Reposted by Jake Levitan
I'm enjoying visiting the fantasyland where trillions in private capital are poised to replace the fossil-fuel system with clean electrons for people's welfare and all that's needed is to replace our current regulatory system with AI-powered permits
...now back to the real world
![Thomas's concurrence in the TPS case: It makes no difference that the Miot respondents alleged
a violation of the Constitution. As Justice Scalia put it, "What could possibly be the basis for" doubting Congress's
authority to bar judicial review of constitutional claims? Webster, 486 U. S., at 612 (dissenting opinion). "The very text of the Constitution refutes th[e] principle" that "all con- stitutional violations must be remediable in the courts." Ibid. In some cases, a question of constitutional law is "tex-
tually committed" to adjudication solely by another branch. Nixon v. United States, 506 U. S. 224, 228 (1993); see, e.g., Art. I, §2, cl. 2 (setting the qualifications for House Mem- bers); §3, cl. 3 (setting qualifications for Senators); §5, cl. 1 (establishing that "[elach House shall be the Judge of the ...Qualifications of its own Members," not any court). In other contexts, the "lack of judicially discoverable and man- ageable standards" has been taken to show that a claim of a constitutional violation cannot be addressed on the merits
by federal courts. Nixon, 506 U. S., at 228. Other familiar principles likewise bar judicial review of' constitutional claims. An obvious one is sovereign immun- ity, "a monument to the principle that some constitutional
claims can go unheard." Webster, 486 U. S., at 613 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Because of sovereign immunity, no one can sue the Federal Government for damages without a waiver, even if he brings a constitutional claim and even if damages are his only possible remedy. Likewise, "courts cannot ex- amine" "the President's actions on subjects within his 'con- clusive and preclusive constitutional authority," regardless of whether he violates the Constitution in exercising that
authority. Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 609 (2024). The Constitution thus does not require that courts
be able to hear all constitutional claims.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2r7ljryv4mdb7e4svonbhugk/bafkreietjxbus75qipqlkbqubq6a2m7kniydcexjcea4p6jfgvha4rmvmu)
![Thomas's concurrence, continued: Congress barred all judicial review of TPS termination decisions, including constitutional claims. Since nothing in the Constitution prohibits Congress from doing so, courts are obliged to simply "givle] effect to [§1254a's] ordinary
meaning." Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U.S. 221, 244
(2020) (THOMAS, J., dissenting)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2r7ljryv4mdb7e4svonbhugk/bafkreibox2wbx6warydmbazkpivffzjc7ghxi53h4lw6esv7m656fob7my)
