Have the Lawsuits against the Actions of President Trump been Ruled On Long Ago? State of Mississippi v. Johnson, 1867

[Seymour Flops]

Facts of the case​

In 1867, Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts. Although President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Acts, Congress overrode the veto. In an attempt to delay or prevent Reconstruction, the state of Mississippi appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Mississippi asked the Court for an injunction preventing the President from enforcing the Acts on the ground that they were unconstitutional.

Question​

Could the Supreme Court constitutionally issue an injunction directed against the President?

Conclusion​

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that it had "no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties...." The Court held that the duties of the President as required by the Reconstruction Acts were "in no sense ministerial," and that a judicial attempt to interfere with the performance of such duties would be "an absurd and excessive extravagance." The Court noted that if the President chose to ignore the injunction, the judiciary would be unable to enforce the order.

{{meta.fullTitle}}

Hoping to start an intelligent discussion.

I don't know if this ruling applies, whether Trump's acts that are being litigated against are ministerial, nor whether subsequent rulings might have changed the import of this one.

I hope we can discuss those factors like rational adults.

Or if not, have fun with it . . .

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Facts of the case​

In 1867, Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts. Although President Andrew Johnson vetoed the Acts, Congress overrode the veto. In an attempt to delay or prevent Reconstruction, the state of Mississippi appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Mississippi asked the Court for an injunction preventing the President from enforcing the Acts on the ground that they were unconstitutional.

Question​

Could the Supreme Court constitutionally issue an injunction directed against the President?

Conclusion​

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that it had "no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties...." The Court held that the duties of the President as required by the Reconstruction Acts were "in no sense ministerial," and that a judicial attempt to interfere with the performance of such duties would be "an absurd and excessive extravagance." The Court noted that if the President chose to ignore the injunction, the judiciary would be unable to enforce the order.

{{meta.fullTitle}}

Hoping to start an intelligent discussion.

I don't know if this ruling applies, whether Trump's acts that are being litigated against are ministerial, nor whether subsequent rulings might have changed the import of this one.

I hope we can discuss those factors like rational adults.

Or if not, have fun with it . . .

Judge by the Fear or Conceit of the Justices

That SCROTUS was intimidated by its bad reputation after its decision in the Dred Scott case, which stated that outlawing slavery in any state was unConstitutional, which provoked the suicidal Civil War.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Judge by the Fear or Conceit of the Justices

That SCROTUS was intimidated by its bad reputation after its decision in the Dred Scott case, which stated that outlawing slavery in any state was unConstitutional, which provoked the suicidal Civil War.

So, you want to ignore the courts?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So, you want to ignore the courts?

Nine Nasty Nerds

When a Chief Justice states an opinion, his jurisdiction applies to "Just Us." It is not binding on anyone else. SCROTUS can only influence, not command obedience. Otherwise, there's no practical check on its self-claimed dictatorship.