The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the order of a federal district court that had enjoined President Trump's use of military funds to construct physical barriers at the border. "Among the reasons is that the Government has made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary's compliance with Section 8005."
Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan would have denied the government's application in full, letting the injunction stand in full. Justice Breyer would have stayed the injunction to the extent it prevented finalizing contracts but left the order in place to the extent in enjoined construction. As a practical matter, I think that a request for bids for work that remains enjoined would not get a lot of bidders.
The order stayed today was issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The court's territorial jurisdiction is the coastal counties of the northern part of the state, and it is headquartered in San Francisco. The judge who issued the order is in the Oakland branch, across the bay.
How much of the border wall construction would have been in the Northern District of California? None. How many of the officials named as defendants have their offices in Northern District of California? None. Why is this case in Oakland? Court-shopping, pure and simple.
Congress really needs to do something about the loosey-goosey venue rules and the light issuance of nationwide injunctions.
Leave a comment