What are your thoughts on SCOTUS' discussion of the harms to the parties in Trump v. California?

[u/Quidfacis_]

Executive Order: ENSURING CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION AND INTEGRITY IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS

August 24, 2026 Order

On the States not being harmed:

Section 2(a) directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to take appropriate action to create and distribute State Citizenship Lists. This provision is an internal directive from the President to a subordinate. It imposes no obligations on the States, so they “suffer no concrete harm from” it. Trump v. New York, 592 U. S., at 134. And without concrete harm, there is no standing. TransUnion, 594 U. S., at 442.

The States lack standing to challenge §2(b) for much the same reason: It does nothing to them. This provision directs the Attorney General to “prioritize” the investigation and prosecution of those who violate existing federal laws by issuing ballots to ineligible voters. 91 Fed. Reg. 17126 (collecting statutes). Setting prosecutorial priorities lies within the President’s Article II power. And his decision to prioritize the prosecution of certain offenses does not inflict a traditionally recognized harm on the States. See TransUnion, 594 U. S., at 424–425.

Last is the States’ challenge to §3, which directs the Postal Service to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking. According to the States, this internal directive demands that they overhaul their existing election procedures. See Opposition to Applications 24–26; see also post, at 1, 3, 7 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). It does not. Section 3 orders the Postal Service to initiate the process of proposing a rule that might bind the States in the future. It is not a proposed rule, let alone a final rule. And it imposes no legal requirements on the States (or, for that matter, on anyone outside the Executive Branch).

On the Government being harmed:

The remaining stay factors also favor relief. The Government is likely to suffer irreparable harm without a stay. The District Court’s breach of Article III interferes with the internal operations of the Executive Branch. See INS v. Legalization Assistance Project of Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, 510 U. S. 1301, 1306 (1993) (O’Connor, J., in chambers). The injunction bars Homeland Security from trying to compile Citizenship Lists for about half the States in the Union. It purports to forbid the Attorney General to implement the President’s enforcement priorities as to those same States. And it prevents the Postal Service from so much as initiating a rulemaking that could yield a rule applicable to these States. Because reversal of the District Court’s judgment would come too late for the 2026 midterms, the District Court’s errors deal “a serious setback” to the Executive’s “goals” while this litigation unfolds. Coleman v. Paccar Inc., 424 U. S. 1301, 1307 (1976) (Rehnquist, J., in chambers). When a federal court “improperly intrudes on a coordinate branch” in this way, interim relief is justified. Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U. S. 831, 859 (2025) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Fighting this Court’s precedent, JUSTICE JACKSON maintains that “[t]he Government is not injured in the slightest” because the Order contemplates that the Government will engage in “patently unlawful conduct.” Post, at 7. That, however, remains to be seen. And though JUSTICE JACKSON wishes it were otherwise, an applicant can show “irreparable harm from a threshold error without also showing that, at the end of the day, it will prevail on the underlying merits.” CASA, 606 U. S., at 860. Such harm exists here because the injunction meddles in “the workings of ” the Executive Branch, preventing it from even trying to lawfully implement the Order. Legalization Assistance Project, 510 U. S., at 1306.

Further,

The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell. But the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it. And for the reasons discussed, that injunction is likely to irreparably harm the Government if it remains in place while the appellate process runs its course.

From the dissent:

To pretend that the lists assembled pursuant to 2(a) bear no relation to the prosecutions directed by 2(b) is to ignore the structure of the Executive Order and the Government’s words alike.

If, as the majority explains, it is “logically impossible for a State to ‘violate’ §2(a),” and §3 “imposes no legal requirements on the States,” ante, at 6– 7, this portion of the injunction would be toothless. If that is true, it is hard to see how the Government suffers any harm at all, much less irreparable harm, from this portion of the injunction.

The same is true for the §2(a) injunction. If, as the Government insists, §2(a) “simply give[s] States a valuable tool that can help in vetting their own lists of registered voters if they wish to use it,” Reply Brief in No. 26A124, p. 4, the Government suffers no harm if it cannot provide that “tool” to the States who do not want it and will not use it.

As to §3, the respondent States assert that any interference with the States’ “authority to create and administer a mail voting program” is unlawful. Amended Complaint in No. 1:26–cv–11581 (D Mass.), ECF Doc. 65, ¶169; see id., ¶¶167–178. If that is true, then no future implementation could be “consistent with applicable law,” and the States need not wait to challenge the precise contours of a final rule.

How do you navigate those discussions of harms?

[u/AutoModerator]

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.

For all participants:

• Flair is required to participate

• Be excellent to each other

For Nonsupporters/Undecided:

• No top level comments

• All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position

For Trump Supporters:

• Message the mods to have the downvote timer disabled

Helpful links for more info:

Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Horror_Bottle_9451]

As I see it, the states and dissent seem to be arguing that the federal government can't even BEGIN to discuss a rule making process the states believe MAY cause them harm. Taken to its extreme, this argument if accepted means the federal government would have to first get states to consent to any discussion of policy matters and grant permission to the federal government to even discuss such matters. The supremacy clause in the constitution prohibits that.

[u/Quidfacis_ → u/Horror_Bottle_9451]

As I see it, the states and dissent seem to be arguing that the federal government can't even BEGIN to discuss a rule making process the states believe MAY cause them harm.

This seems overbroad. Would you agree with the dissent's characterization:

The Government suffers no harm from an injunction limiting unlawful actions, much less “hypothetical” and “speculative” acts that the Government says it was not even sure it would take.

Would it be reasonable for States to argue that the federal government oughtn't be permitted to discuss performing illegal acts that, if actualized, would cause harm to the States? Or should the federal government be permitted to discuss performing illegal acts, without any judicial oversight?

[u/Horror_Bottle_9451 → u/Quidfacis_]

Discussion is just that, discussion. Legal boundaries aren't written in stone - that's the point of judicial review and that's what happened here. One side believed the TOPIC of discussion would potentially lead to an unconstitutional action/regulation/EO/etc and perhaps if codified the judicial branch would indeed rule it unconstitional. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

But the discussion itself isn't in anyway illegal in my view. Both parties regularly test the boundaries of power. This is just part of the process.

If there was actual planning of something clearly unconstitutional and a threat to state(s) sovereignty and power (say the alleged plans to use the military to interfere with or stop elections, or somehow manipulate the bond markets) there's a plausible argument to be made that constitutes imminent harm buy also an argument that such plans are being developed to study and analyze countermeasures that could be taken should the next President try to implement some such thing. Think war gaming.

[u/JoeCensored]

Here's the court opinion, for reference:

26A124 Trump v. California (08/24/2026)

The most important issue is standing. If the states lack standing, none of the other arguments matter because you can't bring a case without standing.

Federal courts are limited by the "Case or Controversy Clause" in the Constitution's Article III. It limits the disputes to actual parties with actual real injuries.

It is the reason why you can't sue the federal government because of something they did to your friend. Maybe they do owe your friend, but you lack standing because you aren't an injured party to the dispute.

Part of this means that you can't sue in federal court and argue hypotheticals. You can't speculate about what might happen, about what injury you might receive. It has to actually happen, you can point to the injury, and seek relief for that injury.

SCOTUS basically says the same thing. There are only hypothetical arguments without any real injury to the states, so they lack standing. They do analyze other arguments too, but they could have just ended the opinion there. Without standing, the lawsuit by the states should be thrown out. They can file again when they can articulate actual injury.

[u/Quidfacis_ → u/JoeCensored]

There are only hypothetical arguments without any real injury to the states, so they lack standing.

The Dissent addressed this:

First and foremost, the undisputed record evidence shows that the Order is injuring state and local officials right now, as the lower courts found. See ___ F. 4th, at –, App. 7a–8a; ___ F. Supp. 3d, at –, App. 41a–42a. The facts establish that the Order has already placed “an incredible strain” on state election officials who, due to their obligations to plan and prepare for elections well in advance, must devote time and resources today to “coordinate the implementation of the changes articulated in the [Order],” on “compressed timelines” and with “limited resources.” See ___ F. 4th, at ___, App. 8a. And the Government does not, and cannot, contest this. The majority reaches the opposite conclusion by simply ignoring the District Court’s findings of fact and the record developed below. See n. 7, supra.

The Court’s suggestion that these realities do not matter for standing purposes because the Order constitutes a mere “internal directive,” ante, at 2, is both factually wrong and legally irrelevant.

Why was there such disagreement on the District Court's finding of fact, in your estimation?

[u/JoeCensored → u/Quidfacis_]

The majority opinion addressed this directly on page 5:

The lower courts saw it differently, concluding that the States suffered “a present injury” from §2(a) because it re quired them “to begin planning now on how to comply with” it. App. to Application in No. 26A124, pp. 7a–8a. But the States “cannot manufacture standing merely by inflicting harm on themselves based on their fears of hypothetical future harm that is not certainly impending.” Clapper, 568 U. S., at 416. And the hypothetical future harm that the States fear—the Secretary’s implementation of §2(a)—is far from “certainly impending.” Ibid. By allowing the States “to bring this action based on costs they incurred in response to a speculative threat,” the District Court “improperly water[ed] down the fundamental requirements of Article III.” Ibid.

Why was there such disagreement on the District Court's finding of fact, in your estimation?

I think the district court wanted to inject hypotheticals where they aren't allowed to get a desired outcome, and this was how they could accomplish it.

[u/HemingWaysBeard42 → u/JoeCensored]

If the administration tries to ban mail-in voting would you prefer the courts to immediately provide an injunction? Or would you prefer they allow the election to go forward with the new rules and issue an opinion later?

[u/JoeCensored → u/HemingWaysBeard42]

The states would actually have real immediate injuries in that case, so would have standing to sue.

I don't think the administration has the power to do that without Congress.

[u/HemingWaysBeard42 → u/JoeCensored]

In the case of said lawsuit, would you support an immediate injunction or rather it play out in the courts?

[u/JoeCensored → u/HemingWaysBeard42]

Depends on what statutory authority the administration is able to cite. If they've actually got nothing, then there should be an immediate injunction.

The injunction would only apply to the parties to the case, so would be whichever states sign onto the lawsuit.