Congratulations to Sam Bray and Will Baude, Cited in the Universal Injunction Case

It's Trump v. CASA, Inc.; Sam was cited extremely heavily (16 times by my count).

Comments

[Eric Rasmusen]

23 if you count the Syllabus, which you shouldn't.
And at least two articles and a book, not just one article.
Did Bray and Barrett overlap at Notre Dame Law?

[Supremacy Claus]

Assume no citation is hallucinated as by AI. Each is an expression of feelings, cultural bias, moods, hanger, which side of the bed, and whether someone got yelled at. None has the slightest reliability statistic. Certainly, none has the slightest validation statistic. I see no substantive difference between this entire utterance and hallucinated AI garbage. Science and justice have the same requirement, repeatability and equal treatment. Anti-scientific garbage utterance such as this one are also unjust, and violate Procedural Due Process rights under the Fifth and under the Fourteenth Amendment. It is not as if scientific validation is a nice option. It is required by the constitution. This garbage court run by garbage people ruled that scientific validation is not required in any way in Mass v EPA. It is quite brazen with its quackery. We should replace them with wine besotted bums puking in the gutter for an upgrade in common sense and in the clarity of the writing. Try to read the decision, all of it is lawyer garbage gibberish. I agree with the decision. I am not nitpicking an adverse decision. That is not relevant. The lawyer is making momentous decisions at the national level without the slightest external validation. The sole validation of this gang is some men with guns.

[Supremacy Claus]

This is the correct response to judges imposing their partisan feelings on the nation to cancel the preference of the electorate.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/california-judge-who-blocked-trump-national-guard-order-hit-with-impeachment-resolution/ar-AA1HxrUJ?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=ea77222e3a7e4e1bc10a29e133278210&ei=17

[Krayt]

You can argue against the propriety of a national injunction, now it will be a pain in the ass to defend each case to its logical conclusion: success for the natural-born citizen.

I'm not a fan of the President getting to redefine what a natural-born citizen is. The Constitution speaks plainly, and arguing reinterpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is just motivated weasel behvior.

[Supremacy Claus]

Anchor babies are immigration fraud. Their birth is a crime, and it should not be rewarded. All are likely to vote Democrat. All the pleas to humanity are election rigging.

[y81]

This new rule would have led to amusing results in the student loan case, in which the Biden administration might have said, "OK, there is no loan forgiveness for Texas residents. We wouldn't dream of appealing. But the rest of the country has their student debt forgiven."

[Kazinski]

Wasn't that an APA case where the judge is authorized by the law to "set aside" unlawful regulations?

Which is different than injuctions against Executive Orders or statutes, or enforcing immigration laws, etc.

I have not read the opinion but that's my surmise.

[Supremacy Claus]

Regulations are unconstitutional. They violate Article I Section 1, giving "all" lawmaking power to the legislature. Some are far more punitive than the criminal law. Nor can that power be delegated. Force the Congress to read the 10000 pages of the Federal Register into the record. Then approve each one for the record for the voters' review. Make these lawyers feel the physical punishment, sloght compared to what they inflict on lawyer beleaguered nation. The denial of the kindergarten vocabulary word, all, by the fiction peddling lawyer profession should be punished.

[mulched]

You are correct. Someday there will be an APA remedies case, but that day is not today.

[F.D. Wolf]

Speaking of Samuel Bray, here's a post of his on this site dated 9/14/2022 entitled "Justice Kagan Enters the Debate on the National Injunction".

During her remarks on Wednesday in a conversation with Northwestern Law Dean Hari Osofsky, Kagan took a notably hostile and forceful stand against a practice that hasn't generated much public debate but has roiled the legal community in recent years: individual U.S. District Court judges blocking federal government policies nationwide.

Executive branch officials from the Biden, Trump and Obama administrations have all complained about their major policy initiatives often being hamstrung by a single judge.

"This has no political tilt to it," Kagan said, taking aim not only at the sweeping injunctions but at the transparent "forum shopping" by litigants filing cases in courts they think will be friendliest to them.

"You look at something like that and you think, that can't be right," Kagan said. "In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."

Golly, I wonder what happened between 2022 and today to make her change her mind?