Federal court blocks Trump asylum rules hours after judge ruled to keep restrictions in place

[IsailedawayfromFR]

A federal judge in California on Wednesday blocked the Trump administration from imposing restrictions on individuals seeking asylum in the United States, just hours after a judge in Washington had decided to let the rule stand while lawsuits play out in court.

The rule, published in the Federal Register last week, required people seeking asylum to apply first in one of the countries they cross on their way to the U.S. -- with certain exceptions. It targeted tens of thousands of Central Americans who have crossed Mexico each month trying to enter the U.S.

The rule was met quickly with a legal challenge from advocacy groups, who moved for a temporary restraining order blocking the rule. After a hearing in Washington, D.C. federal court, District Judge Timothy J. Kelly denied the motion. But hours later, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco, an Obama appointee, blocked the enforcement of the rule. His ruling took effect immediately.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-admin-scores-win-over-move-to-limit-asylum-claims

Am I the only one who believes this epitomizes the judicial tyranny we have allowed to happen in this country where one federal judge gets to vacate the ruling of another federal judge?

How can we operate when we have completely conflicting opinions by judges having the same authority?

[jafo2010]

This judicial nonsense has to end.  They have too much power which could prove very dangerous to the security of this nation.

[roamer_1]

It brings to mind what the Bible predicts to a nation that has fallen away from the laws of YHWH...
That someone else would eat the fat of the land, and live in your houses, right in front of your face.

I used to wonder how that was possible.
But I can see it now.

[Free Vulcan]

Am I the only one who believes this epitomizes the judicial tyranny we have allowed to happen in this country where one federal judge gets to vacate the ruling of another federal judge?

How can we operate when we have completely conflicting opinions by judges having the same authority?

Sick of it too bud. This needs to be settled by the SCOTUS ASAP and Trump needs to ignore the CA judge outside his district.

Tired of these liberal pinheads holding the country and the Executive hostage.

[austingirl]

Am I the only one who believes this epitomizes the judicial tyranny we have allowed to happen in this country where one federal judge gets to vacate the ruling of another federal judge?

How can we operate when we have completely conflicting opinions by judges having the same authority?

You're not the only one. I don't know how to fix this but it needs to stop.

[Sanguine]

Am I the only one who believes this epitomizes the judicial tyranny we have allowed to happen in this country where one federal judge gets to vacate the ruling of another federal judge?

How can we operate when we have completely conflicting opinions by judges having the same authority?

That's a great question.

[Smokin Joe]

Am I the only one who believes this epitomizes the judicial tyranny we have allowed to happen in this country where one federal judge gets to vacate the ruling of another federal judge?

How can we operate when we have completely conflicting opinions by judges having the same authority?

We can't. It's like a two year old going to daddy if mommy doesn't give them the answer they want, and playing one against the other.

The Law is supposed to prevent this, simply enough by providing a unifying set of principles by which to make determinations.
Successful parents find ways to make sure their decisions aren't subverted and they are on the same page.

Ignore the Law, and the whole judicial system falls apart--and that is what we are seeing.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I'm just thankful he's a street fighter.

Or a fighter.

Or ...?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Am I the only one who believes this epitomizes the judicial tyranny we have allowed to happen in this country where one federal judge gets to vacate the ruling of another federal judge?

How can we operate when we have completely conflicting opinions by judges having the same authority?

You're not the only one. I don't know how to fix this but it needs to stop.

That's a great question.

@IsailedawayfromFR @austingirl @Sanguine

The legal explanation for how this can happen is that the first case does not resort in an Order, so the second judge technically isn't "overturning" anything..  Here's the legal issue:

The first case comes about when Plaintiff A sues the government, and asks the court for an Order enjoining the federal government from enforcing the new policy.  That first judge heard the case, issued an Opinion that the case had no merit, denied Plaintiff A's request for an Order, and dismissed the case.  That does not result in an Order "in favor" of the government -- it's just as if the case never existed.

Then the second case comes along with Plaintiff B, who is not bound by the decision in the other case because they weren't a party to that case.   Now, opinions issued by judges in different jurisdictions on the same issue are considered persuasive, but not binding. So because these are two different federal judges in completely different jurisdictions, the second judge is not required to follow the legal precedent established by that first judge.  And, there's no "Order" in place from that first case, so there is nothing the second judge has to overturn.  He can treat it like a brand new case.  So he then issues his Opinion, and grants an Order enjoining the feds from enforcing the new rule.

That's why it can happen the way it does under our current jurisprudence - the second judge isn't actually overturning or reversing the first judge because they are two different cases with two different plaintiffs -- even if the legal issues are the exact same.

Obviously, that's messed up and desperately needs to be fixed by either the Supreme Court, or by Congress.  The core problem is district court judges setting national policy via nationwide injunctions.  There is technically nothing preventing judges from doing that now, so that needs to be fixed.   

[Bigun]

Am I the only one who believes this epitomizes the judicial tyranny we have allowed to happen in this country where one federal judge gets to vacate the ruling of another federal judge?

How can we operate when we have completely conflicting opinions by judges having the same authority?

Hardly!  I'm sick to death of this crap and sorely wish the president would fully take it on.

[Sanguine]

Good explanation, @Maj. Bill Martin.  It's almost a double indemnity kind of thing; the same issue in one federal court gets one treatment and another treatment in another federal court. 

[skeeter]

@IsailedawayfromFR @austingirl @Sanguine

The legal explanation for how this can happen is that the first case does not resort in an Order, so the second judge technically isn't "overturning" anything..  Here's the legal issue:

The first case comes about when Plaintiff A sues the government, and asks the court for an Order enjoining the federal government from enforcing the new policy.  That first judge heard the case, issued an Opinion that the case had no merit, denied Plaintiff A's request for an Order, and dismissed the case.  That does not result in an Order "in favor" of the government -- it's just as if the case never existed.

Then the second case comes along with Plaintiff B, who is not bound by the decision in the other case because they weren't a party to that case.   Now, opinions issued by judges in different jurisdictions on the same issue are considered persuasive, but not binding. So because these are two different federal judges in completely different jurisdictions, the second judge is not required to follow the legal precedent established by that first judge.  And, there's no "Order" in place from that first case, so there is nothing the second judge has to overturn.  He can treat it like a brand new case.  So he then issues his Opinion, and grants an Order enjoining the feds from enforcing the new rule.

That's why it can happen the way it does under our current jurisprudence - the second judge isn't actually overturning or reversing the first judge because they are two different cases with two different plaintiffs -- even if the legal issues are the exact same.

Obviously, that's messed up and desperately needs to be fixed by either the Supreme Court, or by Congress.  The core problem is district court judges setting national policy via nationwide injunctions.  There is technically nothing preventing judges from doing that now, so that needs to be fixed.

Its messed up and is obviously runs counter to the spirit of the law. Is there anything preventing the cases from being heard concurrently to stop those who are using the courts to run out the clock by keeping things tied up pending a more favorable political climate? It's such a transparent abuse of the rule of law.

[EdJames]

@IsailedawayfromFR @austingirl @Sanguine

The legal explanation for how this can happen is that the first case does not resort in an Order, so the second judge technically isn't "overturning" anything..  Here's the legal issue:

The first case comes about when Plaintiff A sues the government, and asks the court for an Order enjoining the federal government from enforcing the new policy.  That first judge heard the case, issued an Opinion that the case had no merit, denied Plaintiff A's request for an Order, and dismissed the case.  That does not result in an Order "in favor" of the government -- it's just as if the case never existed.

Then the second case comes along with Plaintiff B, who is not bound by the decision in the other case because they weren't a party to that case.   Now, opinions issued by judges in different jurisdictions on the same issue are considered persuasive, but not binding. So because these are two different federal judges in completely different jurisdictions, the second judge is not required to follow the legal precedent established by that first judge.  And, there's no "Order" in place from that first case, so there is nothing the second judge has to overturn.  He can treat it like a brand new case.  So he then issues his Opinion, and grants an Order enjoining the feds from enforcing the new rule.

That's why it can happen the way it does under our current jurisprudence - the second judge isn't actually overturning or reversing the first judge because they are two different cases with two different plaintiffs -- even if the legal issues are the exact same.

Obviously, that's messed up and desperately needs to be fixed by either the Supreme Court, or by Congress.  The core problem is district court judges setting national policy via nationwide injunctions.  There is technically nothing preventing judges from doing that now, so that needs to be fixed.

How do you see the chances of that being fixed anytime soon?

[Bigun]

How do you see the chances of that being fixed anytime soon?

I know you weren't asking me @EdJames but I personally don't see it ever being fixed until this, or some future, president fully takes it on.

[EdJames]

I know you weren't asking me @EdJames but I personally don't see it ever being fixed until this, or some future, president fully takes it on.

Happy for all input, @Bigun!

I noticed that Bill mentioned either Congress or the SC being able to possibly fix it....

I have little hopes of Congress ever doing something like that (at least in my lifetime)...

I suppose that your point about a President taking this bull by the horns implies pushing it into the SC....  I wonder what that outcome would be, if they would touch it.....

[Cyber Liberty]

Some Federal District Judges are more equal than others.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Its messed up and is obviously runs counter to the spirit of the law. Is there anything preventing the cases from being heard concurrently to stop those who are using the courts to run out the clock by keeping things tied up pending a more favorable political climate? It's such a transparent abuse of the rule of law.

The answer is kind of technical.  There are some cases where the federal courts will consolidate various cases if they involved the same facts, especially class actions.  But none of that really works for these kind of cases. Then there's the issue of them not all being filed at the same time, so they're not even concurrent.

It should be pointed out that many conservatives cheered when nationwide injunctions were issued by federal district court judges against some of Obama's actions, including DAPA, some overtime pay regulations, and some stuff on "gender identity" and the use of bathrooms.  It's a procedural sin that both sides have committed, cheering when it happens to eliminate a policy with which they disagree, and booing when it happens to a policy they support.

[Bigun]

Happy for all input, @Bigun!

I noticed that Bill mentioned either Congress or the SC being able to possibly fix it....

I have little hopes of Congress ever doing something like that (at least in my lifetime)...

I suppose that your point about a President taking this bull by the horns implies pushing it into the SC....  I wonder what that outcome would be, if they would touch it.....

Pushed hard enough, I don't see how they could avoid it.  Anybody's guess as to the outcome.  The PROPER place for this to be fixed is in the Congress but you are dead right about that @EdJames. NEVER going to happen without a seachange in the place.

[Cyber Liberty]

You're not the only one. I don't know how to fix this but it needs to stop.

I know how:  Limit the authority of Judges to their own jurisdictions.

[Bill Cipher]

Good explanation, @Maj. Bill Martin.  It's almost a double indemnity kind of thing; the same issue in one federal court gets one treatment and another treatment in another federal court. 

That happens all the time with a wide variety of issues.  It’s why the court system is structured as a tiered system, with individual districts at the bottom, circuit courts that encompass several separate circuits, and the Supreme Court at the top to “rule them all.”

The particular problem in this case is not that different district courts came out with different results, but that one issued a nationwide injunction. 

Nationwide injunctions should definitely be scaled back. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Good explanation, @Maj. Bill Martin.  It's almost a double indemnity kind of thing; the same issue in one federal court gets one treatment and another treatment in another federal court.

And the most restrictive applies to the whole country.  That's not right (in my wothless opinion), although I'm sure the Grandee Judges think it's grand.

[skeeter]

The answer is kind of technical.  There are some cases where the federal courts will consolidate various cases if they involved the same facts, especially class actions.  But none of that really works for these kind of cases. Then there's the issue of them not all being filed at the same time, so they're not even concurrent.

It should be pointed out that many conservatives cheered when nationwide injunctions were issued by federal district court judges against some of Obama's actions, including DAPA, some overtime pay regulations, and some stuff on "gender identity" and the use of bathrooms.  It's a procedural sin that both sides have committed, cheering when it happens to eliminate a policy with which they disagree, and booing when it happens to a policy they support.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure the tactic has been used by both sides but I don't remember cheering it at any time.

[txradioguy]

I know how:  Limit the authority of Judges to their own jurisdictions.

Term limits for the judges would work too.  To include the Supreme Court.

[Cyber Liberty]

Thanks for the explanation. I'm sure the tactic has been used by both sides but I don't remember cheering it at any time.

I never did, but leftists tell me I did all the time, so they can excuse their own bad behavior.

[Cyber Liberty]

Term limits for the judges would work too.  To include the Supreme Court.

Courts inferior to the SCOTUS are creations of Congress.  They need to fix both those things.  The problem is the Congress is happy with the way things are because they can duck responsibility for whatever happens.