Huh? Federal laws apply everywhere.

The rulings just means an injunction only affects the parties in that case or a certified class and not everyone everywhere automatically

Yeah, so when you say "federal laws apply everywhere", what happens when one state sues that it's unconstitutional and another doesn't?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44401294

Then enforcement is paused for the parties in that case. Other courts may rule differently until the issue is resolved higher up

The whole strategy of the federal government with this is to never resolve the issue higher up.

You keep saying that the issue will be resolved higher up. How? There's no mechanism for it. The winner of a case can't kick it up to higher courts.

Follow the process

like requiring coordinated multi-district litigation or pushing for appellate consolidation

This just puts the burden on challengers to build stronger cases, not shortcut national impact through procedural overreach.

> This just puts the burden on challengers to build stronger cases, not shortcut national impact through procedural overreach.

Constitution? Never heard of it! If and when you feel like your rights are being abrogated, just file suit and the court system will get to you in the order you filed, plus three to seven years.

If in the meantime you suffered hardship due to actions of the federal government, I have bad news for you forwards you link to wikipedia pages on sovereign and qualified immunity

I think the real answer is reforming the process so it doesn’t take so long to get relief. Not injunctive relief nationally at the lowest possible level

What process? If you're a lawyer then detail the exact process for us.

Look at the footnote by Cavanaugh. District judges under the APA can block agency rules or action just not the President. It is effectively like a nationwide injunction

> Follow the process

What is the next step in the process? It no longer matters how many times and how hard you win, no precedent will ever be set.

You talk about making better cases and better arguments? Don't you think that the onus is on the government to do that, when they are both doing something entirely unprecedented, and losing every time it goes to court?

The point of checks and balances isn't to make it quick and easy for the executive to illegally overreach. It's to make it hard.

If they want to move quickly, they should stay within the bounds of the law - which is something that Trump in particular, and his regime in general is utterly incapable of.

> courts have long held that undocumented individuals — particularly those subject to expedited removal or caught at the border — have limited procedural protections compared to citizens

Onus is on Plaintiffs. That’s how our system works

So, in the meantime then:

> So now you can be a US citizen when in New York but not while in Kentucky. Sure to cause no chaos.

Citizenship is national not at state level

Sure, now what happens when different courts rule on this differently?

Eventually it will reach the Supreme Court if it is appealed.

And what about right now (or rather, after the thirty day stay expires)?

It is a feature not a bug to have legal fragmentation in our judicial system. That’s how it was setup.

Enforcement and effect can vary temporarily due to conflicting judicial rulings thus creating short-term legal fragmentation until it's resolved at a higher level

We used to have this feature and not a bug of having different takes on slavery legality in the US. You might know how this ended.

The state of people either having or not having citizenship defined by either statewide injunction was or wasn’t issued is pure chaos and pretty much indefensible.

That’s not really a fair comparison. Slavery was a systemic moral atrocity, and its resolution required constitutional amendments and a civil war.

Legal fragmentation on injunctions isn’t about denying people’s humanity; it’s about how courts balance power between branches and avoid overstepping.

To be honest I think this one is worse in a way because it permits laws impartiality in hands of bad faith executive (and we do have one).

In this very example people in the US split into two parts: living in states choosing to go against this very illegal executive order or not. Unless you have money to sue government yourself and didn’t end up in a state going against EO your child is gonna be denied the exact humanity you’re talking about. In fact they can be deported soon after being born as assumingly non citizens.

And yes, in this particular case probably it will turn ok, because class certification seem possible. However class certification is very limited at the moment, and, again, in hands of bad faith executive we’ll end up with executive orders built around it. For example we can end up with 10% religious tax (but only if you Muslim). When the case finally reaches the merits just cancel it and change to 12%. This might be non class certifiable, and will create both chaos and inequitable application of the law.

If judges really wanted to solve initial issue of conflicting decisions (not fragmented, since universal injunctions were making decision universal) they should’ve fixed class actions first.

I’m pretty sure we’ll see this all to play out really soon.