University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman wrote her own comical paraphrasing of U.S. Supreme Court justices’ comments. In one case, she pointed out Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s “partial list of the SCOTUS precedents (4) this order violates.”
Litman then paraphrased Chief Justice John Roberts in her own words.
“Chief: let’s stop this murder, please,” she quipped.
In one exchange, Justice Elena Kagan asked, if they assume this is a completely illegal executive order, how do the courts actually stop it?
Sauer said it would file a class action.
Kagan said that he would then argue that there isn’t a class to certify under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sauer agreed, so Kagan asked what other options there were.
Sauer suggested every affected individual would sue.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned if Sauer was seriously proposing such an idea.
Litman wrote her own paraphrasing: “Oh dang Elena Kagan ‘assume you’re really f—— wrong and this order is wildly illegal. Are you saying every individual child has to sue to establish their citizenship?'”
Lawyer and journalist at Rewire, Imani Gandy commented, “Every child of undocumented immigrants has to file their own lawsuit. Millions of lawsuits. Makes perfect sense.”
Civil litigator Owen Barcala posted on Bluesky, “This is such a good point, I’m frustrated I didn’t see it. If the gov issues a clearly illegal order that applies to millions and it is losing in every individual case, why would it ever appeal the losses? So what if they can’t enforce it as to a dozen people if they can still do it for millions?”
MSNBC and Just Security legal analyst Adam Klasfeld cited a debate between Sotomayor and Solicitor General John Sauer.
“Sotomayor notes that barring nationwide injunctions, as the Trump admin asks, would mean that courts would be powerless to stop a ‘clearly, indisputably unconstitutional’ act, taking every gun from every citizen. We couldn’t stop that?” Klasfeld posted on Bluesky, quoting the justice.
&c.
Raw Story: ‘Oof’: Legal experts shocked by Trump DOJ proposal revealed in big Supreme Court hearing
Reply
