), because the Democrat WILL NEVER vote to confirm another Gorsuch type - TO ANY COURT in the country.
But is that a question for SCOTUS or congress to decide as to limiting jurisdiction?
I suppose that the DOJ in defending a suit against the Executive Branch, whereby the lower court placed an injunction, could ask SCOTUS to also answer that question in the appeal.
“That’s an understatement. The question is why doesn’t SCROTUS vacate these universal injunctions(unconstitutional edicts)?”
You’ll have a ruling like you seek when some pissant Dem-appointed District Court judge makes a sweeping nationwide ban on something that the President (almost assuredly Trump - it won’t take long, I’m certain) wants to do...and the President tells the judge to piss up a rope. It’ll then get elevated to the Supremes before long.
“That’s an understatement. The question is why doesn’t SCROTUS vacate these universal injunctions(unconstitutional edicts)?”
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.
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.