I've taken the liberty of clipping the pertinent sections for you.
The District Court also ruled that the exclusion of aliens on the basis of legal status would contravene the requirement in §2a(a) that the President state the “whole number of persons in each State” for purposes of apportionment. Id., at ___, 2020 WL 5422959, *32. The District Court declared the memorandum unlawful and enjoined the Secretary from including the information needed to implement the memorandum in his §141(b) report to the President. Id., at ___, 2020 WL 5422959, *35. The Government appealed, and we postponed consideration of our jurisdiction. 592 U. S. ___ (2020).
...
The judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The law is not a common sense type of thing that you can understand by watching 2-3 YT videos. If you aren't well versed in the language of the law, I am happy to assist you. You only need ask politely.
To "Vacate" means to undo something that a court has done previously. In this matter the scotus erased the findings and the decision reached by the federal district court.
"Remand" means to send back to the court from which the case came. That would mean that this case would be transferred back to the federal district court.
"to dismiss" means just that. No further actions can be taken by either side. Any new filings would have to be new cases containing new information for the district court to consider.
"Lack of jurisdiction" is a legal term of art. It's interesting to me that the justices chose this particular language. It seems that they are going out of their way to highlight their belief in their own impartiality. Usually this would be worded using the term "ripeness", which means that the scotus doesn't consider that the issues underlying the case to have been developed well developed enough in the lower courts for the scotus to render some sort of decision without making new law.
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Read the opinion and you'll note that SCROTUS doesn't give a fuck about GEOTUS:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-366_7647.pdf
Friend, it's YOU that needs to read the opinion.
I've taken the liberty of clipping the pertinent sections for you.
The District Court also ruled that the exclusion of aliens on the basis of legal status would contravene the requirement in §2a(a) that the President state the “whole number of persons in each State” for purposes of apportionment. Id., at ___, 2020 WL 5422959, *32. The District Court declared the memorandum unlawful and enjoined the Secretary from including the information needed to implement the memorandum in his §141(b) report to the President. Id., at ___, 2020 WL 5422959, *35. The Government appealed, and we postponed consideration of our jurisdiction. 592 U. S. ___ (2020).
...
The judgment of the District Court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The law is not a common sense type of thing that you can understand by watching 2-3 YT videos. If you aren't well versed in the language of the law, I am happy to assist you. You only need ask politely.
To "Vacate" means to undo something that a court has done previously. In this matter the scotus erased the findings and the decision reached by the federal district court.
"Remand" means to send back to the court from which the case came. That would mean that this case would be transferred back to the federal district court.
"to dismiss" means just that. No further actions can be taken by either side. Any new filings would have to be new cases containing new information for the district court to consider.
"Lack of jurisdiction" is a legal term of art. It's interesting to me that the justices chose this particular language. It seems that they are going out of their way to highlight their belief in their own impartiality. Usually this would be worded using the term "ripeness", which means that the scotus doesn't consider that the issues underlying the case to have been developed well developed enough in the lower courts for the scotus to render some sort of decision without making new law.
I hope that this explanation is helpful to you.
Well, what do you say about Sundance's take? He seemed to lay out pretty clearly that this supreme court decision is exactly what PepeQ says.
i haven't read sundance's take. if you provide a link i'll check it out.
thhttps://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/12/18/supreme-court-punts-census-lawsuit-into-january-no-quantifiable-harm-currently-appears/
sorry for the delay my friend.