Re: Nationwide injunctions

On 7/13/2025 9:33 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 12:16:55 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
 

On 7/12/2025 9:48 AM, NoBody wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:14:39 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>

On 7/11/2025 8:04 AM, NoBody wrote:

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?

>
Libs insist it's none of your business...
>

>
Well now you're talking in circles.
Make up your mind already.

>
What circle?
>

 Your seeming saying that unborn babies are covered by the ruling since
a plaintiff must have standing at the moment the lawsuit  is filed yet
you're also saying the government should stay out of governing babies
in the womb.
 Which is it?  You can't have both.

I specifically said that "unborn babies" gain standing (i.e., "coverage") when they're born ...though BTR says that's disallowed.