USSC stays the San Francisco Judge who ordered all of the workers to be hired back

In this case, they suggested that the groups did not have standing to sue.

The District Court’s injunction was based solely on the allegations of the nine non-profit-organization plaintiffs in this case. But under established law, those allegations are presently insufficient to support the organizations’ standing. See, e.g., Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013). This order does not address the claims of the other plaintiffs, which did not form the basis of the District Court’s preliminary injunction.

And so it begins... In this case they suggested that the organizations did not have standing to sue. They did suggest that the individual plaintiffs would have standing to sue, but the San Francisco Judge's order is stayed based on the fact that he was acting in behalf of the nine different organizations which they do not deem have standing to sue. Now this should put a significant damper on the appeals process. How can the appeals court rule in favor of these groups now that the USSC has stated that they likely do not have standing. I suppose of the groups were seen to have standing, then the jurisdiction or venue would not have been an issue. I wonder out loud, however, if individuals in this case would have the right to sue in San Francisco if they don't live there (perhaps some did)? Either way, this sounds more like an implied overturn of the decision in question, masked as a stay of the original order. If the Ninth Circuit Court has any integrity, it would toss the case all together when the time comes, following the lead of the USSC who has basically given them solid reasoning for such a dismissal.

Now if part of this feels familiar it is because it is. The USSC is ruling against the concept of groups filing claims as if they are class action and instead are suggesting that the other plaintiffs in this case should be the ones filing the claims. I am guessing these "other plaintiffs" were likely actual workers who were fired. The term Habeas was not used in this order, but the underlying concept remains the same. The individuals need to be the ones filing for themselves, not other groups filing on their behalf in order to turn it into some sort of class action that allows a judge to order a national injunction.