[cyanmagenta]

That was a concern noted by the dissent.

That said, the procedure here is to just use class action lawsuits to get nationwide injunctions. The opinion explicitly notes that it is an option. And today there was a big flurry of people amending their complaints to do just that.

[Spivak]

I actually have some insider info on this. While it sounds like in theory all you have to do is take your existing lawsuit and add the additional step on certifying your class, that option isn't available for the vast majority of legal challenges. In the history of the ACLU they have had less than ten cases where they could have been converted into a class action. As a real life example the "trans women being moved to men's prisons" case isn't eligible to be made into a class action. Tangentially related if you want to see a painfully explicit example of "the cruelty is the point" read that EO. Even if you're someone who broadly agrees with the order it's a lot.

Unfortunately "the set of people who are affected by this law" doesn't define a class.

[judahmeek]

> As a real life example the "trans women being moved to men's prisons" case isn't eligible to be made into a class action.

Can you explain this statement in greater detail?

[aaron695]

> ACLU

Lets not forget the ACLU has burnt 100 years of goodwill to become the bad guys in the past decade.

They went from from amazing freedom fighters to lets hope their organization gets destroyed because of the awful humans they let in internally in recent times. I understand there is a split with an old guard still fighting to get it back, but they will lose.

> "the cruelty is the point" read that EO

Helps if you link it - https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defe...

[Scipio_Afri]

Mind providing a link to more info about your first claim about the ACLU?

[Spivak]

There's two main claims that you see when it comes to the ACLU losing its way. The first one is that they don't really do second amendment cases. Some of the motivation is genuinely the conscience of the people who work there, but the much much bigger factor, because the ACLU takes on lots of conscience testing cases, is that the NRA is extremely well funded and will fight the case anyway. There's already an organization laser focused on that issue and is legislatively successful, they don't need the ACLU lawyers' help. More broadly people see the ACLU taking on more "left wing" cases, and this is largely for the same reason. If you have limited resources then you end up having to focus on the cases where there aren't other organizations with legal expertise to step in. And despite what conservative media will tell you, there aren't actually all that many people defending, say, the lgbt. Lots of organizations will show their disapproval of these laws and make a lot of unproductive noise about them, but when it comes time to actually put up money and lawyers to fight them, all the hands stay down.

The second claim is their handling of covid. And the thing is this is an interesting case study for the ACLU. One of the things that people expect from organizations is devotion to a set of principles, and that the organization will die on any hill involving them. And Covid was a situation in which they had to ask themselves whether or not dying on their hill was the right thing to do even if they were wrong. Not wrong in sense that they are defending the "bad people," they do that all the time, but that this is a situation that is genuinely exceptional and that the health and safety of the nation is more important than people's individual civil liberties. And if you turn up the severity of the pandemic I personally think it is fairly obvious that this would be the right choice. It's a hard thing to look at ideals that you have dedicated your life and career to and weigh them against people's lives. Where the controversy lies is how severe you think covid was and whether that severity crossed the threshold. And if you didn't the ACLU's actions look like an arbitrary betrayal of their core principles.

[xtiansimon]

> “…the procedure here is to just use class action lawsuits to get nationwide injunctions.”

I recently learned my company’s Handbook has a passage which says I cannot participate in a class action lawsuit against the company. Sure, they can _just say_ I can’t eat green M&Ms, but what’s the twist?

[cyanmagenta]

The context here is suing the government for unconstitutional executive orders, so wouldn’t be an issue.

But yeah, ever since the Supreme Court blessed those provisions in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc (2018), companies have been adding them to employee agreements.