The Supreme Court had a case involving Trump's plans to reduce the federal workforce for over a month.
It decided to release a thinly argued "go right ahead for now" order only now. As Justice Jackson notes:
[D]espite this fact-bound determination and the extensive fact-finding that supports it, the Court now cavalierly concludes (in just one line) that “the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful.”
We can only assume what happened other than Justice Jackson taking the time to write a solo dissent.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court blocked a lower court order that temporarily stopped President Donald Trump from laying off tens of thousands of federal workers and effectively dismantling congressionally created agencies by presidential fiat. Six weeks ago, Judge Susan Illston, a judge in California appointed by President Bill Clinton, explained at length that Trump was asking her to either declare that dozens of past presidents and congresses “did not properly understand the separation of powers,” or to “ignore” what the executive branch was plainly doing. “The court can do neither,” Illston said.
This is another case of an extensive district court ruling lifted with little or no comment. This time, even Sotomayor went along. She briefly concurred.
Sotomayor agrees with Jackson that Trump cannot reorganize without congressional approval. She argues that the plans themselves are not involved here.
The unsigned order acknowledges this. Nonetheless, Jackson explains how the district court judge carefully explained why the Administration was acting unlawfully and why it was appropriate to leave the lower court's injunction in place.
The court of appeals left it in place. Why should the Supreme Court second-guess the district court?
Mark Joseph Stern, on Bluesky, noted that Sotomayor's concurrence implies a "deal" of some sort. Toss in the length of time this took to be decided. However, it is far from clear how much the "damage is limited." Are we still hoping for that?
Another liberal notes:
I have no problem with Sotomayor's concurrence telling District Courts that they can still (as of now) stop actual plans given that the votes to maintain the stays weren't there, but it's still very hard to imagine stays of specific plans surviving Roberts's shadow docket.
The question then becomes, what is the value of that? District courts can try to "stop actual plans," but if that doesn't survive, what does (yet again) overruling a district court judge get you? Jackson explains why the judge was correct here. Sotomayor ("even Sotomayor") blesses overruling them. For what?
Kagan could have concurred to say that while Sotomayor would continue her cred as a strong dissenter. Kagan has the role of the "reasonable liberal" who still believes in some institutional regularity. If Sotomayor is going to enable the Trump Administration, it should be for something truly significant. As Jackson says, especially at this moment, there is a reason not to do this.
Why can't the justices just enjoy their recess without enabling the Trump Administration for at least a little while? Or, just release this before now? Oh well.
Amy Howe (SCOTUSblog) actually bluntly said only Jackson dissented, violating the assumed rule that you can't assume justices concurred in such cases unless they explicitly said so. I'm fine with that, too.
ETA: A small bit of sanity.
The Court rejected Florida's request for a stay to let it start enforcing a state law that creates state-law crimes for federal immigration violations. A lower court held that it was pre-empted by federal law.
The stay request was rejected without comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!