Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

How to Register on LPF | LPF Donations

Politics Thread ( Don't click if you don't want to see political discussions. )

Los Angeles County pushes plan to use taxpayer funds for illegal migrants​

---------------------------------------------------------------------

California Democrats’ Plan to Give Illegal Immigrants Taxpayer Funds to Purchase a Home​

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Los Angeles becomes sanctuary city but relies on federal funds for migrants​

 





RedCowboy said:

Los Angeles County pushes plan to use taxpayer funds for illegal migrants​

---------------------------------------------------------------------

California Democrats’ Plan to Give Illegal Immigrants Taxpayer Funds to Purchase a Home​

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Los Angeles becomes sanctuary city but relies on federal funds for migrants​

Click to expand...
Who cares. These are state funds and they are allowed to do what they want with these.
 
Voters care, we don't want our tax dollars buying houses for illegal immigrants.
Voters care, we don't want our tax dollars being used to obstruct the enforcement of our laws.
Voters care, we don't want our tax dollars being given to States who redirect the funds to benefit illegal immigrants.
 
Federal judge Susan Illston ruled today that Trump's firing of federal workers must stop during this shutdown. It also seems that critics of Charlie Kirk's policies are coming under fire by Trump. Six people visiting the US were deported for this. These were people here visiting with visas.
 
RedCowboy said:
Voters care, we don't want our tax dollars buying houses for illegal immigrants.
Voters care, we don't want our tax dollars being used to obstruct the enforcement of our laws.
Voters care, we don't want our tax dollars being given to States who redirect the funds to benefit illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...
That's the nice thing about democracies. In California Democrats outnumber Republicans two to one. I was a Democrat in Texas and had to deal with a lot I disagreed with.
 
paul1598419 said:
Trump is still a drag on Republicans. And, people will take that into account in coming elections.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS is going to rule on Louisiana v. Callais, hopefully Republicans will have a free hand to redistrict the way California has. ;)

 
Last edited:
paul1598419 said:
Federal judge Susan Illston ruled today that Trump's firing of federal workers must stop during this shutdown. It also seems that critics of Charlie Kirk's policies are coming under fire by Trump. Six people visiting the US were deported for this. These were people here visiting with visas.
Click to expand...
Judge Susan Illston can't make federal policy, the SCOTUS has already ruled on this.
 
RedCowboy said:
The SCOTUS is going to rule on Louisiana v. Callais, hopefully Republicans will have a free hand to redistrict the way California has. ;)
Click to expand...
California only did this in response to Trump getting gov. Gregg Grabbitt to gerrymander Texas in an off census year.
 
paul1598419 said:
That was never their ruling. They ruled on just what they would allow Trump to do. Ignoring Federal Court judges wasn't among them.
Click to expand...
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly limited federal courts' authority to issue nationwide injunctions in Trump v. Casa (No. 24A884). This landmark decision fundamentally reshapes federal litigation practices, particularly in cases challenging federal executive orders and regulations, by restricting injunctions strictly to parties directly involved in specific lawsuits.

A nationwide or universal injunction is a court order prohibiting the federal government from enforcing a law, regulation, or policy broadly—not limited solely to plaintiffs in a specific lawsuit. These injunctions apply across the entire country, exceeding the geographical jurisdiction of the issuing court. Despite being commonly used, the term "nationwide injunction" has been subject to debate and varied interpretations in legal scholarship and practice.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision​

The Supreme Court reviewed whether federal courts have the equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue such universal (nationwide) injunctions. Justice Barrett, writing for a majority comprising Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, emphasized that universal injunctions exceeded traditional equitable remedies historically authorized by Congress.

The Court’s majority concluded that federal courts' equitable powers must be limited strictly to the parties directly involved in litigation. The Court noted that such universal injunctions were not supported by historical equity practice, which traditionally confined relief to the parties before the court. It underscored several concerns, including forum shopping, inconsistent judicial interpretations, and the significant administrative burden that broad injunctions impose on government operations.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts lack the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions that prohibit the government from enforcing laws, regulations, or executive orders against nonparties. Instead, injunctions must be specifically tailored to address only the concrete harms experienced by the plaintiffs who have demonstrated standing.

This landmark decision substantially narrows the permissible scope of judicial intervention in federal government actions, reshaping federal litigation practice. It requires litigants to carefully define their claims and relief, explicitly targeting only the direct injuries suffered by named plaintiffs.

This ruling will significantly influence future litigation, particularly impacting how challenges to broad governmental policies and executive actions are brought forward. Individual and organizational plaintiffs may be prompted to pursue class-action litigation more actively as an alternative method for obtaining broad judicial relief, given class actions' structured procedural requirements.

The decision represents a fundamental recalibration of federal judicial authority regarding nationwide injunctions, reinforcing narrow judicial remedies and reasserting traditional principles of judicial restraint and equitable relief.

Trump v. Casa significantly clarifies and constrains federal judicial authority concerning nationwide injunctions. By reinforcing equitable limitations and narrowing the scope of permissible injunctions, this ruling profoundly reshapes how federal courts handle litigation involving wide-ranging government policies, emphasizing the necessity of targeted, plaintiff-specific judicial relief.
 
However, it is Russell Vought who is firing these people. The SCOTUS never said anything about him. And, SCOTUS never ruled that Courts didn't have jurisdiction in their own Districts.
 
I bet Trump gets the workers fired.

We have had bloated oversized government for far too long.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top