Injunctive relief is asking the court to make someone to refrain from doing something, or to do something they don't want to do. In order for injunctive relief to be granted on an emergency basis while the matter is being debated, the court has to find both that there is a "strong likelihood of success on the merits" AND that there would be "irreparable harm" to the party to whom the thing is being done (or not done). Irreparable harm is usually a pretty high bar. In other words, there is a strong bias in favor of leaving whatever the "status quo" is while the matter is being decided by the court.
I haven't been following this one closely but the Fifth Circuit apparently ordered the Feds to stop cutting the razor wire - i.e., found that Texas would likely win on the merits of the case AND that there would be irreparable harm to Texas if the Feds were not "enjoined" from continuing to cut the wire.
According to this article. the SCOTUS justices didn't give a reason for their respective votes. However it is possible, for example, that some of the justices voting with the majority have simply found that regardless of whether Texas would likely prevail on the merits, the harm in the Feds cutting the wire is not "irreparable." If I had to guess the liberals think that Texas will/should lose on the merits and that there is no irreparable harm, and Roberts and Barrett just think there's no irreparable harm and that there shouldn't be court action until the case is fully decided.
I am somewhat curious to read the arguments and if I have time and can find them readily I may do so. I suspect that the administration is saying immigration matters are solely within the jurisdiction of the executive branch and that Texas is going lose on the merits.
Understanding is better than reacting, and lots of folks react because they didn't get the result they wanted, without actually understanding anything about the law and how it operates.
It's not very Q-ish. Your comment here, however, is very Q-ish. Or at least, based anonish.
High praise indeed. Thanks! EDIT: Can't remember if I saw it here but Draino had a Twitter post about how the fact that the executive branch has authority to handle all aspects of immigration could be a huge boomerang when Trump has to go into the states and deport the illegal immigrants. Here's a link:
All they did was refuse to leave an injunction in place while the case is heard by the 5th Circuit.
Please explain.
Injunctive relief is asking the court to make someone to refrain from doing something, or to do something they don't want to do. In order for injunctive relief to be granted on an emergency basis while the matter is being debated, the court has to find both that there is a "strong likelihood of success on the merits" AND that there would be "irreparable harm" to the party to whom the thing is being done (or not done). Irreparable harm is usually a pretty high bar. In other words, there is a strong bias in favor of leaving whatever the "status quo" is while the matter is being decided by the court.
I haven't been following this one closely but the Fifth Circuit apparently ordered the Feds to stop cutting the razor wire - i.e., found that Texas would likely win on the merits of the case AND that there would be irreparable harm to Texas if the Feds were not "enjoined" from continuing to cut the wire.
According to this article. the SCOTUS justices didn't give a reason for their respective votes. However it is possible, for example, that some of the justices voting with the majority have simply found that regardless of whether Texas would likely prevail on the merits, the harm in the Feds cutting the wire is not "irreparable." If I had to guess the liberals think that Texas will/should lose on the merits and that there is no irreparable harm, and Roberts and Barrett just think there's no irreparable harm and that there shouldn't be court action until the case is fully decided.
I am somewhat curious to read the arguments and if I have time and can find them readily I may do so. I suspect that the administration is saying immigration matters are solely within the jurisdiction of the executive branch and that Texas is going lose on the merits.
This should be top comment.
Understanding is better than reacting, and lots of folks react because they didn't get the result they wanted, without actually understanding anything about the law and how it operates.
It's not very Q-ish. Your comment here, however, is very Q-ish. Or at least, based anonish.
High praise indeed. Thanks! EDIT: Can't remember if I saw it here but Draino had a Twitter post about how the fact that the executive branch has authority to handle all aspects of immigration could be a huge boomerang when Trump has to go into the states and deport the illegal immigrants. Here's a link:
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1749555630841508006