Re: Nationwide injunctions

On Thu, 10 Jul 2025 20:17:08 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701  <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On Jul 10, 2025 at 12:40:04 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>

On 7/10/2025 2:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

 On Jun 28, 2025 at 1:53:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
 

 Trump challenged three nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of
 his executive order ending birthright citizenship.
 
 Most such injunctions will end although I think there are exceptions I
 don't understand. These can be filed as class actions but the Supreme
 Court earlier in John Roberts' tenure made it extremely difficult to
 file as a class, hence the nationwide injunctions.
 
 I'm a bit sympathetic to Trump's argument that plaintiffs seeking
 equitable relief will jurisdiction shop and the government must defend
 case after case after case.
 
 However, there should be nationwide injunctions allowed against the
 government without jurisdiction shopping. Last I looked, Washington
 remains the seat of government. Give that district court exclusive
 authority so the government might defend one case and not myriad cases.
 Congress would have to fix that.
 
 By the way, this affected the administrations of Democratic presidents
 too, so Republicans are losing plenty of political leverage.
 
 I don't agree with Amy Coney Barrett. If the president is about to do
 something unconstitutional, why shouldn't he be enjoined? Certainly
 there is court jurisdiction for that.
 
 The merits of the case were not at issue in this ruling and talking
 heads were saying it's unlikely that, if these cases continue in trial
 courts, Trump will win on the merits.
 
 
 
>

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/supreme-court-sides-with-trump-administration-on-nationwide-injunctions-in-birthright-citizenship-case/

 
 So it appears that after a New Hampshire district court judge had his
 nationwide injunction against Trump's birthright citizenship EO overturned
by
 SCOTUS, he has now certified a class action against it so that he can reach
 more than just the plaintiff with his ruling. My question is that, since
 Trump's EO is not retroactive and only applies to future children born here,
 how can there be anyone with standing to certify a class?
 
 Do "unborn future people" have rights under the Constitution? If so, then
the
 abortion debate seems to be conclusively over.

 
You've answered your own question: they gain standing as they're born
...adding to those born between Trump's order and the judge's ruling.

>
It doesn't work that way. A plaintiff has to have standing the moment the
lawsuit is filed.

>
As I've noted before, with human life beginning at conception, then the
parents would have to prove they had sex in the United States, which
would put an end to birth tourism.

Libs insist life doesn't start until birth so doublestandards again?