Supreme Court allows Texas to begin enforcing controversial immigration law
- Thread starter NorthernHawkeye
- Start date
10 years ago the SC ruled Arizona violated the constitution and infringed on civil liberties by passing and enforcing a law that enabled law enforcement to stop and detain those they suspected of being in the country illegally by targeting Hispanic looking people in predominantly Hispanic areas.
Just saw this pop up in my feed. When Texas starts aggressively enforcing their border, how long before the main routes into the USA start avoiding Texas and shifting to New Mexico, Arizona, and California? Then how long before those states see how well Texas is doing and enact the same laws? Well, probably never California, so looks like everything could eventually funnel through them.
OK, so assuming that 95% of you haven't read the order (which I have), let me say the context here is mind numbingly narrow and technical. And kinda stupid to boot. And not of much substantive import in terms of the merits of the case.
1. District court blocks Texas law.
2. Texas appeals to 5Cir. on interlocutory basis (in discretion of 5cir)
3. 5Cir issues temporary admin stay of district court opinion pending decision whether to take up appeal.
4. (here's the kicker) 5Cir decides to take up appeal, and defers Texas' request for "formal" stay pending appeal, which is subject to defined criteria, until the merits argument actually occurs, thus leaving the temporary stay in effect even though the original docket management purpose has effectively expired.
5. US appeals to Scotus, seeking revocation of admin stay, again, under the usual defined criteria for formal stays.
So today, Scotus denies the request to kill the admin stay per curiam. Based on the concurrence, this is mostly because the 5cir hasn't first considered a formal stay, and Barrett/Kav sort of note that the last thing they want to start doing is using the emergency docket to manage lower courts' administrative stays for docket management purposes under defined formal stay criteria. Soto/Jackson rightfully notes that this doesn't look like a case that would get a 'formal' stay under the usual defined criteria.
Incredibly formalistic, and not a good look as the 5cir can now slow walk this case as long as they want.
1. District court blocks Texas law.
2. Texas appeals to 5Cir. on interlocutory basis (in discretion of 5cir)
3. 5Cir issues temporary admin stay of district court opinion pending decision whether to take up appeal.
4. (here's the kicker) 5Cir decides to take up appeal, and defers Texas' request for "formal" stay pending appeal, which is subject to defined criteria, until the merits argument actually occurs, thus leaving the temporary stay in effect even though the original docket management purpose has effectively expired.
5. US appeals to Scotus, seeking revocation of admin stay, again, under the usual defined criteria for formal stays.
So today, Scotus denies the request to kill the admin stay per curiam. Based on the concurrence, this is mostly because the 5cir hasn't first considered a formal stay, and Barrett/Kav sort of note that the last thing they want to start doing is using the emergency docket to manage lower courts' administrative stays for docket management purposes under defined formal stay criteria. Soto/Jackson rightfully notes that this doesn't look like a case that would get a 'formal' stay under the usual defined criteria.
Incredibly formalistic, and not a good look as the 5cir can now slow walk this case as long as they want.
Last edited:
So I see the 5cir issued an order yesterday removing the stay of the district court opinion. Interestingly, the panel is/was set to hear argument on the broader stay today. Which sorta makes what scotus did yesterday both less and more remarkable, since we were likely talking about a stay effect of one day.
Very few posters on this site actually read opinions. They post based on headlines on media outlets which are often misleading, and a lot of reporters race to get the stories out, often without actually understanding what they are writing about. Worse are the 'X' posters that are so often cited by posters here. Case in point is the Iowa Roundup liability thread.
Who gives a shit? Right-wing pussies obsess 24-7 and if it wasn't this it would be something else.
Attempts to address it were shot down by your Orange Popscycho, so cest la vie.
