WASHINGTON - s4story -- The U.S. Supreme Court has severely restricted the ability of litigants to obtain national injunctions barring federal actions in all states despite the risks created by different law in different states; for example, children born to illegal immigrants in the U.S. might be citizens in some states but subject to deportation as non-citizens in others.

But an even more serious problem of states with very different laws existed for many years regarding marriages between people of different races - which were legal in many states but could result in prison sentences if the married couples traveled to many other states - before the problem was solved by a nationwide ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the famous Loving case, explains public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

More on S For Story

• From Barrio to Transgender Pioneer: Chapter 12 of A Letter to Pawtone
• $18 Price Target Issued in New Research Report After $34 Million Revenue Forecast from Acquisition; $101.5 Million Net Revenue in 2025; NAS DAQ: IQST
• West Dentistry Welcomes New Oral Surgeon to Enhance Patient Care
• The AML Shop Launches New Financial Investigations Unit, Appoints Director to Lead the Initiative
• Kimberley Strunk's Inspiring New Book, "Jumping Boundaries,"

Indeed, it was just such a conflict which forced the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution protected interracial spouses

But, notes that law professor, the ability of states with very different laws has been hailed as one of the major advantages and strengths of our legal system.

So, for examples, some states have laws which favor plaintiffs in personal injury cases, and others have laws which are less favorable; just as some have laws which help plaintiffs bring class actions, and those which make such lawsuits more difficult, says Banzhaf, who has been called a "King of Class Action Law Suits."

He also notes that although the Supreme Court seems to have determined that lawsuits seeking a nationwide injunction against actions by the president can be brought only if they can be certified as a national class action, Congress is free to create other remedies, with barriers which are less formidable, but still avoid problems of one federal judge blocking a presidential directive.

More on S For Story

• Casting Pro Darya Balyura Named Judge for 2025 Meals 4 Monologues Virtual Showcase
• "Even the Crumbs Are Enough" — New Book Ignites Faith in a Time of Silence, Doubt, and Spiritual Exhaustion
• Raidium révolutionne le diagnostic de la Sclérose en Plaques en partenariat avec l'Hôpital Fondation Adolphe de Rothschild
• Revolutionize Your Classroom with Dr. Hattie N. Washington's New AI Toolkit for Teachers
• New Podcast "Spreading the Good BUZZ" Hosted by Josh and Heidi Case Launches July 7th with Explosive Global Reach and a Mission to Transform Lives

For example, Congress might require any requests for such a national injunction to be brought before a special court made up of three judges selected in some appropriate manner.

Another alternative might be for Congress to require that no such national injunction can become effective unless and until it is affirmed by a federal appellate (circuit) court, and then perhaps providing for an expedited appeal to the Supreme Court.

Requiring expedited appeals to - and decisions by - appellate courts should also be considered, Banzhaf suggests, noting that today's decision is not necessarily the final word regarding court actions to stop potentially illegal actions.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com  @profbanzhaf