https://x.com/byronyork/status/2011976153636995275?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"The suit, which goes on for 80 pages, begins with a long complaint about ICE’s mobilization in Minneapolis. It is “a federal invasion of the Twin Cities,” the suit reads, “driven by nothing more than the Trump administration’s desire to punish political opponents and score partisan points.” ICE’s actions “appear designed to provoke community outrage, sow fear, and inflict emotional distress,” the suit continues, “and they are interfering with the ability of state and local officials to protect and care for their residents.”
And so on. The lawsuit argues that the 10th Amendment “gives the state of Minnesota and its subdivisions, including the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, inviolable sovereign authority to protect the health and wellbeing of all those who reside, work, or visit within their borders.”
It’s what a number of analysts have diplomatically called a “novel” argument. Minnesota is basically asking a judge to use the 10th Amendment to bar a federal law enforcement body, ICE, from enforcing federal immigration law in a city and state. It seems like a crazy argument, and it is. “What they’re asking is that the federal government cannot use their law enforcement authority in a city,” CBS legal analyst Joe Tamburino said. “It would be like asking the federal court to bar the FBI, the ATF, the U.S. Marshal Service, Secret Service.”"
"When asked whether there is legal precedent to do that, CNN analyst Elie Honig answered, “None. “There is no example … of a judge prohibiting a federal law enforcement agent from enforcing federal law in a given state. The reaction that we’ve heard from various Minnesota officials, including Attorney General Keith Ellison, when confronted with this lack of precedent and lack of case law, is essentially, ‘Well, this is really bad, though. Well, this is an invasion.’ There is plenty of dramatic language in the complaint, but that doesn’t change the legal calculus. You can’t just take a situation that has no legal precedent and no legal support and say, ‘Well, yes, but our situation is really, really bad, therefore we get to invent new law.’”
On Wednesday, a federal judge declined Minnesota’s request to issue a temporary restraining order against ICE. Next week, each side will have to make more detailed arguments. But don’t look for this to go very far. Meanwhile, the fight for the federal government’s right to enforce federal law goes on in Minneapolis and its surrounding areas."
It would be interesting to compare this lawsuit with the legal justification used by the CSA when they seceded from the US.
It seems like trying to ban one instance of federal involvement in a state, while still taking billions of federal dollars (many of those which were stolen) is contradictory to say the least.
2 comments:
As absurd the notion that federal LE can't enforce federal law in any of the United States, I can't see that it isn't illegal to obstruct justice on any level, including the federal level by the actions of state or municipal governments.
The first state or city which assumed sanctuary status should have been fought hard by the federal government...right up to SCOTUS...particularly as merely enacting such a law is necessarily obstructive in and of itself. Now, it's harder to enforce immigration law with these states and municipalities having set this unConstitutional precedent. The stupid have come to believe such things are somehow "American" or "Christian" or without any detrimental potential of any kind, despite the myriad of examples to the contrary.
You’re probably right that the sanctuary crap should have been nipped in the bud. But it’s this notion is absolutely ridiculous.
Post a Comment