A federal judge ordered agents not to retaliate against people “engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity” in the state and not to stop drivers who are not “forcibly obstructing” officers.
And who is going to enforce it???
Link to the court order, here. The order itself is on page 81.
I skimmed through the whole thing, and essentially the judge weighed the protestors’ sworn first hand accounts far higher than the one government official’s sworn statements of just having read DHS and ICE’s unsubstantiated report and parroting them, much of which was being contradicted by the video evidence that both parties supplied. Also the judge makes a small jab at the Supreme Court’s malicious stupidity, footnote 33, page 77:
An open question remains as to whether CASA’s emphasis on applying thestrictures of Rule 23 when granting class-wide relief undercuts the court’s grant of class-wide preliminary relief in A.A.R.P. The Court finds it doubtful that the Supreme Court, through reasoning alone, so sharply reversed course that it indirectly invalidated its own rule of law issued just 42 days earlier. McDonald, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 498 (“There is no reason for me to assume that the Court in CASA intended to walk back a pronouncement it made the previous month in A.A.R.P.”).
Thanks for posting this. I’m having some difficulty trying to find out what what the acronyms CASA and A.A.R.P. represent tho (what I’ve found doesn’t make sense in this context).
CASA are an immigrants rights group that have lawyers that represent them. AARP are a retired persons’ advocacy group.
How they are used here are to name the cases of two specific decisions the Supreme Court made, so the Plaintiff(s) and/or Defendant(s)’ names are just used as a shorthand reference to it. Both cases are related to the immigration effort.
In AARP, the Supreme Court said better due process needed to be afforded and the government is enjoined from removing detainees under the Alien Enemies Act without due process and sufficient notice.
In CASA, the Supreme Court basically wants to prevent lower courts from stopping the government from removing detainees too broadly. This is despite they themselves found a month earlier that they needed to put to a stop the administration’s violations of due process.
I appreciate your help. Thank you.
Ms. Good, 37, had partially blocked a roadway where agents were working and did not follow commands to get out of her S.U.V. As she began to drive, an agent near the front of her car opened fire.
This is the last time I read anything in this rag.
Whenever push comes to shove the New York Times will side with power over truth
“journalists” using passive voice to excuse police violence while using active voice for the victim of said violence
They’re gonna be barfing up Trump’s official line as the Orange Mangina dropped a lawsuit against them.
The NY Times hasn’t been on the cutting edge of impactful journalism for quite a while, unfortunately.
Will they listen? Probably not
