The Supreme Court is clearing the way for federal agents to conduct sweeping immigration operations in Los Angeles, another victory for Pres
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for federal agents to conduct sweeping immigration operations for now in Los Angeles, the latest victory for President Donald Trump’s administration at the high court.
The conservative majority lifted a restraining order from a judge who found that roving patrols were conducting indiscriminate stops in and around LA. The order had barred immigration agents from stopping people solely based on their race, language, job or location. The court’s 6-3 decision followed a pattern of at least temporarily allowing some of the Republican administration’s harshest policies, while leaving room for the possibility of a different outcome after the legal case plays out fully. The net effect, meanwhile, has Trump pushing ahead in many of the areas he considers most critical.
The majority did not explain its reasoning, as is typical on the court’s emergency docket. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh said the lower-court judge had gone too far in restricting how Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can carry out brief stops for questioning. “The prospect of such after-the-fact judicial second-guessing and contempt proceedings will inevitably chill lawful immigration enforcement efforts,” he wrote in a concurrence.
The law also allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone else who helps a woman obtain an abortion, including those who giv
Unless you've been living under a rock for the past couple of days, you know that the United States Supreme Court, in a one-paragraph unsigned opinion, voted 5-4 to allow S.B. 8 to go into effect. That's the Texas law that criminalizes abortion beginning six weeks after the woman's last period--with no exceptions for rape or incest--and also gives private citizens the power to sue anyone who helps someone get an abortion and guarantees a minimum award of $10,000 plus attorney's fees. For each individual citizen bringing such a lawsuit.
Whatever you think of this, it's worse.
S.B. 8 is patently unconstitutional under the current state of the law. There is absolutely no way it would withstand any level of scrutiny in a court. The only way it could be upheld is if SCOTUS formally overruled Roe v. Wade. But the Court explicitly did not do that. Instead, the ultra-conservative majority found another rationale for denying relief: that Texas itself isn't going to enforce the law, but only those private citizens with their punishing lawsuits.
"[F]ederal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves. [Citation.] And it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention. [Citation.] The State has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly. Nor is it clear whether, under existing precedent, this Court can issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas's law."
This is perhaps the most dangerous opinion the Supreme Court has issued in decades. It has just ruled that any state can pass any law it wants, no matter how unconstitutional, as long as the government itself doesn't enforce it.
Texas could pass a law making it illegal to criticize Governor Abbott, in violation of the First Amendment right to free speech, as long as the law lets private citizens sue people who criticize Abbott for lots of money and Texas itself doesn't do anything to enforce it.
Florida could pass a law making it illegal to belong to any political party other than the Republican party, in violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of association, as long as the law lets private citizens sue non-Republicans for lots of money and Florida itself doesn't do anything to enforce it.
North Carolina could pass a law prohibiting the practice of Judaism, in violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, as long as the law lets private citizens sue Jews for lots of money and North Carolina itself doesn't do anything to enforce it.
California could pass a law making it illegal to own any firearm, in violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, as long as the law lets private citizens sue gun owners for lots of money and California itself doesn't do anything to enforce it.
Nevada could pass a law making it illegal for jurors to disregard evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as long as the law lets private citizens sue their fellow jurors for lots of money and Nevada itself doesn't do anything to enforce it.
Tennessee could pass a law making same-sex marriage illegal.
Alaska could pass a law making it illegal for women to vote.
Alabama could pass a law making it illegal for black people to enter businesses reserved for white people.
You get the idea. Every single one of these laws plainly violates the Constitution. But according to the Supreme Court, there is no legal recourse as long as the only enforcement mechanism is private individuals filing civil lawsuits with guaranteed paydays against offenders.
With a single paragraph, the Supreme Court has not only nullified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but basically made itself obsolete. If the U.S. Supreme Court cannot enforce the U.S. Constitution, then no one can. Legislators now have a way to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution absolutely forbids them to do directly. Congratulations, fellow Americans: you no longer live in a constitutional republic.
Kagan criticizes fellow justices over lack of explanation in recent Supreme Court rulings
Amy Howe:
So one way to think of it is to think about what it’s not. And most people, when they think of the Supreme Court, think of the decisions, like the decision on affirmative action or the decision on same-sex marriage, in which the court agrees that it’s going to take the case.
There’s extensive briefing, usually over the course of a couple of months. The court hears oral arguments in open…
