Timeline for What exactly did the federal judge do to Trump's executive order?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 17, 2020 at 9:20 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jan 30, 2017 at 2:00 | comment | added | phoog | @cpast sure. My point is that not all actions in which a state is a party are in the original jurisdiction of the supreme court, even if some are. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 1:50 | comment | added | cpast | @phoog Doesn't mean a state can't sue an ambassador or other foreign official (and there are some exceptions to diplomatic immunity, like suits to decide who owns a piece of land). | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 0:30 | comment | added | phoog | @cpast don't forget the 11th amendment: "The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 0:28 | comment | added | phoog | It's not entirely possible to cherry-pick a judge, however. There has to be some reason for a district court to have jurisdiction; in the case of Donnelly's order, her court has jurisdiction because the petitioners were in detention in the district. A court whose district contained no CBP offices would be unlikely to accept the case. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 21:58 | comment | added | cpast | @barrycarter The Supreme Court doesn't have original jurisdiction over executive orders unless the case has a state as a party, or has an ambassador or other public minister of a foreign government as a party, or both. It doesn't matter what the case is about; SCOTUS original jurisdiction only depends on who the parties are. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 19:54 | history | edited | Kevin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 326 characters in body
|
| Jan 29, 2017 at 19:45 | comment | added | Ross Ridge | @barrycarter You can see the process described above as it was applied to one of Obama's orders here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 19:36 | comment | added | user2565 | Ummm, actually, I think the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over executive orders. It's more a case of them not being available, and that deportation would cause harm that can't be repaired, so the district court is just giving the Supreme Court time to answer. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 19:26 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 29, 2017 at 20:29 | |||||
| Jan 29, 2017 at 19:26 | history | answered | Kevin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |