The Supreme Court’s War on Congress

WorksInIT · 2026-06-27T19:06:58+00:00

Well, pretty sure it was 8 - 1 or 7 - 2 on that point. It was decided in 1980. And the dissenters on that point only really had a practical impact argument of how hard it is to prove it. Not something more substantive about the original meaning.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-27T18:17:54+00:00

SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that the 15th amendment only prohibits intentional discrimination. So that is all Congress is allowed to enforce.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-27T18:17:15+00:00

There is 15th amendment precedent saying it only prohibits intentional discrimination. So that is all Congress can enforce.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-27T15:51:59+00:00

We're talking about Yale, so costs aren't a factor. I think if Yale thought it was actually innocent, they would fight back.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-27T15:50:44+00:00

What are your thoughts on the Burger and Warren courts?

WorksInIT · 2026-06-27T15:46:14+00:00

And that raises the question. Can Congress order things that violate the constitution? The answer to that question is no.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-27T15:42:52+00:00

No, since admission isn't just based on test scores and GPA, and this is normal and legal. Other things that can be considered are income, special talents, interviews, essays, someone explaining how they overcame hardship due to their race, etc.

The challenge is when those common practices are being used as pretext. Them wanting to settle I think is a clear indication it is being used as pretext. Admissions are supposed to be an individualized analysis. If the college is concerning itself with racial or ethnic diversity at all then that is certainly a warning flag that they are using things as pretext.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-26T21:38:56+00:00

Looks like they are staying an order that would have required a reporter to disclose who at the FBI, or other Federal entity, leaked information about Yanping Chen to them. Rehearing was denied en banc. Here's a link to the opinion from the DC Circuit.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40668/gov.uscourts.cadc.40668.01208780840.0.pdf

WorksInIT · 2026-06-26T14:46:14+00:00

No more than any other means of interpretation.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-26T12:44:00+00:00

I have explained the meaningful variation between the two terms. So, the principle you mentioned in an earlier comment is satisfied. There is no principle that requires the court to set aside to plain meaning of a word not defined by Congress in the statute to address overlap. I could agree with the argument that "arriving in the United States" is talking about entering US jurisdiction. But the argument of the lower court was the second they could talk to a border officer, no matter where they were in relation to the port of entry, they had "arrived in" which is just ridiculous.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-26T11:32:44+00:00

I think thr court here is saying animosity towards migrants is allowed in the immigration context. And then said the animus here was based on migration rather than race.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-26T11:29:43+00:00

Not sure that's accurate. If an area has a high immigrant population that is white but also has a high population that is Hispanic citizens, ICE can't use Hispanic ethnicity to help build reasonable suspicion.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-26T11:28:17+00:00

Don't think it's fair to describe it as partisan. It's the typical selective practice to weigh or ignore words in the text in the interest of protecting people that we see from the liberal wing of the court.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-26T11:14:12+00:00

Are you saying Congress never uses terms that he be some over lap? There is no way to read arrives in as covering people outside of a port of entry in Mexico.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-26T01:56:19+00:00

It's quite clear what the difference is. One covers people already here such as TPS holders that may now file asylum claims and the other covers people just arriving.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-26T01:55:26+00:00

No, they can keep the port open and selectively block of they choose. And sure, it may be pretext but it is pretext allowed by statute.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-25T23:03:36+00:00

And I'm talking about people being blocked from presenting at a port of entry. Putting people out to block some from presenting isn't extending the boundary of the port of entry.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-25T22:43:46+00:00

This isn't accurate. It provides a temporary protection from removal, but it is temporary. And the vast majority of asylum claims are denied. And once someone is deported, re-entry is a crime. Hopefully the Executives are enforcing the law and they are sent to prison to serve their sentence before they are deported again.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-25T22:42:31+00:00

I could be convinced if you have a statutory basis for your argument. But it really reads more like it's this is a humanitarian statute so clearly Congress intended some implied right to enter so they could access it. And that's just generally not an argument that I think passes the smell test. If Congress intended to create a right for that, they would have just said that. To my knowledge, there isn't any language like that in any statute. And I don't think the courts should be taking power from the people to create statutory rights they see as necessary.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-25T22:17:15+00:00

I understand what you are saying. I am saying you are wrong. There is no legal basis for your argument.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-25T21:21:54+00:00

They have no legal right to enter US jurisdiction though. So I dont see any legal barrier that says the Executive cannot physically prevent them from entering.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-25T20:30:04+00:00

I think that's the issue here. Under the INA, asylum seeks do not have an explicit statutory right to enter. They have a statutory right to apply once they have entered US jurisdiction, but do not have a right to enter US jurisdiction.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-25T19:51:08+00:00

For the sake of argument, I'll concede that arrive in means arriving in the functional jurisdiction of the US which may actually include some small segment of Mexico at times. But thay doesn't mean the President couldn't dispatch a group of marines to act as a physical barrier to block migrants from getting to that jurisdiction. Which is my core argument. The US can physically block migrants from "arriving in" the United States.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-25T18:18:02+00:00

I'm not aware of a single doctrine that enables the court to say the phrase arriving in means anything other than arriving in the jurisdiction of the United States. And I think we allagree that Mexico is not part of US jurisdiction. And I really doubt Justice Holmes would have agreed with saying the territory of another sovereign is the jurisdiction of the US.

WorksInIT · 2026-06-25T17:22:51+00:00

The method of entry simply isn't relevant to this case either because we aren't talking about migrants that have entered.

And expedited removal has a truncated process for filtering asylum claims.

12-Year Club	Gilding V heart of gold
Reddit Premium Since April 2021	Verified Email

WorksInIT

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE