In the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
The United Stated Supreme Court has conclusively established that the federal government may not force state and local governments to enforce or assist in enforcing federal immigration law. Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice, in an attempt to get around that ruling, therefore did not directly order cities or states to help federal immigration officials; instead, the DoJ just said it would cut off federal funding if they didn’t help.
Needless to say, court challenges followed immediately, and so far the Trump administration has lost in all three different courts. In Chicago, the court not only ruled that Sessions violated the Constitution by threatening to pull federal funding from Chicago for declining to take affirmative steps to help federal immigration authorities deport people, but also imposed a nationwide injunction prohibiting Sessions from enforcing that policy anywhere else in the country.
Also needless to say, Sessions and the Trump administration promptly appealed... conveniently enough, to a panel of three Republican-appointed judges. Today, however, the Circuit Court unanimously upheld the lower court’s ruling, recognizing that if the Executive Branch could--without congressional authority--add conditions to funds that the Legislative Branch had already approved, that would essentially be “tyranny”:
“The issue before us strikes at one of the bedrock principles of our nation, the protection of which transcends political party affiliation and rests at the heart of our system of government—the separation of powers. The founders of our country well understood that the concentration of power threatens individual liberty and established a bulwark against such tyranny by creating a separation of powers among the branches of government. If the Executive Branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescence of elected legislators, that check against tyranny is forsaken. The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement. But the power of the purse rests with Congress, which authorized the federal funds at issue and did not impose any immigration enforcement conditions on the receipt of such funds. In fact, Congress repeatedly refused to approve of measures that would tie funding to state and local immigration policies. Nor, as we will discuss, did Congress authorize the Attorney General to impose such conditions. It falls to us, the judiciary, as the remaining branch of the government, to act as a check on such usurpation of power. We are a country that jealously guards the separation of powers, and we must be ever-vigilant in that endeavor.”
LGBT rights group hail court ruling as ‘game changer’ A federal appeals court has ruled for the first time that a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT employees from workplace discrimination, setting up a likely battle before the U.S.
Whether officers established reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant (7th Circuit)
Seventh Circuit United States v. Shields, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10058 (7th Cir. Ill. June 15, 2015)
Two police officers saw Shields’ parked SUV partially blocking a crosswalk, in violation of the law. One of the officers approached Shields, who was sitting in the driver’s seat of the SUV and asked for his driver’s license. After handing the officer his license, Shields voluntarily exited the SUV and at the officer’s request, walked toward the rear of the vehicle with the officer. When Shields reached the rear of the SUV, he did not stop to talk to the officers, but instead fled down the street. While chasing Shields on foot, one of the officers saw Shields pull a firearm out of his coat pocket. The officer caught Shields in an alley and pushed him to the ground. The officer handcuffed Shields and discovered a loaded revolver on the ground underneath him. The government charged Shields with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Shields filed a motion to suppress the firearm, arguing the officers conducted an unlawful traffic stop.
First, the court held when the officers saw Shields’ SUV blocking the crosswalk, they had reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry stop to investigate the parking offense.
Second, Shields’ decision to run from the officers constituted another violation because Shields was interfering with the performance of the officers’ duty to investigate and, if appropriate, hold him accountable for the parking violation.
Finally, once the officer saw Shields remove the firearm from his pocket he had probable cause to arrest Shields for unlawful carrying of a firearm. As a result, the court held the officer lawfully seized Shields when he tackled Shields in the alley and lawfully seized the firearm, which was in plain sight on the ground underneath Shields. Click HERE for the court’s opinion.
FMCSA's ELD Rule Upheld by 7th Circuit, Still Set for Implementation in Dec. 2017
FMCSA’s ELD Rule Upheld by 7th Circuit, Still Set for Implementation in Dec. 2017
At the direction of Congress, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (“FMCSA”) has adopted what has become known as the ELD Rule. Beginning on December 16, 2017, most commercial drivers will be required to use electronic logging devices (“ELDs”) to record their duty status. ELDs are required to be installed on all interstate commercial motor vehicles (model year 2000 or newer) within two…
A Hijab-Wearing Muslim Judge Swore Her Oath On A Quran--Conservatives Went Nuclear
A Hijab-Wearing Muslim Judge Swore Her Oath On A Quran–Conservatives Went Nuclear
Carolyn Walker-Diallo is an accomplished person who overcame the inherent societal hurdles of being both black and a woman. Last Thursday, with a smile from ear to ear, bigotry took another punch in the gut as she was sworn in as a municipal judge in New York with her hand on a copy of the Holy Quran. A picture of Walker-Diallo sporting a lovely hijab and a beautiful ear-to-ear smile completed…
Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally
Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally
Try to figure out the reasoning in this one:
People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from…
Indiana, Wisconsin Lawyers Get Tough Questions Over States’ Marriage Bans
Indiana, Wisconsin Lawyers Get Tough Questions Over States’ Marriage Bans
The three 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judges appeared ready to strike down Indiana’s law and Wisconsin’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from marrying. BF_STATIC.timequeue.push(function () { if (BF_STATIC.bf_test_mode) localStorage.setItem(‘posted_date’, 1409080245); }); BF_STATIC.timequeue.push(function () { document.getElementById(“update_posted_time_3429302″).innerHTML =…
