They keep trying and trying until they push things through. They continually rewrite the legislation, or executive orders, or mandates, to counter the causes of the failure of the previous attempts.
For a federal court to hear a case, there must be subject matter jurisdiction (basically is there a federal question in dispute or are the parties suing from different states or countries), personal jurisdiction (basically can the court exercise proper authority over the parties), and it must be a proper venue (basically is this court a conveniently positioned court for the parties/witnesses). There are 94 district courts in the US and so for any dispute, there are several district courts that would be proper to take the case.
You can transfer venue (district court) if the dispute could have been brought in the other court to begin with AND it would further justice to do so (if it would be more convenient to the parties). Lawyers file to transfer strategically if they think they’ll get a judge that will likely side with them in the other court.
The judge has a lot of discretion in deciding to transfer, and a lot of factors go into it like how busy the different courts are. One big factor is if the transferee venue would be more convenient for the witnesses who are subpoenaed. So yeah, transferring venue isn’t a huge deal, could be good or bad hard to say without looking closer at the case and presiding judge…
I have thought for a long time that the affect of "court shopping " could be eliminated by bingo balling who sees the case. Leave it up to chance who hears it.
If true that is a major blow to the vaccine mandate for now. However, after January 1st they will try again.
Sure they do, but the resistance is DEFINITELY growing (as are the injuries and deaths.)
Can you explain why they will try again at the start of the new year? Are they able to refill with another court or something?
They keep trying and trying until they push things through. They continually rewrite the legislation, or executive orders, or mandates, to counter the causes of the failure of the previous attempts.
Through legislative action they might try again.
This is huge! This keeps the case in the USA proper. DC has their own rules.
Are there any lawyers or others who can explain the various different courts? I and probably a lot of others here would appreciate it.
Law student at Regent University here:
For a federal court to hear a case, there must be subject matter jurisdiction (basically is there a federal question in dispute or are the parties suing from different states or countries), personal jurisdiction (basically can the court exercise proper authority over the parties), and it must be a proper venue (basically is this court a conveniently positioned court for the parties/witnesses). There are 94 district courts in the US and so for any dispute, there are several district courts that would be proper to take the case.
You can transfer venue (district court) if the dispute could have been brought in the other court to begin with AND it would further justice to do so (if it would be more convenient to the parties). Lawyers file to transfer strategically if they think they’ll get a judge that will likely side with them in the other court.
The judge has a lot of discretion in deciding to transfer, and a lot of factors go into it like how busy the different courts are. One big factor is if the transferee venue would be more convenient for the witnesses who are subpoenaed. So yeah, transferring venue isn’t a huge deal, could be good or bad hard to say without looking closer at the case and presiding judge…
Thanks for the explanation.
not a huge fan of the source, but they seem to have a pretty solid breakdown.
https://naacp.org/find-resources/know-your-rights/understanding-federal-courts
Thank you!
glad to help
This feeling of knowing tje courts are doing their work.
I have thought for a long time that the affect of "court shopping " could be eliminated by bingo balling who sees the case. Leave it up to chance who hears it.