Trump v. CASA, Inc.
This post is about universal injunctions
You work in Management.
A big sign on your place of work reads:
OPEN TO THE PUBLIC—WE DO NOT DISCRIMINATE!
WE SERVE ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY REGARDLESS OF RACE, CREED, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX, GENDER, GENDER IDENTITY, WHAT-HAVE-YOU. ALL ARE WELCOME.
The Head of Security posts up outside the front door of your business and starts screening everyone who tries to enter. What's their religion? Their race? Their nationality, sex, gender, etc?
He only lets certain people through, turns others away, even though they're pointing to the big sign to the contrary.
Somebody calls Management. You go check it out.
Yep, sure enough. Pretty cut and dried.
You tell Head of Security to cut it out, let folks in.
Head of Security asks you who called you complain. You don't know why that matters, but you say, John Smith.
Okay, says Head of Security, I'll let John Smith in.1
Same setup, but now your place of business has branches all over the country, all with the same policy and the same sign prominently posted, and it's the Corporate Head of Security barring people from entering.
Corporate Head of Security asks who complained, and you say John Smith, and CHoS asks which location, and you say, Akron, Ohio.
CHoS says, "Okay, John Smith can now enter our location in Akron, Ohio."2
Same setup. You tell CHoS that, no, the very clear policy for all your locations, posted at every one, means that anyone can enter and no one is excluded based on bullshit like Security is using, so it's not just John Smith and not just Akron, Ohio, we're talking about, but EVERY person who wants in, and EVERY location across the country. BECAUSE THAT'S THE PLAIN, STATED POLICY.
CHoS says, Sorry, you don't have the authority to do that.
At best, he says, you can tell him to let John Smith into the Akron, Ohio, location, IF you happen to be in Management at the Akron, Ohio, location.
He's gonna have to hear from a Manager at each and every other location, on behalf of each and every other person who wants to complain about being barred from entry.
If they don't file a complaint, and if they don't get a Manager from that location to send an order to him, he's not going to stop barring entry to those individuals.
So every single person turned away is going to have to call the local Manager, complain, convince the local Manager they got screwed, get the local Manager to call Corporate Head of Security and tell him to let that person into that specific location, in order for that specific person to be able to do what the big sign at every location says everyone should be able to do with no hassle.3
Same setup. You point out to the Corporate Head of Security that this process is banana-pants.
He says, well, you could, I dunno, collect all the complainers together in some kind of group or something and maybe make your pitch on behalf of all those people.
Great! you say. You'll do that.
But when you try that, CHoS still denies your request, arguing that the group is too vague or too diverse or too hard to clearly identify.4
Same setup.
You point out the great big sign. You point out the corporate policy that requires the big sign, and mandates the practice the big sign explains. You argue that what Corporate Head of Security is doing is manifestly, clearly in blatant contradiction with the big sign and the corporate policy, so Corporate Head of Security needs to cut it the hell out, right now, here and everywhere.
CHoS says, you're not the boss of me.
Okay, you say, then who is?
CHoS replies, I dunno, but not some small fish like you.
So you escalate the issue. Take it you your boss. He agrees with you and tells CHoS what you told him.
CHoS says, you're not the boss of me.
Okay, your boss says, then who is?
CHoS replies, I dunno, but not some small fish like you.
This continues for several years until all the small fish are exhausted, and we get to the Biggest of Management Big Fish at the Corporate Level.5
Maybe they decide that, yeah, the wording on the big sign outside every location and written plainly in the corporate rules is pretty clear, so they order the CHoS to cut it out, finally, after countless people have been turned away from your locations across the country.
Or maybe they decide that, you know, when you think about it, the wording on that big sign means exactly the opposite of what it appears to mean, up is down, right is wrong, day is night, and Corporate Head of Security is the guy who commands all the heavily armed guys who know exactly where the Biggest of All Management Fish at the Corporate Level all live and where their kids go to school.
In this metaphor, The Big Sign = Birthright Citizenship, plain as day in the Constitution. Head of Security = POTUS. The Screening = his Executive Order and the precedent it tries to set for picking and choosing who gets to be a citizens, legal resident, etc., and thus, who gets to enjoy rights, privileges, immunities, etc. Management = the Courts.
Head of Security letting in only the one guy who called to complain = SCOTUS's ruling that injunctions cover only the named plaintiffs in court cases, not anyone else.
Here we expand beyond just one jurisdiction, making the Head of Security the Corporate (or national) Head of Security, much more analogous to POTUS.
This is basically what SCOTUS ruled, with some vague hand-waving about possible ways larger injunctions could theoretically happen.
This is the option of grouping together people and filing a class action suit. Of course, class action suits have to jump through a lot of hoops, and our Corporate Head of Security (POTUS) would contest each element, trying to shoot holes in the class, forcing each individual to fight as an individual instead of uniting. And some justices hate and oppose the idea of even allowing class action suits to function in lieu of nationwide/universal injunctions.
I think this is Justice Kavanaugh's argument: that nationwide injunctions could still happen, but only the Supreme Court (the Biggest “Manager”) is allowed to impose them. So even though the violations of the Constitution can be plain as the nose on a face, no lower court is allowed to impose a nationwide injunction. It has to wind its way up to SCOTUS because only they are wise and powerful and authorized enough.
Of course, they play fast and loose so much with law and meaning and policy that they could just declare freedom to be slavery and vice versa, so there are no guarantees the plain meaning of X will be upheld.
On the issue of how long the process will take, it's possible SCOTUS will look at certain issues on its emergency, or "shadow" docket, but this is entirely up to them to decide to do, and decisions from the shadow docket don't involve briefing or arguments, and they almost never include reasoning from the court explaining why they rule the way they do, so they are the very opposite of transparent, provide jack squat for guidance, and are kind of a crapshoot.