Jul.18

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

ICE Put on Ice: Judge Stops Government from Indiscriminately Grabbing People

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." Decades of case law interpreting that phrase has led to important rules around law enforcement procedures to ensure that all people can be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." It's fair to say that ICE, CBP and other DHS immigration enforcement arms have been playing fast and loose with the Fourth Amendment to meet quotas imposed by deporter-in-chief Stephen Miller. As readers may know, in the Los Angeles area, ICE has been conducting indiscriminate raids and sweeps and has snatched people up, including U.S. citizens and others in the country legally, and thrown them into a basement in a downtown federal building known as B-18. Once there, federal officials are denying them access to lawyers in violation of the Fifth Amendment, not to mention holding them in "dungeon-like" conditions without access to food (or even water, in some cases). B-18 does not have beds, showers or medical facilities... because it's a basement. But, you know, maybe they can sleep on discarded office furniture.

On July 2, the ACLU filed suit in federal district court on behalf of five individuals, the United Farm Workers (UFW), the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights L.A. (CHIRLA) and other non-profits to enjoin these violations. The cities of Los Angeles, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Culver City, Montebello and others filed a motion to intervene in the suit. On July 11, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting these roundups without reasonable suspicion, and ordering access to attorneys, as well as safe and sanitary conditions for those held in B-18. In other words, the Court made the radical finding that the federal government is not above the law and must adhere to the Constitution in enforcing immigration law. The Court did not stay the decision and the White House has already appealed for both an administrative stay (a shorter stay while the court decides on the longer stay) and a stay pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit. As of this writing, the Ninth Circuit had not acted on either application. Incredibly, the Department of Justice is arguing to the court that the order "barring unconstitutional stops and arrests is akin to a 'straitjacket' on its operations." So, unless the feds can ignore the Constitution, they can't enforce immigration laws? That is a stunning claim, even from this administration.

There are many important takeaways from this decision (which is really worth reading):

1. The government didn't dispute that the Constitution does not allow "roving patrols without reasonable suspicion" or denying access to lawyers to people in detention.
   
   
2. The plaintiffs presented what the court described as a "mountain" of evidence of the illegal raids, including that many of us have seen a U.S. citizen being roughed up and handcuffed even while he is pleading that he is a U.S. citizen with a Real ID driver's license. He is hauled away even after the officers take his Real ID because he couldn't recall the name of the hospital where he was born.
   
   
3. The government's evidence was... zero. Seriously, the DoJ presented no evidence that the agencies' actions are lawful. Instead, they presented boilerplate training manuals stating that all agents are trained to follow the law. The astonished judge was left to conclude that "what the federal government would have this Court believe—in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case—is that none of this is actually happening."
   
   
4. If none of this is actually happening, as the government contends, then how can the Court's order enjoining what everyone agrees would be illegal actions hamper the administration's enforcement of immigration laws? Hopefully, the appeals court will notice that inherent contradiction.
   
   
5. The court's order makes clear that "reasonable suspicion" cannot only be based on race, language spoken (or accent), type of work and/or location of work, such as car washes, restaurants, garden centers, etc. The evidence was clear that the raids are targeted at Latinos, while white people who may be in the country illegally are ignored.
   
   
6. The court's ruling, quoting a Ninth Circuit case, defines "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment as one that includes any one of the following: "a threatening presence of several officers, a display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled." This pretty much sums up the raids—masked, heavily-armed men grabbing people and demanding answers to their questions.
   
   
7. This was officially sanctioned conduct—it was not the result of a few rogue agents and the administration has not argued otherwise. The quota of 3,000 daily arrests is well-known, as is the administration's shuttering of oversight agencies and punishing employees who fail to meet the quotas.
   
   
8. The court's order applies district-wide. The Central District of California is the most populous in the country and covers the counties of Los Angeles, Ventura (where the Camarillo raid of the cannabis farms occurred), Riverside, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Orange. These are where what federal officials have called the "largest mass deportation operation in history" have been taking place. And the order already appears to be having its intended effect, as the article linked above found: "Weeks of aggressive sweeps by masked and heavily armed federal agents seemed to abruptly cease in [the central district] following Frimpong's order last week."
   
   
9. Frimpong is a Biden appointee, the daughter of immigrants from Ghana, and a Harvard and Yale Law School grad. Central casting couldn't have found someone more likely to infuriate Miller and company. In fact, Miller wasted no time in posting to ex-Twitter after the ruling was issued, calling her a "communist judge in LA." Communist? Apparently, Miller is now just openly channeling his inner Roy Cohn. If this order holds up on appeal and halts ICE operations indefinitely in the place where they took the most pleasure in terrorizing the community, that is some serious schadenfreude.
   
   
10. Whither the Supremes? We can see where this is headed. The effect of the high court's repeated intervention on the administration's behalf through the shadow docket has led to this display of the feds not even bothering to defend their actions in the district court. They are now all-in on their unlawful conduct being sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Even if years down the road they eventually lose, they will still have won in the interim and can ignore the law to their heart's content. And with its recent ruling on the shadow docket giving Trump the green light to 86 the Department of Education, despite rejecting a similarly-situated request for an administrative stay from the Biden administration regarding its student loan program, the Court has made its partisan allegiance even more crystal clear. It has already encouraged Trump to violate lower court orders by tossing out a remedial order imposed by a district court for Trump's failure to provide due process to detainees shipped to third countries. It is fair to wonder whether there will ever be any consequences to Trump's running roughshod over the Constitution.

But meanwhile, Frimpong hedged her bets as much as possible here. She did exactly what the Supreme Court said was required: The order only applies to the central district (as opposed to nationwide) but she also certified a class consisting of anyone who may be subject to a warrantless or suspicionless arrest or detention, just in case the Court decides even a narrow injunction requires a class action before it can apply to anyone other than the named plaintiffs. (L)