• BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’m not a USer so correct me if wrong here, but is the implication then that something can be considered constitutional in one state but not in another? How does that work?

    • venusaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Yup. That’s how it is currently. Doesn’t have to be state by state either. Even more granular. Individuals who file suit and win can be immune to it, but other in the same state who have not filed suit could be vulnerable to it. The Supreme Court has yet to make a ruling on whether the order is unconstitutional or not.

    • chuymatt@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 days ago

      It doesn’t. The ruling makes little sense and is just showing that playing the game with absolutely no ethics works very well.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      No. The core issue has not been decided. When courts in one state rule differently from courts in another, it goes up to federal court. When federal courts in different circuits rule differently, it goes up to SCOTUS. This issue isn’t at that point just yet.