[ad_1]
The Trump administration on Monday asked federal appeals court to reopen immigration agents to resume free raids in Southern California, attempting to overturn a federal judge’s order in Los Angeles that banned “roving patrols” in seven counties.
The order “provokes irreparable harm” by preventing enforcement of a significant infringement of the President’s Article II authorities, a Justice Department lawyer wrote in a motion Monday to seek an emergency stay. “These harms get worse the longer the injunction is in place.”
After weeks of aggressive sweeps by masked heavily armed federal agents, the operation appears to have been suspended after US District Judge Mame Eusimensa Flimun was given a temporary restraining order granted Friday night in Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.
A coalition of civil rights groups and private lawyers sued the federal government, challenging the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens, and has been struck by chaotic arrests that have owned fear and sparked widespread protests since June 6th.
“You should tell you everything you need to know that the federal government is in a hurry to appeal an order directing it to follow the constitution,” said Mohammad Tarjah, an attorney for the ACLU in Southern California. “We look forward to defending the temporary restraining order and ensuring that the Southern California community is safe from federal violence.”
Despite arguments that tactics from the Trump administration are effective, Flimon has determined that the use of race, ethnicity, language, accent, place or employment is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unfair searches and seizures by the government as an excuse for immigration enforcement. The judge found that preventing detainees from meeting with lawyers violating due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
“This means that this hasn’t really happened in the face of the mountain mountains presented to this court,” she wrote.
Homeland Security Secretary Christie Noem, when responding to the order at a press conference on Saturday, mistakenly called Frimon a man, describing the judge’s order:
“We have all the rights in the world to go out on the streets and to follow the law and do what we are trying to do. “We’re going to sue it and win.”
In addition to blocking the roving patrol, the judge ordered the Department of Homeland Security to open some of its detention facilities in downtown Los Angeles to lawyers and legal aid groups.
“The district court injunction is a big victory for immigrants, but the whiplash of court orders and appeals creates uncertainty,” said Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at UC Law San Francisco. “That form of real-world anxiety weakens communities and undermines democratic value in places like LA.”
The Trump administration did not immediately challenge the fifth amendment of the ruling. Instead, they attack the fourth amendment request and seek a stay that immediately restores the status quo of immigration agents in Southern California, but the case is being heard by a High Court judge.
“It is unacceptable for district judges to “restructure” federal immigration enforcement activities on their own,” the appeal argued. “This judicial acquisition cannot bear it.”
But some experts say that’s not likely.
“Their discussion [is] “The sky is falling. They’re having a very extreme argument, and that doesn’t necessarily help their claim in the 9th Circuit,” said Professor Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond.
The appeal escalates an already fierce and vast legal battle over Trump’s promised mass expulsion and the means used to achieve it.
After the president deployed troops in June to quell the anti-ice protests, California sued and won a temporary restraining order that stripped the command’s president.
The appeals panel overturned it in mid-June, quickly blocking the decision after leaving thousands of soldiers in Trump’s hands.
However, Trump’s appointee, Honolulu J. Bennett, who wrote the June 19 ruling, also bristled the government’s argument that the president’s actions in the case “are not re-referenced.”
“Some of what they say is unorthodox and it’s an argument that we don’t normally hear in court,” Chen said. “Instead of framing this as an outline of management, they say that the efforts by the jurisdiction to place restrictions on the executive power are a judicial overreach.”
Last week, another Ninth Circuit judge challenged that June decision, petitioning the court to rehearse the matter with a larger “en banc” panel.
“in front [courts] Many judges trust their colleagues and will often postpone them to the 3 judge panel where they first heard the appeal,” Tobias said.
Meanwhile, California is gathering evidence to strengthen its claims that the Marines and National Guard, which participate in immigration enforcement, are violating the Congress’ Comittatas Act, which prohibits the use of soldiers to enforce civil law.
Compared to these questions, the legal issues of LA’s appeal are simple, experts said.
“What makes this argument different is that it’s factual,” said Irwin Kemelinski, dean of the Berkeley School of Law, California. “It is much more difficult for a court of appeal to overturn a court finding of facts in terms of legal conclusions.”
[ad_2]Source link
