Public sentiment expresses disbelief and frustration regarding governmental accountability and the judicial system, with many viewing the ruling as a vital check on power. There are strong concerns about the motivations behind preventive detention laws and their implications for individual freedoms, balanced by a cautious optimism for enhanced civil rights.

Supreme Court

Government

Civil Rights Advocates

Our prisons should be in good condition and humane, and the system be just;
but you actually need to be putting criminals in there.

SheIsABadMamaJama

I 100% believe prisons should be safe, humane, and focused on rehabilitating criminals.

I also think we need to actually send people to prison when they commit serious crimes. 

We let far too many people go far too often for offenses that should see them in prison.

Investigate crimes better, conduct trials better and faster, incarcerate those convicted of serious crimes more often, and maintain the prisons to humane standards.

Evilbred

[deleted]

This is an excellent ruling. Article says inmates can have their sentences effectively extended (because they become ineligible for the early release they'd otherwise be entitled to) if they're found guilty of an infraction in jail. In that case, it's effectively a continuation of the criminal sentencing process and inmates should absolutely have the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty when they're accused of an infraction.

TronnaLegacy

This is a good thing. I cannot _imagine_ people arguing how it's a bad thing. How Canadian citizens are suddenly not worth being protected by our Charter purely because they're criminals.

&gt; Chief Justice Wagner said proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is a fundamental principle of Canadian law and this ruling confirmed that right “applies to persons behind the walls of correctional institutions who are charged with disciplinary offences.”

The fact that this is something that needs to be ratified by the Supreme Court is insanity.

MattSR30

Non paywall link. https://archive.is/kGYgm

1baby2cats

Won’t correctional facilities just refer these disciplinary matters to police now instead? Say an inmate throws his feces at a CO and they (up to now) would send him to the hole to cool down for a few days. Well now that you have to prove this happened beyond a reasonable doubt you may as well charge him criminally no?

LtSeby

I don’t oppose jails on principle. I think we need better, more humane, and more rehabilitative jails for common crimes. Places where people down on their luck can learn skills so that they don’t need to continue a life of crime.

AcanthisittaFit7846

[Paywall-free article link](https://archive.is/kGYgm)

Myllicent

for all intents and purposes, inmates are required to serve their full sentence and any early release is decided by the gaoler, supreme court has it all fucked up here

YouWillEatTheBugs9

Does anyone else find it funny that when inmates buy things in jail/prison (the canteen) company is owned by Trudy’s ex wife?
Maybe she got sick of the auto release because it was costing her profits lol

torontoker13

The previous Chief Justice, Rehnquist, famously sat by designation as a district court (trial level) judge. His one trial was overturned by the 4th Circuit. 813 F.2d 401 (4th Cir. 1986)

So other federal judges aren't quaking in fear when a Justice is involved in a case.

TimSEsq

Supreme Court justices are not the bosses of lower court judges. They don't have authority over other judges in any direct sense: they can't hire, fire, promote, or discipline other judges. So there's no particular conflict of interest there. 

It would, of course, be a conflict of interest if a Supreme Court justice were a party to a case that somehow wound up before the Supreme Court itself. That's so vanishingly unlikely that we don't really have any procedural rules about how to handle it. Most courts would explicitly require a judge to recuse themselves from any case in which they had an interest in the outcome. The Supreme Court has long avoided being governed by such a code - [one was recently introduced](https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf), but it's of [dubious enforceability](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/new-supreme-court-ethics-code-designed-fail).

theawkwardcourt

They’d have absolutely zero influence (aside from already existing precedent) over any of the litigation through the lower courts. However, once/if it reached the Supreme Court they’d be free to sit and hear their own case, as the Supreme Court is a wholly self policing body.

mrblonde55

In my state the state’s chief justice had a case that was heard by the court. She recused herself and the court ruled unanimously in her favor on an issue of first impression, expanding tort law in a weird niche way.

Beginning_Brick7845

Theoretically they should recuse themselves. But we have several justices on the current supreme court who have shown that they won't do that. 

Clarence Thomas refuse to recuse himself even when his wife was involved in a case.  Amy Barrett refused to recuse herself even when it was a case she had tried.  Alito has refused to recuse himself even when it was business partners and personal friends.

Sadly, theory isn't working anymore. We need enforceable codified rules

Frozenbbowl

It would be a huge conflict of interest.  They should recuse themselves.  I don't have confidence that all of them would.

BlueRFR3100

It depends on jurisdiction quite a bit, but some options may include:
- they put them in a CCTV booth at the jail and mute them, maybe even turn their video off if needed;
- some jurisdictions allow them to try a few times then just sentence them in absentia;  
- their sentencing is delayed until they cooperate;  
- that behavior may affect sentence (parole eligibility, pretrial credit); and/or  
- it will affect sentence admin decisions, like what security level to classify them as, which prison to send them to, various prison privileges, or they may get tossed in administrative segregation (solitary) until they behave. 

EDMlawyer

Depends on the jurisdiction and the judge. But probably issue some kind of drag order either physically forcing them to be there, or put them in a room with a video chat going and just mute it but make them listen. 

AcadiaWonderful1796

Depends on the judge some would let him stay in jail; others would have bound and gaged in court.

visitor987

In NY it's called a Parker Warning.  The name is different in other states.   Defendants are told that if they voluntary miss a hearing or trial date that tbe case will continue without them.   It happens.

seditious3


* Please provide a source to the image/video below the comment. If source is not provided then the post will be removed.

* Use the same title as that of the source link. Editorialised titles are not allowed

* If it is Original Content (video/pic taken by you) then please respond with OC below the comment

* If it's meme/satire, please use the meme/cartoon flair and provide the link to the original creator. Memes will be allowed as per mod discretion and can be removed without explanation.

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedstatesofindia) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

FeistyDetective

find_a_rare_uuid

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. **FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.**

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/law) if you have any questions or concerns.*

From Sotomayor's dissent:

“Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship,” she wrote. “Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship. The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.”

ReaderBeeRottweiler

It doesn’t make any sense. How can a federal law or reg be effective in one state or district but not another? I mean, it’s federal.

negative-nelly

Responding to the headline: 
"We know."  So what can we do about it?.

ofWildPlaces

Excerpts:

It’s fashionable to say that the court’s ruling is not really about birthright citizenship, because the legal question focused on the power to issue nationwide injunctions. But that sanewashing of the court’s opinion does not survive its first contact with reality. By taking away the ability of courts to enter nationwide injunctions in this case, the court is giving Trump carte blanche to violate the constitutional definition of citizenship in any district where a friendly Trump judge will allow him to. And, in practice, this ruling will extend to every other single issue where Trump has been stopped thanks to a nationwide injunction. Right on cue, Trump signaled today that he intends to move ahead with a slew of agenda items “that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,” including policies targeting trans children, refugees, immigrants, and, yes, birthright citizenship.

Barrett, and the rest of her Republican colleagues, determined that nationwide injunctions cannot be used in 2025 to stop a president from violating the Constitution of the United States, because the High Court in England—which existed during a time of hereditary monarchy—did not use a historical equivalent of a nationwide injunction to enforce the laws against [checks notes] their King.

D-R-AZ

The unbelievable amount of lawsuits that will be filed now will be astounding.  They will keep going until they get a judge to give them what they want.

Of course, what good is it when they ruled that their orders only apply to the person who is filing the lawsuit?  

Oh, that only applies to our side. 

I am confused.

239tree

This is the result of the Heritage Foundation's decades long plot to fill SCOTUS with hand-picked Conservative mercenaries, willing to carry out their Far Right agenda for bribes and the promise of a lavish lifestyle.

SCOTUS has been fully compromised.

RiffRaffCatillacCat

Do they not understand that the same rule is going to apply if a Democrat gets elected to president and if both houses flip?

lethargicbureaucrat

“Thank you, I will never forget it.”  Drumph to Roberts after immunity decision.

video-engineer

The Supreme Court ordered the release of a law student detained under the National Security Act, citing procedural failures.

Supreme Court Ruling on Preventive Detention

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want