Below is my column in the Hill on the slew of additional injunctions imposed by district courts last week. Some of these courts seem on a hair-trigger in ordering the record number of injunctions racked up in the first 100 days.
Here is the column:
“Here we are again.” Those words of Senior U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick may be the only uncontested line in his opinion this week, enjoining the Trump Administration from withholding federal funds to “sanctuary jurisdictions.”
In President Trump’s first term, efforts to implement sweeping changes on immigration and other issues were met by a slew of injunctions. In 2017, one of those orders was from Judge Orrick, an Obama appointee in San Francisco.
Trump has already faced a record number of national injunctions by district courts. His administration has objected to forum- and judge-shopping by political opponents by bringing the majority of such challenges in overwhelmingly Democratic states like California.
Such injunctions did not exist at the founding, and only relatively recently became the rage among district court judges. Under President George W. Bush, there were only six such injunctions, which increased to 12 under Obama.
Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about district judges tying down presidents like so many judicial Lilliputians. However, when Trump came to office, the taste for national injunctions became a full-fledged addiction. Trump faced 64 such orders in his first term.
Now, however, with less than 100 days in office, Trump 2.0 has already surpassed that number for the entirety of Biden’s term.
The Supreme Court bears some of the blame for this. Although a majority of justices, including liberal Justice Elena Kagan, have complained about district courts’ issuance of national injunctions, the high court has done little to rein in district court judges. On May 15, the justices are poised to consider the issue in a case involving birthright citizenship. Many hope that the justices will bring what they have consistently failed to supply to lower courts: clarity and finality.
Some judges have already seen their stays lifted by appellate courts. However, in just one day this week, three more major injunctions were issued on sanctuary cities, voter registration, and deportations.
Some of these orders appear premature and overbroad. Take Judge Orrick’s order. Again, Trump is targeting cities offering sanctuary to unlawful immigrants as imposing high costs on the country, including increasing burdens for federal programs and grants to these cities.
Orrick previously stopped that effort in the first Trump term, and he was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However, the orders are not identical, and so far no action has been taken against these cities.
Under one of the orders, titled “Protecting the American People against Invasion,” Trump has ordered the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security to “evaluate and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds.”
Orrick noted that the term “sanctuary jurisdiction” was not defined and dismissed the express reservation that such actions can only proceed to the extent that they are allowed under law.
The irony is that the opinion itself is overly broad and imprecise. There are indeed cases limiting the ability of the federal government to “commandeer” states and cities into carrying out federal functions. However, there are also cases upholding the right to withhold federal funds that contravene federal laws and policies.
The operative language in the order is the focus on sanctuary policies that “interfere” or prevent federal enforcement. There must be some accommodation for the federal government in refusing to pay for the rope that it will hang by.
Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote in Terminiello v. City of Chicago that the Constitution cannot be construed as a “suicide pact.” I have never been fond of that quote, which has often been used to justify the curtailment of individual rights. But these cases could bring a new meaning to the quote in immigration cases. If one accepts the Trump administration’s data, then continued funding of these jurisdictions might be more akin to being forced to pay for your own hit man and then calling it suicide.
There is a reason courts generally wait for these conflicts to become “ripe.” The administration could easily engage in impermissible “commandeering,” but it could also “evaluate and undertake” more focused and defensible withholdings of federal funds. Judge Orrick decided not to wait to find out.
These are difficult questions, but the Supreme Court can reduce these cases by actually ruling with clarity. The court has often left these issues mired in ambiguity, kicking cases like cans down the road for any final resolution.
Consider the order out of the District of Columbia blocking an effort to change federal voting forms to require proof of citizenship. Trump campaigned on the issue, and, according to a Gallup poll, 84 percent of U.S. adults are in favor of requiring voters to show such identification.
Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly barred the federal government from changing the standardized national voter registration form and to have federal voter registration agencies “assess” the citizenship of individuals who receive public assistance before providing them a voter registration form.
Kollar-Kotelly raises good-faith limits on presidents’ ability to regulate elections, a power mainly left to the states. However, this is a policy that does not necessarily impose a new condition on states.
After all, non-citizens are barred from voting in federal elections in all states. Again, there must be some ability of the administration to act to address a national priority in the funding of election reforms and practices. The question is whether the court will recognize such a federal interest.
The problem with some of these orders is not that they are without foundation, but that courts appear on a hair-trigger to enjoin the Trump administration on any subject whatsoever. There is a need to deescalate in both branches as we expedite these appeals. We are indeed “here again,” but this is not a good place for anyone.
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School. He is the author of best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Former Judge Andrew Napolitano agrees with me that the arrest of Judge Dugan in Wisconsin is completely bogus.
It is nothing more than political theater organized by Bondi and Patel to gain favor with Trump.
Newsmax judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano asserted that President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice “overreached” when agents arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly helping a migrant escape from immigration authorities.
On Monday, Napolitano noted that the ICE agents did not have an arrest warrant for the migrant in question.
“An administrative warrant is not an arrest warrant,” he said. “No judge would recognize an administrative warrant… They have this administrative warrant, which is basically one ICE agent authorizing another ICE agent to detain someone.”
“So I don’t think there’s a crime here,” the analyst continued. “I think she has immunity. She can decide how a person leaves her courtroom.”
Napolitano said he could understand the FBI’s point of view but disagreed with it.
“I think they overreached by arresting her,” he observed. “Because they’re on a bit of a jihad against judges, they decided to make an example out of this.”
“I think this is the wrong case out of which to make an example,” he added. “I think she has immunity. She can decide where a person leaves her courtroom from and what she says to that person, and she can’t be prosecuted for it.”
Napolitano is awful.
The obstruction of justice charge against Judge Dugan is completely bogus.
It will be summarily dismissed.
As Judge Napolitano points out, the ICE agents did not have an arrest warrant for the migrant in question. An administrative warrant is not an arrest warrant,” he said. “No judge would recognize an administrative warrant… They have this administrative warrant, which is basically one ICE agent authorizing another ICE agent to detain someone.
In order to obstruct justice one must obstruct some judicial action.
An administrative warrant is not a judicial warrant. An administrative warrant is issued by the Executive branch. It carries no weight as a judicial document.
A Judicial warrant is issued by the Judicial branch and commands a law enforcement officer to make an arrest. That is a judicial action.
The actions of Judge Dugan cannot be construed as an obstruction of justice because the ICE agents did not have a judicial warrant. There was no judicial action that could be obstructed. The activity of the ICE agents pursuant to the ADMINISTRATIVE warrant was simply an administrative action of the Executive branch, not a judicial act by the Judicial branch.
This entire thing is a charade by Bondi and Patel to please Trump.
Wait. The perp is in jail. If there were no grounds for his arrest and prosecution, what is he doing there? If there were no grounds for his arrest and prosecution, why did the “impartial” judge Dugan engage in “obstructing and impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States” and “concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest?”
Ruiz is not in jail. He is in Immigration Detention after being detained by ICE pursuant to the administrative warrant. However, as Napolitano points out, an administrative warrant is not an arrest warrant. He has not been arrested and he is not in jail.
Being detained by an ICE administrative warrant is not the same as being arrested.
Therefore your statement, “If there were no grounds for his arrest and prosecution, what is he doing there”, is irrelevant and completely misses the point.
Dugan is charged with ” obstructing and impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States”
The Trump Administration has already tried this stunt, with the same charge, in 2019 with another judge in Massachusetts who was accused of allowing an illegal immigrant to leave via the back door of the court. The exact same set of facts as for Dugan. The charge was dismissed.
The other charge against Dugan is, concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest ” under Section 1071.
The government must prove certain essential elements for a conviction.
A federal warrant must have been issued for the person’s arrest.
The person concealing must know a federal arrest warrant had been issued.
The problem is of course, that no federal arrest warrant had been issued.
The ICE agents were acting on an administrative warrant which is NOT a federal arrest warrant.
The “impartial” judge and Ruiz are irrefutably guilty.
The only thing left for you anti-American communists to corrupt is the venue.
The prosecution of the Judge in MA resulted in a sweetheart plea deal with the Biden administration.
Dugan has to drag this out 4 years and hope that democrats win in 2028.
Sorry – she is toast. She will get a deal. Judges are unlikely to slam judges.
But this was a crime, and she is guilty.
This has nothing to do with the type of warrant, or even whether there was a warrant at all.
Please read the warrant for Dugan.
She KNEW that ICE was seeking Ruiz. That is ALL that is necescary.
But there is more.
She KNEW that there was a warrant for Ruiz – it does not matter what type of Warrant – except that ICE can only serve a judicial warrant inside Dugan’s courtroom. Outside they can pick up Ruiz without any warrant if they have probable cause to suspect he is an illegal alien.
Dugan sent the uniformed ICE agents to the cheif judges chambers and while they were gone snuck Ruiz out of her courtroom.
All that matters is that she clearly intended to prevent ICE from detaining him.
That intention is made clear by ALL of her actions. While specific individual actions are alone enough, the totality of her actions – sending the uniformed ICE agents elsewhere. Then sheparding Ruiz out unusally, constitute multiple counts of a crime and rock solid mens rea
She should spend time in jail. But she wont. But it is likely she is done being a judge and probably a lawyer.
“The person concealing must know a federal arrest warrant had been issued.”
NO, all they must know is that they are interfering with the preemptively lawful acts of federal law enforcement.
The ICE agents did not need a federal arrest warrant or even an administrative warrant.
They needed probable cause that Ruiz was in the US illegally – that is all.
ICE detained over 100 illegal aliens at a night club the next day.
They did NOT have warrants of any kind for most of those.
They had a warrant to conduct the raid, and based on what they found they had probable cause to detain over 100 illegal immigrants.
While Judge Dugan had the power to keep ICE out of her courtroom WHILE the proceeding against Ruiz was ongoing.
The moment that proceeding ended she was no longer acting as a judge, she had no immunity, she was just an ordinary person wearing black robes interfering with the activity of law enforcement. This is no different from someone assisting a person fleeing a suspect fleeing a crime.
John Say
Everything you say is complete nonsense.
Absolutely no one has a duty to cooperate with an ICE agent in any way shape or form
No one is compelled to even acknowledge the presence of an ICE agent.
Imagine a situation where ICE is looking for Jose Diaz and they correctly suspect he is at your house.
They have an administrative warrant to detain him. By definition an administrative warrant is a civil warrant alleging an immigration violation and nothing more.
They come to your house, knock on the door and ask if Jose is in the house.
You ask them if they have a warrant.
They show you the administrative warrant.
You can then simply tell them to go away. You are under no compulsion to continue to engage with them, cooperate with them or even acknowledge their presence.
While the agents are still at your front door, you can tell Jose to slip out the back door and hide in the neighbors house.
You have not obstructed the ICE agents because they are not acting pursuant to a judicial warrant.
This is exactly what Judge Dugan did.
THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION !!!!!!!
If there was obstruction of justice then she would have been charged under Section 73, which would have been a slam dunk.
But they did not make that charge, because they know she did not obstruct justice.
You babble incoherently about obstructing a law enforcement officer in his official duties. That
is applicable only in terms of an officer who is investigating a crime.
In this case, the ICE agents only had a civil administrative warrant that by definition does not allege a crime.
There was no obstruction of justice or obstruction of a law enforcement officer in his official duties.
That is why they resorted to the bogus charge under Section 1505, of “obstructing, or impeding any pending proceeding before a department or agency of the United States, or Congress”
The Supreme Court recently clarified the meaning of this statute. They said it applies ONLY to Congressional investigations and not the broader concept of general obstruction of justice involving investigations by any other agency.
It is a completely bogus charge that will not hold up.
“Absolutely no one has a duty to cooperate with an ICE agent in any way shape or form
No one is compelled to even acknowledge the presence of an ICE agent.”
Correct, But as is typical you are engaging in WORD games.
You need not actively cooperate or acknowledge
YOu are barred by criminal law from OBSTRUCTING.
“Imagine a situation where ICE is looking for Jose Diaz and they correctly suspect he is at your house.
They have an administrative warrant to detain him. By definition an administrative warrant is a civil warrant alleging an immigration violation and nothing more.
They come to your house, knock on the door and ask if Jose is in the house.
You ask them if they have a warrant.
They show you the administrative warrant.
You can then simply tell them to go away. You are under no compulsion to continue to engage with them, cooperate with them or even acknowledge their presence.”
ALL TRUE.
“While the agents are still at your front door, you can tell Jose to slip out the back door and hide in the neighbors house.”
FALSE THAT IS actively OBSTRUCTING. That is NOT the same as refusing to cooperate, or acknowledge.
There is a HUGE difference between PASSIVE and ACTIVE conduct.
“You have not obstructed the ICE agents because they are not acting pursuant to a judicial warrant.”
You have obstructed ICE, and in YOUR scenario they do not need a warrant, they merely need reasonable suspicion.
If they have probable cause and exigent circumstances – even without a warrant, they can force their way into your home to arress Jose.
This is the law, this is not even the law being stretched. Things like this happen all the time.
If you have paid any attention we have had court battles over whether you can record police officers while they are doing their duty.
There are some complex exceptions – states where you can record video but not audio for odd reasons,
But in general you can record a police officer going about their duty.
But laws allowing charging you for obstruction if you get too close to the police officer have been upheld.
If you do not like this CHANGE THE LAW.
Regardless, Judge Dugan KNEW or should have know that she could NOT actively interfere with ICE going about their business.
While this review does not get all the facts correct, it is pretty good on the law.
https://youtu.be/kY9Y_eOb8kI
“THERE IS NO OBSTRUCTION !!!!!!!”
Of course there was – as a result of Judge Dugans intentional actions – actions that were not performed AFTER the end of her official proceeding involving Ruis – where she has absolute immunity, the arrest of Ruis was delayed, made more risjy and difficult and her intention was to prevent, delay, or make the arrest more difficult.
That is obstruction.
“If there was obstruction of justice then she would have been charged under Section 73, which would have been a slam dunk.
But they did not make that charge, because they know she did not obstruct justice.”
Given that you do not understand the BASICS of the law – why would anyone trust your ambiguous and non-specific claims about US criminal code.
Another major problem you have is a misunderstanding of warrants and charges of all kinds.
To arrest Dugan – the DOJ/FBI needed to get a warrant from a federal magistrate judge.
They did NOT have to present AL possible charges. They did NOT have to provide all facts and all witnesses.
All they had to do was persuade a federal magistrate judge that there was probable cause that Judge Dugan had committed a crime. They are free to amend the complaint, continue the investigation, add witnesses correct factual errors, etc.
They can seek an indictment on completely different charges.
At THIS point the legal issue is NOT did Judge Dugan violate the SPECIF law that she was arrested for, but is there probable cause that she committed a crime. It is unlikely the magistrate looked in detail at the code cited. He looked at the conduct alleged.
When this case goes before a jury, THEN and ONLY THEN, must the prosecutor prove all elements of the specific crime charged AT THAT TIME beyond a reasonable doubt.
Between now and a trial the charges can be changed. There is no legal basis for Judge Dugan to get the case dismissed merely because the DOJ decides that a different statute would be a stronger case.
Again – if you do not like the way the law works – CHANGE IT.
“You babble incoherently about obstructing a law enforcement officer in his official duties. That
is applicable only in terms of an officer who is investigating a crime.”
FALSE, It is applicable in ANY instance in which law enforcement is engaged in an official actions that is part of their job.
There are cases that have gone to the supreme court where someone attempted to block police from entering a building when they did NOT have the lawful ability to do so, BUT the person stopping them did NOT have the right to block them.
Separately – do you actually think before you write this nonsense ?
Traffic violations are not crimes – but YOU will be charged with a crime if you interfere in a police officer conducting a traffic stop.
Police directing traffic is not a criminal investigation – it may not be an investigation of any kind. But if you interfere with the officer directing traffic – you will be charged with a crime.
In fact if you are directed by a police officer in a sitution where they are addressing public safety – whether they are directing cars or just directing people – and you refused to follow the direction of the officer – you will likely be arrested.
Again – if you do not like this – CHANGE THE LAW.
I do not personally agree with the breadth of deferance given to police officers and their power to issue orders to ordinary people that MUST BE OBEYED in a large variety of circumstances.
But that is our law. And that deferance has been getting greater over the past 60 years
“In this case, the ICE agents only had a civil administrative warrant that by definition does not allege a crime.”
Not relevant.
“There was no obstruction of justice or obstruction of a law enforcement officer in his official duties.”
Of course there was. ICE detaining illegal alien is an official duty. They do not need a warrant of any kind to do so.
They merely need a reasonable beleif that the person being detained is an illegal alien.
The police arrest people on the streets without a warrant of any kind all the time.
If you obstruct them – you too will be arrested.
“That is why they resorted to the bogus charge under Section 1505, of “obstructing, or impeding any pending proceeding before a department or agency of the United States, or Congress””
Those of you on the left thought that was acceptable when going after J6 defendants.
“The Supreme Court recently clarified the meaning of this statute. They said it applies ONLY to Congressional investigations and not the broader concept of general obstruction of justice involving investigations by any other agency.”
Then you would be able to cite specific cases.
ATS you are pretty much universally wrong about the law and the constitution. If you expect to be beleived in your claims, you must do better with your citations.
YOUR obligation to do better is specifically because your past vague claims have proved false.
“The exact same set of facts as for Dugan. The charge was dismissed.”
Except for the facts that you choose to ignore.
The case against MA Judge Joseph was not “dismissed.” She and her cohort were indicted by a grand jury. The case was then dropped by the Biden administration.
She was referred to the MA Commission on Judicial Conduct for disciplinary proceedings. In 2024, the Commission filed formal charges against her — based on the same scenario as Dugan’s: willful misconduct in aiding an illegal immigrant to evade ICE.
The rest of your comment is equally accurate.
Where did you get this goofy nonsense?
18 USC 1509 doesn’t say jack about a warrant.
If they were on;y there to QUESTION the guy, and she took actions to help him evade them, then she was obstructing them in the performance of their duties.
There is no silly nuance here, or mincing of words.
Aiding and abetting is another criminal statute, and has NOTHING to do with warrants. NOTHING.
How many time you think you gotta say “summarily dismissed” in the last 3 days before the genie grants your wishes?
Moron.
Well, maybe you should get your facts straight.
Dugan is not charged under USC 18 1509.
She is charged under USC 18 1505
This section relates to “obstructing, or impeding any pending proceeding before a department or agency of the United States, or Congress”.
This is a huge stretch by the DOJ. There is no pending proceeding by a department or agency or Congress.
It is just an ICE agent with an administrative warrant that carries no judicial weight.
It is not possible to obstruct an administrative warrant.because it is not a judicial document.
They DID NOT make a charge under 18 USC 1509, which you mistakenly believe. This section does actually deal with obstruction of court orders and arrest warrants, which are in fact court orders signed by a judge. However an administrative warrant is not a court order. It does not emanate from the Judicial Branch. It is simply an administrative document from the Executive branch, whereby one ICE agent authorizes another ICE agent to detain an illegal immigrant.
The first Trump administration attempted this same stunt, with the same charges, in 2019 with a judge in Massachusetts who let an illegal immigrant leave court by the back door to avoid ICE agents.
Using 18 USC 1505 with this set of facts is a huge stretch that has already failed.
The charges against the Massachusetts judge were dismissed , because 18 USC 1505 is not relevant.
Bondi and Patel know full well that this stunt will fail again.
In fact, that is part of the plan. They are not interested in prosecuting Dugan.
They have initially charged Dugan using a Criminal Complaint, but she has not yet been indicted. They have 21 days from the date of arrest to get an indictment from a Grand Jury. They know that the chances of a Grand Jury indictment are zero. Even if they get an indictment, the charge will be dismissed based on precedent from the Massachusetts case.
This whole episode is political theater.
All they want is the publicity from arresting a sitting judge so they can keep Trump and the MAGA mob agitated about “corrupt judges”.
This is just a small part of their overall plan to intimidate the Judiciary.
“This is a huge stretch by the DOJ. There is no pending proceeding by a department or agency or Congress.”
Of course there is – Ruiz has a warrant to be detained, that warrant means he will be brought before an IF judge who will determine if he is going to be deported. That is an official proceeding.
“It is just an ICE agent with an administrative warrant that carries no judicial weight.”
While your terminology is innaccurate, you are correct it is an administrative warrant.
Because it is not a judicial warrant, ICE can not enter the courtroom and take ruiz away in the middle of the proceeding.
So long as Judge Dugan’s case was proceeding – ICE could not interfere with Her proceding.
But the moment it was over, Her official power as a judge over Ruiz ended and ICE could come in and take Ruiz and there is nothing she could do about that.
No one – not even judges get to second guess law enforcement as they go about their job. The place to contest ICE’s detention of Ruiz – with or without a warrant and regardles sof the warrant type is at the deportation proceeding that follows.
If there are police outside a bank seeking to arrest someone they beleive is robbing a bank. You do not get to let the alleged robber out the back door because you beleive the person is innocent, or justified. You do nto get to do so even if you are a judge.
Judge Dugan’s ability to legally thwart ICE ended the moment her proceeding involving Ruiz ended.
“It is not possible to obstruct an administrative warrant.because it is not a judicial document.”
False it is possible to obstruct law enforcement even if there is no warrant at all.
The nature of a detention warrant is irrelevant to the law in this case.
Dugan would be guilty if there was no warrant at all.
“The first Trump administration attempted this same stunt, with the same charges, in 2019 with a judge in Massachusetts who let an illegal immigrant leave court by the back door to avoid ICE agents.”
They did and the Biden administration in 2021 negotiated a sweetheart deal.
But they did NOT let her off.
“Using 18 USC 1505 with this set of facts is a huge stretch that has already failed.
The charges against the Massachusetts judge were dismissed , because 18 USC 1505 is not relevant.”
False, the case was resolved by the Biden administration DOJ with the Judge agreeing to other disciplinary actions.
She got a slap on the wrist, but the validity of the use of that law was still confirmed.
“Bondi and Patel know full well that this stunt will fail again.”
Dugan will be prosecuted,
She will likely plead.
She will not get a deal as good as the MA judge, but she will get a deal.
She will likely be romeved as a judge and may lose her law license for some time.
“In fact, that is part of the plan. They are not interested in prosecuting Dugan.
They have initially charged Dugan using a Criminal Complaint, but she has not yet been indicted. They have 21 days from the date of arrest to get an indictment from a Grand Jury. They know that the chances of a Grand Jury indictment are zero. Even if they get an indictment, the charge will be dismissed based on precedent from the Massachusetts case.”
ROFL. The MA case is not only not precident – you do not seem to know what precident is. And it was NOT resolved the way you claim.
Binding precident would be if the MA case went to the supreme court and SCOTUS said you can not do this.
A negotiated setlement – or even the Biden DOJ dropping charges entirely is NOT precedent.
“This whole episode is political theater.”
That is correct – but ALL cases are political theater of some sort.
DOJ is sending a message – and the message is to Judges, YOU ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW.
“All they want is the publicity from arresting a sitting judge so they can keep Trump and the MAGA mob agitated about “corrupt judges”.
This is just a small part of their overall plan to intimidate the Judiciary.”
Aside from spin you are correct.
This is an attempt to intmidate lawless judges.
And not just idiot judges like Dugan that actively violate the law when they no longer have immunity.
But they are also looking to intimidate judges like Boasberg and Xinis who are also acting illegally, but have immunity.
They are also looking to allow those on the left to paint themselves as nutcases and lawless.
Dugan’s criminal actions undermine the authority of ALL democrat judges on Trump cases.
This is political theater – you are correct.
Just as the idiocy of Boasberg and Xinis and others is politiacl theater,
Just as those burning tesla dealerships and those prosecuting them are engaged in political theater.
The Audience is Trump followers, but it is also independents and even democrats who care about the rule of law.
Regardless of the courts resolution of the Dugan case – the overwhelming majority of people will see her actions as criminal.
When law enforment is doing its job, we challenge them – IN COURT, not on the streets.
Law enforcement makes errors. And we hold them accountable – IN COURT.
If you attempt to substitute your judgement for law enforcement in the course of thir doing their job – you will be arrested, prosecuted and likely convicted. That will happen – even if law enforement was making a mistake.
John Say
As usual John Say comes up with nonsensical drivel he gets from the voices in his head.
The nature of the warrant is absolutely critical and dispositive with regard to criminal charges.
No one, least of all judges, are compelled to cooperate with ICE, or their administrative warrants.
Refusing to cooperate with ICE is NOT obstruction of justice, because ICE does not act in a judicial capacity. Immigration violations are civil, not criminal matters. An ICE administrative warrant is a civil warrant.
If there are elements of criminal activity associated with the immigration violation, then ICE can get a Judicial Warrant from a judge. In that case obstructing the ICE warrant is in fact obstruction of justice.
But in this case, ICE did not get a Judicial Warrant. All they had was a civil administrative warrant.
If obstructing an ICE officer with an administrative warrant is obstruction of justice then Dugan could easily be charged under 18 USC 73, which is entitled “Obstruction of Justice” and deals with obstruction of JUDICIAL proceedings.
BUT SHE WAS NOT CHARGED UNDER THIS STATUTE !!!!!
Why not ?????
Because the ICE agents only had a civil administrative warrant.
The ICE agents were not acting in a judicial capacity.
Bondi and Patel know that a charge of obstruction will not fly.
Instead they resorted to 18 USC 1505, “Obstructing, or impeding any pending proceeding before a department or agency of the United States, or Congress”
This is a huge stretch that has already failed with the same set of facts in Massachusetts.This is the same stunt they tried to pull in 2019 with the Judge in Massachusetts. That charge went nowhere. The charges were dropped, and that judge is still on the bench.
This fiasco involving Dugan is going nowhere.
The precedent has been set with the Massachusetts case.
Bondi and Patel know this. That is why they charged her using a Criminal Complaint. They did not go to the Grand Jury first, but they still have to get a Grand Jury indictment. They have 21 days from the arrest to get that indictment. They know that a Grand Jury indictment is unlikely, so they are using the publicity from the arrest as a publicity stunt. They know that this prosecution is doomed and they are just milking the case for publicity.
That’s all this is. A publicity stunt to keep the MAGA mob agitated.
The case is going nowhere.
Acting to thwart is not failing to cooperate. This is not a failure to cooperate. It is acting to thwart. You’re an idiot who can’t have an intelligent conversation.
Acting to thwart ANY Federal Officer in the performance of their duties is a criminal act, pick your statute. Abetting his evasion, also a crime, No warrant needed.
ICE agents dont need a warrant to PERFORM THEIR DUTIES. Deny it all you want, but the statutes are clear.
No one cares to hear the argument you read in Vox.
You didnt even get the MA case right.
Just keep repeating yourself, its a good look.
You’re exactly 0 for 86 in legal predictions, Lawn Boy. You think you’ll be right this time?
By the way, you’re the only one who sounds agitated. Well, you and Gigi.
Legal Repercussions of Interfering with ICE Arrests
While many individuals may feel compelled to intervene during an ICE arrest to protect a friend or family member, it is essential to understand that such actions can carry serious legal consequences. Interfering with an ICE arrest is not only risky but can also lead to criminal charges against those who attempt to obstruct or hinder law enforcement.
ICE officers are sworn federal law enforcement officers who operate within the confines of the law. Pursuant to federal law ICE officers have the authority to arrest undocumented immigrants without a judicial warrant.
1. Obstruction of Justice: Under federal law, obstructing an officer in the performance of their official duties is a serious offense. This includes actions such as physically blocking ICE agents, providing false information, or using intimidation to prevent an arrest. Depending on the circumstances, individuals could face misdemeanor or felony charges, leading to fines and potential jail time.
2. Aiding and Abetting/Harboring: Individuals who provide assistance to someone evading arrest, whether through transportation, shelter, or other means, may also face legal repercussions. Under federal law, this can be viewed as aiding and abetting a fugitive, which is a criminal offense. Federal law also prohibits harboring of an undocumented immigrant. Under this law, individuals who shield an undocumented immigrant from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield an undocumented immigrant from detection could face felony charges.
Citation for above
https://www.birdsall-law.com/legal-implications-of-interfering-with-immigration-enforcement
Another reason why nobody has seen Napolitano is years.
The administrative warrant was actually for Judge Dugan’s process and Ruiz was arrestable on the street. He was a re-entry and that’s a crime. Judge Dugan has prior mishandling of cases…
#. Toofer one ..slick. 😉
Judge Cano was only charged with destroying evidence, misdemeanor and of course he resigned.
Dugan obstruction is a felony. La tee da. 6 years, 350 thou? She might decide to resign.
What type of warrant it is, is irrelevant to whether her conduct obstructed ICE.
No she does not have immunity for sheparding someone out of her courtroom to evade law enforcement.
Contra Nepalitona this is a slam dunk outside a left wing nut court.
But there will likely be a deal here.
The judge will resign, possibly surrender her law license, and probably plead to something that requires a year of probation which if she completes results in the record being expunged.
It is unlikely that a judge is going to slam another judge.
But Neapolitano is correct this is theater.
The intention was to send a message to those on the left – DO NOT OBSTRUCT ICE.
Separately this is also bad for left wing nut judges more broadly. It does not make the TDS federal judges look good,
There are just not quite criminal in their lawlessness.
“… Although a majority of justices, including liberal Justice Elena Kagan, have complained about district courts’ issuance of national injunctions, the high court has done little to rein in district court judges. …”
The powers to be want to break the Judiciary Branches efficacy, by stifling the system.
“… “Protecting the American People against Invasion,” …”
The powers to be want to Segregate and Separate WE the People (divide & conquer), to bring about chaos and instill their Marshall Law.
“… There is a need to deescalate in both branches as we expedite these appeals. We are indeed “here again,” …”
The powers to be want to the System to be ‘Out-of-Focus’. So that it can continue to operate (Deep State S.O.P.*).
* Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) …
“… The term is sometimes used facetiously to refer to practices that are unconstructive, yet the norm. In the Philippines, for instance, “SOP” is the term for pervasive corruption within the government and its institutions. …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_operating_procedure
Who wrote this mess?
A fair assessment. The quotes are directly from Jonathan’s post above.
The Comment portends to say that: Stifling Efficacy
Stifling the Efficacy of the Presidency is a primary goal of the Deep State
Stifling the Efficacy of the Judiciary is a primary goal of the Deep State
Stifling the Efficacy of the Congressional Congregation of Glorified Purchasing Agents,
So that more funds can be allocated to the Deep State. In that all funds that are approved under the cover of ‘In Committee’ continue covertly.
Divide & Conquer (Control) the People by keeping chaos between them.
For the most part it seem that the Deep State continues in reaching it’s goals. Look at the past 4 years (Biden Admin), Why change a winning formula?
i.e.:
Trump is Cock Blocked
The Bench is overwhelmed/overbooked
The Congressional Cluster-F is Business-As-Usual providing Funds ‘In Committee’ for Covert Ops,
while the DOGE provides the surface cover as Budget Cuts.
And Rachael Maddow has things to crow about.
Seems all is well in D.C..
A fair assessment. The quotes are directly from Jonathan’s post above.
The Comment portends to say that: Stifling Efficacy
Stifling the Efficacy of the Presidency is a primary goal of the Deep State
Stifling the Efficacy of the Judiciary is a primary goal of the Deep State
Stifling the Efficacy of the Congressional Congregation of Glorified Purchasing Agents,
So that more funds can be allocated to the Deep State. In that all funds that are approved under the cover of ‘In Committee’ continue covertly.
Divide & Conquer (Control) the People by keeping chaos between them. Democrats>v<Republicans
For the most part it seem that the Deep State continues in reaching it's goals. i.e.:
Trump is Contained as a War rages on,
The Bench is overwhelmed/overbooked,
The Congressional Cluster is Business-As-Usual providing Funds 'In Committee' for Covert Ops,
while the DOGE provides the surface cover as Budget Cuts.
And Rachael Maddow has things to crow about.
Seems all is well in D.C.
So what legal protections am I afforded under 2A, if I invoke it?
You’re on your own if you choose to entertain abortive ideation to relieve a “burden” for a cause other than self-defense. Pehaps you would be wiser to wield a scalpel or machete under the Twilight Amendment under the established Pro-Choice religion with progressive principles in a sanctuary state operating with a liberal license.
Maybe I should find a bench next to those that we need relief from, state that they are harassing me, then stab them. At least I could generate a few 100 grand for my defense.
In due time there will be a ‘best seller’ naming names and what they did to politicize and weaponize America’s judicial system . . . and ponder when America’s judicial system will be exemplary once again.
I have no words. SCOTUS and Congress are either asleep, or they approve. Most are Obama appointees; Obama was a cancer to this nation in every sense of the word. Rooting it out will be like rooting out termites, and it will take generations. I’m sure that was the idea. He is one of the most vile people to ever inhabit the American body politic, and the rest who share that distinction (not all – McConnell etc. don’t get a pass) are almost exclusively DNC.
The Democrats claim that President Trump’s executive orders push beyond the limits of Presidential authority. Whatever the merits of their argument, their real motive is to keep the suicide pact in force.
The GOP claims that Biden and the Democrats have so gamed the immigration system that extraordinary measures are needed, and I believe there is some merit to that argument, but I don’t know how far it should go in expanding presidential authority. I strongly suspect that the Supreme Court recognizes the lawlessness of the district courts but seems reluctant to offset that with a blank-check presidency.
I’m not expert enough to know how this will play out, but I also know that for patriots and conservatives, Joe Biden and the Democrats deliberately created an existential crisis with their novel exploitation of illegal immigration. Joe Biden is among the greatest political criminals in American history, second only to Jefferson Davis.
Diogenes,
Read this one, Federal workers are waging a resistance against Trump agenda. It’s captured in videos and polling
“Recent investigations and a new report reveal a portion of the federal workforce, whose income is paid by tax revenue, are openly resisting President Donald Trump’s efforts to rein in illegal immigration, reform the eduction system and other agenda items supported by his voters.”
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/federal-workers-paid-taxpayers-openly-defying-trump-agenda-will-voters
These are the people DOGE needs to find and fire.
Yes! This is why I want most of the federal work force moved out of D.C. Too many Democrats in one place is like a manure pile. Nothing grows; it just stinks.
Diogenes-Well said. If you spread the manure out widely enough, the smell decreases and the manure actually can be useful.
Yep, one can make them work rather than sabotage.
At least you won’t burn the grass, just might even make it grow.
True…the anti-christ movement.
The antichrist is before the scotus everyday. The antichrist sits on courts, is in government, is in the population, permeates life. It is in fact the antichrist.
All these cases are very simple. Follow the law without an attempt to skirt the law. It is the antichrist that will not.
The scotus will find it partially ok to have love stories regarding lgbt in school libraries but indirectly in primary schools. Stories and picture books of uncle Bobby’s wedding can not directly discuss homosexuality but only as a backdrop as it is a fait accompli. At uncle Bobby’s wedding Chloe can have an adventure with something other than homosexual marriage. She adopts a stray dog or she found or enjoys new desserts etc. The court will disallow direct sexual education as age inappropriate.
Diogenes, we are not the lucky people. It’s left and right and all inclusive. I don’t blame a person like justice jackson but rather 97 senators in confirmation. What is a woman could have been addressed as it is addressed in other laws by blackburn and Jackson. Example in the question is adoption. The biological father is not the adoptive father. Are transgender women biological women? No. The problem was in Jackson’s arrogance and response of I’m not a biologist. Maybe she should be.
These justices are undergrad and grad lit and history majors. It’s time for a few JDs with grad biology and physics degrees? Jackson has never thought about the metaphysics of law.
This case is simple if the intent and spirit of the law is followed. If you’re here illegally, leave. If you can fix it by updating a visa or obtaining a passport, do it within 6 months.
Judge Dugan’s case is about a man committing several crimes. He’s a re-enter which is a crime and not civil.
😏 enjoy Zorasterism.
@Diogenes
In a word, ‘Yup.’, particularly your last. No one else from Davis on who held office even comes close.
Diogenes,
Your thesis is untenable.
Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution and is fully constitutional.
Multiple states codified their right to secede in their constitutional ratification documents.
Jefferson Davis et al. most certainly had the right to secede; the South would have seceded, failed, and ultimately reunified with the North.
It was Lincoln who violated the right to and freedom of secession in the Constitution; every subsequent act of Lincoln was and remains invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional up to and including the improperly ratified and unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments” of his Progressive successors, which were conceived by Karl Marx, Lincoln’s fellow traveler.
Lincoln threw the baby out with the bathwater; he threw the Constitution out with reprehensible slavery.
On January 1, 1863, the resolution to slavery was the fully constitutional immigration law of the Founders that denied slaves any right to “be admitted to become citizens,” resulting inexorably in their compassionate repatriation or deportation.
It was Lincoln who commenced a war by illegally deploying his military forces in the territory of a sovereign nation, illegally imposing martial law, illegally suspending habeas corpus, illegally failing to enforce existing immigration law, etc., etc., etc.
American freedom persisted for a mere 71 years, until Abraham Lincoln’s totally illegal “Reign of Terror.”
In a society of laws, the laws must be adhered to.
Lincoln did not.
The Democrats claim that President Trump’s executive orders push beyond the limits of Presidential authority. … far it should go in expanding presidential authority. “
Diogenes, I do not believe this constitutes an expansion of federal authority. As head of the Executive Branch, the President is charged with enforcing the law, not rewriting it. We are dealing with illegal aliens, some of whom pose real dangers to the public. All have broken the law by entering or remaining unlawfully. It is the President’s constitutional duty to correct this by either removing them from the country or, when appropriate, jailing them. Failure to act would amount to a neglect of his sworn responsibilities.
I agree in principle, but not being a lawyer, the black box of legality seems to be choking the courts.
Common sense should be the rule of the day. Today’s lawyers, in an abominable twist of their true mission, no longer work to fairly separate claims but instead strive to turn black and white into endless shades of gray.
Basically, a class action without asking and without certifying. Also, no mandatory bond imposed by a crooked judge. Trump must consider reciprocating judge’s middle finger with flipping a bird on his own. Just ignore on account of failure of imposing mandatory bond and allowing a class action without certification, and let the Supremes weight in.
Here’s where this is headed: Trump won the election based in large part on his promise to clean up the immigration disaster Biden and the Dems created over the past 4 years. Trump won and now the leftists in black robes are conniving to thwart the will of the American people. This was an 80/20 issue during the election which the over-zealous Leftist judges are trying their damnedest to make into a 95/5 issue. Keep it up, lefties, and you’ll eventually be the only lefties left in the judicial system. We are, after all, a republic which should reflect the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box. Or has the Left abandoned that concept in favor of unsustainable lawfare?
“… when Trump came to office, the taste for national injunctions became a full-fledged addiction. Trump faced 64 such orders in his first term.
When Biden and the Democrats returned to office, it fell back to 14. …”
The powers to be want a meek President. One that disguises their will.
“… Although a majority of justices, including liberal Justice Elena Kagan, have complained about district courts’ issuance of national injunctions, the high court has done little to rein in district court judges. …”
The powers to be want to break the Judiciary Branches efficacy, by stifling the system.
“… “Protecting the American People against Invasion,” …”
The powers to be want to Segregate and Separate WE the People, to bring about chaos and instill their Marshall Law.
“… There is a need to deescalate in both branches as we expedite these appeals. We are indeed “here again,” …”
The powers to be want to the System to be ‘Out-of-Focus’. So that it can continue to operate (Deep State S.O.P.*).
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_operating_procedure
Re: standard operating procedure (SOP)
“… The term is sometimes used facetiously to refer to practices that are unconstructive, yet the norm. In the Philippines, for instance, “SOP” is the term for pervasive corruption within the government and its institutions. …”
The Judiciary is as corrupt as any other branch of Government . . . and, I imagine, it always has been. That’s why lawyers “forum shop” in the first place. It’s why politicians, especially Presidents, say: “Elections matter.” Everyone knows who the liberal Justices are on the Supreme Court and everyone knows who the Conservatives are. The case law and precedent that they so piously cite is just smoke and mirrors.
What’s needed is a hanging judge like Judge Fenton & his fiery brand of justice.
Rogue TDS-infected (and TRO-obsessed) judges seem intent on erasing Art. 2, § 3 from the Constitution. That provision, of course, not only empowers but mandates that presidents — including President Trump — “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
One could argue that these rogues in black, at the behest of TDS-infected lawyers, have now adopted the approach of Mr. Trump’s immediate predecessor regarding that requirement of the Constitution: “fageddaboudit.”
If it ain’t one thing it’s another. We now see that dangerous foreign agents who punch people in the face 30 times are harbored by American judges. Now it comes to light that universities such as Harvard and Columbia support the from the river to the sea crowd because they are receiving millions of dollars in donations from foreign nations that support Hamas. These universities know that if they don’t allow Jews to be attacked on their campuses the funds from Saudi Arabia and Qatar will dry up. When millions are at stake the nose high in the air bunch simply say; “Morality, we don’t need no stinkin morality.” https://www.thefp.com/p/explosion-in-foreign-funding-for-american-universities
TiT,
To add to that, ‘Reminiscent of the KKK’: Columbia Janitors Sue Protesters Who Took Over Hamilton Hall
“Mario Torres and Lester Wilson were trapped inside a Columbia building by masked protesters last spring, assaulted, and called ‘Jew lovers,’ according to a new lawsuit filed Friday.”
https://www.thefp.com/p/exclusive-columbia-janitors-sue-protesters
Dugan is in for trouble. I expect the book thrown at her.
Though the reasons for restraint were clear, had the Republicans filed more injunctions against Biden’s legislation, especially those that clearly failed legal standards, we might not be facing this mess today. The Supreme Court would likely have already acted to put a stop to it.
Maybe it is time to threaten to end the boycott, as the Dems supported 6 months ago, and add a few Justices to the SCOTUS. Maybe a new switch in time will smarten up nine.
PS. The Dems said the boycott was a racist vestige so let’s end it now.
Bobby, I assume you are meaning the filibuster? Because yes, put it right where their mouths are. Force them to either acknowledge they want what we want (a quandary to those afflicted with TDS), or watch their floundering tank them another 5 points nationwide.
-Rabble
Hullbobby-nicely said with a friendly little jingle. Perfect sticker for the car, Tesla or otherwise.
I think we are passed the stage of talking and are awaiting action from either Congress – to restrict the entire district judicial cabal, or for Justice Robert’s to grow a spine.
Instead of wailing about the prog attack via our justice system, we should be prodding congress to take action.
No more discussion is useful.
Who is “we”. You’re really not in tune are you? Prodding ? What and who?
If you cannot comprehend that “We” are the sane, adult, true Americans, then it is evident that you are part of the opposition, and are a threat.
The house has passed a bill limiting federal judges jurisdiction. The same bill has been offered by Sen. Grassley and is working its way through the senate.
Finally, some congress members with common sense and a lack of fear of the progs and the media.
They won’t do it. Because limiting injunctions or even forum shopping will undermine Trump’s and the Republican’s agendas in the future. It would mean no more forum shopping and taking cases to Judge Kacsmaryk in Texas for nationwide injunctions against abortion or any other Republican pet grievance. There would be no more nationwide injunctions against Democrat Presidents, or Democrats in general. It would negate any benefit of packing district courts with Republicans if they are no longer able to issue national injunctions.
Democrats are doing exactly what Republicans did when Biden was in office. Republicans just don’t like being on the other side of that tactic so they whine and moan about it, because it’s….unfair.
The numbers cited give complete LIE to your post, george. Leftists use lawfare. Repubs not so much.
The numbers are irrelevant. It’s the moaning and whining that democrats are using a tactic Republicans saw no problem with becasue it was a benefit to their causes. Now that’s used against them it’s unfair. That kind of hypocrisy is what diminishes the credibility of their arguments.
No state-level judge should be able to make sweeping actions affecting the entire nation. Given they were not elected (with a few exceptions), does that not fit your very own definition of facism? An unelected body dictating governance without any check or balance on authority?
Last evening I watched an interview regarding the Democrat party and its current state. The final consensus was, it’s no longer the Democrat party but a party taken over by Socialists, Marxist and communists. The takeover started sometime ago maybe 20 years past but it was successful. The last of the old guard is either leaving or facing a primary engineered by this “new” democrat. The Democrat party is no more and I hope that Americans wake up to the dangers of this “new” democrat.
No more dem party? If they ain’t a party, then what are the reps battling?
Woke lunatics 0- often in robes.
Is the D party being communist (which it is not) better or worse that the R party being fascists (which they are)?
Democrats are both communists and fascist. They demonstrate it openly.
Upstate, Franke has already proven he is not up to the job defining ideologies. I decided to do it for him, George Svelaz and the others. I don’t know how to create a graphic for this blog so I will try a text of what the graphic would look like.
All fascism developed from Socialism/communism). Below is a tree of development. All are based on state supremacy.
Early Socialism (early 1800s)–>
–>1)Marxist communism (class struggle) ->Orthodox Marxism –> Leninism Stalinism
AND
–>)Nationalist Socialism (national struggle)–> Italian Fascism and German Nazism
We can extend the tree from the Lenin Stalin side to Wokism and Social Democracy a la Bernie Sanders.
The common features of all these groups are:
1) Supremacy of the group over the individual.
2) Big Government
3) Rejection of classical liberal ideas (censorship, rejection of free speech, rejection of free markets
4) State control of the economy.
5) Suppresses dissent (I’m not sure about Bernie Sanders’ suppresses dissent, though his ideas lead to that happening).
Keep telling yourself that, franke – we leftists GOOD, those Repubs BAD. What color is the sky in your world, franke,?
Well professor Turley, there is a big reason why there are so many injunctions. Because there are equally a lot more EO’s than any other president. Many of these EO’s are unalwful or unconstitutional. So any organization challenging the lawfulness or constitutionality of these EO’s has the right to file as many motions to enjoin as possible. Especially when there is direct harm, civil rights violations, and constitutional violations. Why is this Surprising?
Republicans are big fans of forum shopping. That’s how Trump managed to wiggle out of some of his cases and Republicans love sending immigrants to Texas and Lousiana almost immediately because they know they have friendly judges and appellate courts. This has been an issue for a while and Democrats proposed limits on forum shopping. Even the Supreme Court sought to stop the practice, but conservative districts thumbed their noses at SCOTUS. Turley was dead quiet about it. Only because Trump has encountered a record number of lawsuits and motions to enjoin because he’s ‘flooding the zone’. Why would Turley expect there would not be any increased litigation regarding Trump’s lawless and unconstitutional actions?
Even Trump appointed judges have issued injunctions against him. This is how our process works and Turley seems baffled about the increase in injunctions and lawsuits challenging Trump’s edicts by EO. As long as Republicans in Congress sit on their hands and shrug their shoulders the judicial branch provides the next best and legal method to slow down or stop Trump’s lawlessness.
George, there are other presidents that have issued large number of EO’s that faced NONE of his lawfare.
Further the legitimacy of many of these EO’s was determined by the courts during Trump’s first term.
Next EO’s that undo prior presidents EO’s are with near absolute certainty constitutional.
If a president has the power to do something.
A subsequent president has the power to undo it.
“When the DJT regime put Albrego Garcia and the Venezuelans on the planes to El Salvador that was in defiance of Judge Boasberg’s clear order that the deportees be immediately returned. ”
YOur facts are incorrect. The deportees were already on the plane and in the air when Boasberg issued his unclear oral order. They were laready in El Salvador or in the air over honduras when Boasberg issued his Writen order which was clearer but did NOT say that the planes had to return,
Boasberg NEVER had and still does not have jurisdiction. As the supreme court has affirmed – the AEA is presumptively constitutional, and the rights of deportees under it are limited to Habeaus and Habeus claims must be made in the jurisdiction in which the deportee is detained.
Boasberg NEVER had jurisdiction. He still has not explained why he has jurisdiction.
He still has not explained the lawful and constitutional basis for his orders.
He still has not explained why he even has this case.
Those of you on the left talk about authoritarians and kings, and the end of democracy.
But it is YOU that are doing all of that.
In what world is it you think that TdA members can not be deported ?
In what world is it that you think MS13 members, wife beaters, drug dealers and human traffickers like Garcia can not be deported ?
You rant about Due process – but Garcia was found to be an MS13 member by 3 separate courts in 2019. He claim of asylum was rejected by the courts.
A court merely ordered that he could not be deported to GUATAMALA – where his family was because of threats by the now defunt RAsario 18 competing gang.
Last Week an Arizona judge was arrested for destroying evidence, obstructing justice, hiding a TdA member in his pool house and providing him with an automatic weapon. A milwaukee judge was arrested for trying to sneak a deportee who had violently assualted 3 people out of the court house to avoid an ICE arrest – again obstruction.
These are NOT the antifa like extreme people burning down Tesla dealerships and firebombing Teslas.
These were people who in theory rose to the pinacle of the law profession. Who purportedly understood the rule of law. Who understood that the role of the courts is limited to following the law and constitution Not changing or makeing public policy.
The only difference between the lawless actions of these judges and those of Boasberg Xinis and Oreck and others like them is that their lawless acts are done as orders from the bench. They are no less lawless or legitimate, But by acting within the constraints of their official capacity they probably can not be charged and prosecuted for obstruction.
“Refusal to abide by a court order means AG was “unlawfully” abducted and “transported” in “foreign commerce across a state boundary” and those who authorized the illegal deportations could all face “kidnapping” charges under 18 USC 1201.”
No, it does not. It does not mean that anymore than AG Boindi can arrest Judge Boasberg for unlawfully hindering the actions of ICE officers.
I repeatedly admonish those on the right here that want to call all the often lawless and obstructive efforts of those on the left, judges, lawyers, democrats and ordinary left wing nuts treason.
The misconduct of a FEW of these people is actually criminal, more are the basis for discipline, removal or termination. Most are merely the basis for public oprobrium.
“In a unanimous ruling the SC ordered the AG should be returned to the US.”
The SC ruled no such thing. Please post such and order.
John Say,
“ George, there are other presidents that have issued large number of EO’s that faced NONE of his lawfare.”
But none as many as Turmp has and you know it. Plus many are lawless and unconstitutional coupled with incompetence and mismanagement these EO’s are easy targets to challenge. That’s the distinction Turley and you avoid.
“ Further the legitimacy of many of these EO’s was determined by the courts during Trump’s first term.”
Eh, no. Because many of Trump’s. first term EOs were either found to be unconstitutional or violated federal laws and he was forced to change them to correct their initial flaws, meaning the incompetence of the first term EO’s implementation were disasters.
“ Next EO’s that undo prior presidents EO’s are with near absolute certainty constitutional.
If a president has the power to do something.
A subsequent president has the power to undo it.“
No disagreement there. But it seems Trump went furher, becasue that’s his thing. He has to outdo Biden. Turley seems to be the one griping about Biden’s EO’s cancelling Trump’s first terrm EO’s as if they were wrong. Biden had fewer injunctions against him because he wasn’t issuing EO’s that drastically altered laws and processes and encouraged lawless actions that resulted in cruel and vindictive actions. There were far fewer controversies with his EO’s than Trump’s. Trump uses EO’s amass power and bypass constitutional rights.
“ “When the DJT regime put Albrego Garcia and the Venezuelans on the planes to El Salvador that was in defiance of Judge Boasberg’s clear order that the deportees be immediately returned. ”
YOur facts are incorrect. The deportees were already on the plane and in the air when Boasberg issued his unclear oral order. They were laready in El Salvador or in the air over honduras when Boasberg issued his Writen order which was clearer but did NOT say that the planes had to return,”
I don’t know where that came from, but you’re wrong on this one.
Boesberg was indeed clear. I doesn’t matter whether the planes were airborne or in El Salvador Airpspace. They are still American aircraft operating under U.S. rules and regulations. The don’t immediately cease to be American when they leave U.S. airspace. Trump deliberately ignored the Court orders and landed them anyway. Even the Supreme Court agreed Boesberg’s order was lawful. If those were foreign registered aircraft then Boesberg’s order wouldn’t have applied.
“ Boasberg NEVER had and still does not have jurisdiction. As the supreme court has affirmed – the AEA is presumptively constitutional, and the rights of deportees under it are limited to Habeaus and Habeus claims must be made in the jurisdiction in which the deportee is detained.“
Actually he did have jurisdiction at the time. And no Teh Supreme Court did not affirm the AEA is presumptively constitutional. They didn’t rule on whether the Trump administration’s use of the AEA is constitutional. They punted on that question and it seems they are going to answer that question soon.
Trump is moving detainees and giving them “notice” (12 hrs) to contest their detainment and claims that they are TdA members. Trump is deliberately moving detainees out of jurisdictions where there is no injunction preventing deportations and This is why the Supreme Court intervened as quickly as they did. Trump is hell bent on defying court orders because he sees due process rights as a hindrance to his goal of deporting as many immigrants as possible by bypassing their constitutional rights.
“ I repeatedly admonish those on the right here that want to call all the often lawless and obstructive efforts of those on the left, judges, lawyers, democrats and ordinary left wing nuts treason.”
Really? I’ve not seen any such admonishments or criticisms. They must be far and few in between.
George – as always you write a lot of complete nonsense based only on whatever hamster is running your brain today.
Trump has “a lot more EOs than any other president”. He’s likely on track for that, but he still has a ways to go to catch up to Bill Clinton. He’s roughly in the Obama range right now.
The point Turley is making (which went over your head completely) is that the Judges are acting improperly and outside of their constitutional limitations. The are a co-equal branch. The Judiciary is NOT all 3 branches of government. The Supreme Court must put a stop to this.
Clinton issued 200 EO’s in his entire first term. Then 164 in his second. averaging 50 EO’s a years thereabouts.
Obama issued 147 his first term and 129 his second term.
Trump issued 220 in all of his first term and 139 within 100 days of his second term. He’s on track to keep making more and face an equal number of lawysuits and legal actions against them.
Judges are not acting improperly. They seem to be improper only because they are rulings against Trump’s lawless EO’s. He is calling for the impeachment of judges who rule against him because he doesn’t like the fact that they are serving as a check on his power.
When are we going to start villifying the PLAINTIFFS? The judges are doing the bidding of unelected plaintiffs, who are nothing but political activists, not injured parties. Why doesn’t Roberts insist such political policy lawsuits be sent across the street to be argued in Congress? Accepting these lawsuits is the Constitutional affront.
The plantiffs are NOT the problem. Everyone is entitled to bring whatever idiotic claims they wish to court.
We NEVER wish to limit that.
It is the Courts that at each stage in a case must decide if the plaintiffs claims have merit in law and constitution and if the plantiffs have standing to bring the case. It is the judges that are required to insist on bonds where TRO’s have significant cost.
The lawyers of the parties are expected and in most cases entitled to bring forth whatever arguements they think will serve the interests of their clients and we NEVER wish to second guess that and subject them to consequential actions just for bringing an unpopular case.
It is the judges that are REQUIRED to limit the cases before them to legitimate plantiffs, and to arguments that have constitutional and legal merit over which they have jurisdiction.
Judges are required to be neutral – to follow the constitution and the law NOT their personal policy preferences.
Judges are required to confine their decisions – their orders to the law and constitution.
Not policy preferences.
This is a problem with the courts.
The courts must correct it themselves – or congress or the executive will correct it for them.
The plaintiffs are the problem when they are NGO that are funded by my money.
“ It is the judges that are required to insist on bonds where TRO’s have significant cost.”
Only if the defendants request it. It’s rare and debatable that a plaintifff have money to litigage. anyway. It limits the right to a fair trial to only those who can afford it.
I am not an attorney so my reading of legal documents is hampered by lack of knowledge of the corpus of law. With that said, District Judge Orrick notes in the final paragraph of his order, in the link provided by JT:
This Order shall apply to the maximum extent provided for by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) and 5 U.S.C. §§ 705 and 706
So I had to look up Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2). No where in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(2) does it make a distinction between District vs Appeals vs Supreme courts. The word used throughout FRCP is simply “court”. To wit:
(a) Preliminary Injunction.
(1) Notice. The court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.
[…]
(b) Temporary Restraining Order.
(1) Issuing Without Notice. The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its attorney only if……
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_65
Additionally, the FRCP 65(d)(2), same URL, states
The Act of August 24, 1937, provided for a district court of three judges to hear and determine an action to enjoin the enforcement of any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution of the United States.
I am not clear why today’s district courts lack 3 judges to determine an action to enjoin the enforcement of any Act of Congress for repugnance to the Constitution but it is clear that these district courts can enjoin Congress and presumably the Executive.
Additionally it is my understanding that the Chief Justice of SCOTUS has no power as an individual. He is just 1 vote of 9 on SCOTUS. SCOTUS does have the power to direct lesser courts but only when they rule as a court.
I find what the Left wing District Judges are doing is shifty stuff. However, if Congress has not passed legislation to date to curb the powers of these District Judges, then the blame is on them.