[firesteelrain]

Not necessarily. That’s where class actions come in

The point is that relief should be tied to proper procedure, not handed out universally by default. One judge shouldn’t decide national policy based on one plaintiff unless the case is structured to justify it

[underlipton]

No. If a ruling has determined that a government action has the potential to be illegal and must be halted for the suing party, it should absolutely be halted for everyone, because you're dealing with an action that's ambiguously illegal for everyone. It's not just the wronged party at the center of this issue, it's the capacity for the government to engage in illegal activity. Once you've identified behavior as questionable, you stop the behavior.

[firesteelrain]

I don’t agree because that’s not how our legal system is setup

[ImPostingOnHN]

I disagree: that is indeed how our legal system was set up.

[paulryanrogers]

The "proper procedure" is increasingly out of reach for all but the richest or most numerous groups in our society (i.e. those equipped and qualified to launch a class action). It's justice on paper and injustice in practice.

[staticautomatic]

I believe it when I see the the certs

[beej71]

It seems like the GPs issue still remains, except instead of individual lawsuits forever, it's class action lawsuits forever, does it not?

[firesteelrain]

They slow down the “forever lawsuit” problem by consolidating claims, reducing conflicting rulings, and giving defendants a clear path to challenge the case’s scope. It’s not perfect, but it’s better than unlimited nationwide injunctions from any one court.

[vkou]

This creates conflicting rulings, because now anyone who is party to a lawsuit has one precedent for them, and everyone else isn't.

If a state now sues the federal government on behalf of its citizens that a federal action is illegal, and wins, you now has a situation where a federal action is constitutionally illegal in one state, but is legal in another. How the hell is this consistent?

This doesn't consolidate anything. It removes the thing that forced consolidation - the ability of a court to issue an injunction and stop illegal actions from continuing - which forced the government to either give up, or appeal up. Now, everything is a legal patchwork.

[firesteelrain]

That’s exactly how constitutional challenges have always worked. In our system, different circuits can interpret federal law differently until SCOTUS resolves the split. It’s not ideal, but it’s how precedent gets built.

Nationwide injunctions didn’t “force” consolidation. Often, they often blocked it.

We need to follow the process as designed.

This ruling restores pressure to actually appeal and get clarity at the appellate or Supreme Court level.

I’ll admit it’s slower but it’s slower by design. Less patchwork this way.

[paulryanrogers]

What if the executive prefers not to appeal their losses because they see a patch work as better than a permanent nationwide loss? Because that seems to be exactly their strategy here.

[firesteelrain]

As I have been saying, courts aren’t not the only avenue to resolve. So what if their strategy is to not appeal? Find another way. Vote, change immigration law, apply political pressure, demand change through democratic means

But certainly don’t use one course of action

Finally injunctions were not envisioned by the Founders. Foreign concept along with circuit court. Only fairly recent