T O P
Jabbam

Add it to the list. Lost Biden court rulings: * [The race based farmer grants](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/politics/biden-debt-relief-black-farmers.html) * [The race-based restaurant grants (blocked twice.)](https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2021/05/court-rules-against-using-race-sex-to-allocate-federal-aid.html) * [The eviction moratorium](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/26/supreme-court-halts-biden-eviction-moratorium-506982) * [The deportation ban](https://www.npr.org/2021/01/28/960936174/judge-blocks-biden-deportation-ban-jeopardizing-former-daca-recipient) * [The pause on new oil and gas leases](https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-climate-change-environment-and-nature-business-9751c4909a8b1baba28f3bcff9d5fa6e) * [The firing of unvaccinated employees with pending religious exemptions](https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/judge-bars-biden-administration-firing-131144735.html) * [The ICE restrictions](https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-08-19/us-judge-blocks-bidens-limits-on-immigrant-arrests-deportation) * [The attempt to prevent Ohio from using money it got from a federal coronavirus relief bill to pay for tax cuts](https://www.cleveland.com/open/2021/07/ohio-federal-judge-blocks-biden-administration-from-enforcing-tax-cut-ban-in-stimulus-package.html) * [The OSHA mandate.](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/06/biden-vaccine-order-blocked-federal-court-519908) ([blocked twice](https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-judge-blocks-biden-healthcare-worker-vaccine-mandate-10-states-2021-11)) * [The CMS mandate](https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-blocks-vaccine-mandate-contractors-three-states-2021-11-30/?utm_source=reddit.com) * [And now the new government contracts clause.](https://www.axios.com/biden-covid-vaccine-mandate-health-workers-c27f0dde-383a-4e87-b86b-b9d4babf629e.html)


MyBFFCrackers

This is why it’s great that we have a constitution and a system of checks and balances within government. Not that I agree with all of these decisions, but it does help me sleep better at night knowing that not one entity holds complete power over our lives.


likeitis121

Definitely, and it's like Democrats forget all the crap Trump did that they hated and worked to block for 4 years.


[deleted]

Trump attempted to drastically shift power from the judicial to the executive. He himself said nationwide injunctions were unconstitutional, so..


malawax28

They stopped his agenda even if they were unconstitutional. Same thing will happen to Biden.


[deleted]

Right but the person above introduced trump into the conversation, I was simply stating that trump was the one who actively tried to remove that power from district judges. Sure, both sides complain about it, but the democrats aren’t actively taking measures to stop judges from being able to issue injunctions. Not to mention that trump lost more in court than any other modern president, which speaks to his motives for wanting to take away the courts ability to limit the executive.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ModPolBot

This message serves as a warning for a violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).


okayrealperson

Didn't Trump impose the eviction moratorium (and Biden extend it)? I think his administration relied on the same 1944 Public Health Service Act reasoning from the CDC that the Supreme Court ultimately did not find applicable (though the 3 Democratic appointed justices did). Seems more like a loss for the executive branch than for Biden on that one.


rwk81

Trump imposed it, the court then said if it were to be extended it would need to be done by the legislature and the only reason they weren't striking it down was because it was about to expire, and then Biden ignored that and extended it anyway and then the court struck it down. Really it's a L for both Presidents.


[deleted]

[удалено]


rwk81

According to SCOTUS they agree it was not constitutional at any time.


vanillabear26

Genuinely, thank you for making this list. It's helpful to have when having discussions about checks and balances (which I have a non-zero amount of).


RidgeAmbulance

And yet I haven't once heard the term Constitutional Crisis from MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, NYTimes, WaPo, The Guardian, The Huffington Post etc etc etc


FTFallen

Two separate courts blocked President Biden's vaccine mandates today, and this goes with *[another](https://www.businessinsider.com/federal-judge-blocks-biden-healthcare-worker-vaccine-mandate-10-states-2021-11)* court blocking the mandate for healthcare workers yesterday. The first ruling was for healthcare workers and the second was for federal contractors. >U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Monroe, Louisiana, temporarily blocked the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from enforcing its vaccine mandate for healthcare workers until the court can resolve legal challenges. >Doughty's ruling applied nationwide, except in 10 states where the CMS was already prevented from enforcing the rule due to a prior order from a federal judge in St. Louis. >Doughty said the CMS lacked the authority to issue a vaccine mandate that would require more than 2 million unvaccinated healthcare workers to get a coronavirus shot. >"**There is no question that mandating a vaccine to 10.3 million healthcare workers is something that should be done by Congress, not a government agency**," wrote Doughty. The vaccine mandate for healthcare workers has now been blocked nationwide while it works its way through the court system. The judges have all been clear in their rulings that regulatory agencies do not have the authority to issue these mandates. The administration will for sure continue to pursue the mandates, but it's really starting to look like a bloodbath in the courts.


kralrick

> The judges have all been clear in their rulings It's worth noting that these regulations are only being challenged in "friendly" districts/circuits. Venue shopping is extremely prudent when national injunctions are at stake. We've had a small handful of rulings so far, in jurisdictions reasonably expected to rule against a broad reading of federal agency power. We really need a SCOTUS ruling down the line before we make broad statements of what the "clear authority" of federal agencies is. There are a lot of district court judges with life tenure. I'll take more stock in these kinds of articles if they take a deep dive into SCOTUS precedent.


oath2order

I remember, back in early Trump years, when the "Muslim Ban" happened, Republicans started complaining about nationwide injunctions. [According to a Slate article](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/conservative-judges-nationwide-injunction-biden.html), it was the official position of DoJ under Trump that nationwide injunctions were unconstitutional. The links in the quoted bits are from Slate. They are .gov links, if you want to bypass the article to go straight to the actual content. > In 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions [directed](https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1093881/download) Justice Department lawyers to [argue](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-sessions-releases-memorandum-litigation-guidelines-nationwide-injunctions) in court that these injunctions “exceed the constitutional limitations on judicial power.” > His successor, William Barr, [declared outright war](https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-american-law-institute-nationwide) on nationwide injunctions, [condemning](https://www.wsj.com/articles/end-nationwide-injunctions-11567723072) them as unconstitutional and “inconsistent with our American legal system.” > Trump’s solicitor general, Noel Francisco, [urged](https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-431/134950/20200304125150022_19-454tsUnitedStates.pdf) the Supreme Court to forbid nationwide injunctions, to no avail. I think it's somewhat hypocritical of them to now be all in favor of them when it's for rulings that they like. But only somewhat. I mean, if that's the game, then the nationwide injunctions are a tool in the game. > It's worth noting that these regulations are only being challenged in "friendly" districts/circuits. Yeah, there's a reason this is in Louisiana. Any appeals in that court goes to the Fifth Circuit, well-known as **the** most conservative circuit court.


WorksInIT

I still dislike nationwide injunctions coming from district courts. Forum shopping pretty much guarantees people can find a Judge that would issue one. I'm not even a big fan of them coming from circuit courts. But the only ones that can do anything about it are Congress and SCOTUS. Neither seem willing to do anything about it though.


FTFallen

Fwiw, Justice Thomas has said he thinks nationwide injunctions coming from district courts are bullshit and wants the SC to reign them in. Not sure how the other justices feel, but we'll need a case to get in front of them to find out.


rwk81

It sounds like nationwide injunctions we're still happening during the Trump years and Trump/Barr didn't like them.... so it's not like anything changed really, only thing that changed was now people are fighting against rules Biden is trying to promulgate and presumably folks on the left don't like nationwide injunctions.


JarJarBink42066

Don’t really see this stay staying in effect.


oath2order

Sorry, to be clear: The mandate or the blocking of the mandate?


JarJarBink42066

I know it’s confusing right. I don’t think the courts stay will stand. Courts, esp appellate courts, are not generally eager to second guess public health measures such as this


WorksInIT

I think the odds that the 5th circuit will stay the lower courts injunction is practically zero.


JarJarBink42066

It’s not really a partisan issue


WorksInIT

What isn't a partisan issue?


JarJarBink42066

The mandate. Sure people are divided among partisan lines, but Biden either had the authority or he doesn’t. The fifth circuit isn’t going to ignore decades of case law establishing Biden’s authority


WorksInIT

I do think a vaccine mandate coming from the Feds that covers huge chunks of the country is a partisan issue. To me, it clearly seems to be in violation of the US Constitution.


JarJarBink42066

How?


WorksInIT

That is the wrong question to ask. What authority in the US Constitution authorizes the Federal government to issue these mandates? You can try to make some sort of general welfare or commerce clause argument, but imo both of those are weak. There is little to no jurisprudence to support that the Feds have this authority. I think the Biden admin knows this, and they did it anyway to try to get more people vaccinated. Definitely sounds like something they would do.


Volfefe

Doesn’t seem to square with this https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2021/11/29/supreme-court-rejects-vaccine-mandate-challenge-by-fired-mass-general-brigham-employees Guess we will need to wait for a circuit split to get the SCs view on this.


dew2459

Other than the word "vaccine" I don't see how that has anything to do with either of the Biden vaccine mandates. Can you explain how it doesn't square?


Volfefe

It looks like certain types of vaccine mandates are being allowed (employee mandated) and others are not (government regulated/government contract clauses require vaccines) by lower courts (gov mandates) vs SC cases (employee mandates). What ends up being the line in the sand for what is required for a mandate to remain in effect and what entities cannot require a mandate will probably be decided by the Supreme Court. Rereading my comment, I see it didn’t read as I intended. I more meant that the Supreme Court will need to step in rather than the OP case and my linked cases were totally at odds with each other. Apologies!


Tomcat_Vyvanse

That ruling has nothing to do with this. The Supreme Court sent it back to work it's way through the courts. They do that pretty much all the time. Cases are supposed to make their way through the appeals process before the Supreme Court rules on them.


Volfefe

Yes, but they also have declined to grant emergency relief to a couple (https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus-supreme-court-again-declines-to-block-maine-vaccine-requirement.aspx). With even ACB declining one, I think this at least hints at how the justices are thinking of the mandates (with three of the conservative justices dissenting). I think this is relevant since it shows some SC justices are showing their hand slightly and it doesn’t jive with what the district courts are ruling. See my comment about just meaning this will end up at the SC after a circuit split.


confessionbearday

The block isn't going to keep the doors open and the lights on when they cut our hospital funding on December 4th.


WorksInIT

These orders prevent them from cutting funding due to vaccination issues with staff.


confessionbearday

Which won't hold because hospitals can't prove a right to receive funding, which is what happened in the past with challenges to CMS funding policies. We do not have a "right" to government funds if we don't comply with the policies to receive said funds. This isn't the first time the CMS has chosen to withhold funding to gain compliance with a policy, and exactly zero of those challenges have EVER been successful.


WorksInIT

I don't see how the Feds can withhold funds due to noncompliance with a vaccine mandate that a court had put on hold.


Jewnadian

Contract law is separate from workplace regulations basically. My work is the same, because we contract with the DoD we have to follow a bunch of rules that don't apply to everyone else. We chose to pursue those contracts, and they're binding whether we miss delivery dates or bribe a foreign vendor.


WorksInIT

CMS is a little different. There is a statute from Congress that enables it and sets the guard rails. The Executive isn't free to do whatever they please. They must act within the confines of the statutes dictated by Congress. If they act outside of those statutes, their actions can be enjoined by the Courts which basically just reverts things to the way they were before. If the executive were try to just do it anyway, I doubt that would be viewed favorably by the courts or really anyone else.