Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by outer_web | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

outer_web

What about a lawsuit?

View on HN

This administration has already told a court that they are above the law. A lawsuit would be meaningless.

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump-white-house-defy-judg...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43384730

Has a court found that they are above the law?

Yes. Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024)

Hah my fault for not being specific. He is certainly not criminally liable for such actions. But it's a frighteningly common misconception that SCOTUS ruled he could do anything and not have it reversed by the courts.

That's a misconception shared by POTUS, unfortunately.

Eh,that is the narrative he is trying to project so that when the courts issue injunctions or rulings against him he can claim to be victimized. Or that he tried his best to fulfill a campaign promise that can't be accomplished via exective orders. Many such cases.

If these narratives get him what he wants, what does it matter?

How would the narratives get him what he wants?

A lawsuit is never meaningless. One doesn't stop trying to enforce the law because a criminal is persistent. And someone that willingly breaks a law for immoral reasons and without being willing to face the consequences is a criminal.

I agree that you must go through the motions to push to the maximum extent of judicial recourse. But, depending on your threat model, you must be prepared if recourse through the legal framework is not forthcoming. An injunction or favorable determination by a court is of little use if you're dead, for example (lots of other examples of irreversible harm, which needs no enumeration here).

Trump's border czar [Tom Homan]: "I don't care what the judges think" - https://www.axios.com/2025/03/17/tom-homan-deportation-fligh... - March 17th, 2025

I would add that pursuing legal recourse is the only way to reach that Supreme Court decision where either the administration is slapped down or the courts relinquish their Art III powers. Until then we're only approaching a potential constitutional crisis, where the administration has plenty of opportunity to back down.

A de facto surrendering of Art III is the same as the presumptive crisis. We are here, though, it's no longer a hypothetical to maneuver around.

It is not in front of SCOTUS at the moment so we aren't "here" yet and the lower courts have not been surrendering to executive power.

A lower court just declared their treatment and deportation of Venezuelans as unlawful and it changed literally nothing. They’re still doing it. We’ve seen this several times already. Unless enforcement happens, they simply don’t stop.

Is that what happened? I am only aware of an injunction against additional deportation flights. There is some uncertainty about the administration's justifications for not complying - they may be entirely correct that the terrorist designation changes the calculus.

And injunctions are far, far from the point at which things are "declared unlawful".

Article covers this; injunctive relief comes too late when the damage to trust in payment finality is already done by the act.

When the bad actors own the enforcement mechanisms against acting badly, a slap on the wrist injunction probably feels good, not bad. Like it's proof what they're doing is having the intended effect, so they should continue doing it

You're saying there's nothing to be accomplished with a lawsuit because the administration ignoring the law makes it meaningless?

Yes: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Who will enforce the court ruling and how?

Civil servants who themselves face liability for failing to uphold the law. This is why P2025 wants to replace them.

Wouldn't that require a working judiciary system?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com