California Gov. Gavin Newsom has become increasingly Orwellian in his declarations of success. Last week, Newsom was proclaiming the great success of his high-speed train to nowhere – a project delayed by decades, reduced to a fraction of the original plan, and set to cost tens of billions over budget.
This week, he is proclaiming victory after a court struck down his signature law requiring federal agents to unmask. The preliminary injunction issued Monday by Senior status Judge Christine Snyder against California’s No Secret Police Act was a victory for the Trump Administration. However, it should still appeal Judge Snyder’s flawed decision. In other words, the Administration won for the wrong reason.
Snyder, an Obama appointee, faced two laws passed in September 2025 with great fanfare in California: the Secret Police Act and the No Vigilante Act. As their titles indicate, they are not serious efforts at legislating but unconstitutional acts designed to pander to the politics of the moment.
In the oral argument, some of us were concerned over the curious position staked out by Judge Synder.
DOJ counsel Tiberius Davis tried to explain how such state laws usurp federal authority and violate the Supremacy Clause. He drove that point home by asking “Why couldn’t California say every immigration officer needs to wear pink, so it’s super obvious who they are? The idea that all 50 states can regulate the conduct and uniforms of officers … flips the Constitution on its head.”
That would seem an unassailable point, but not to Judge Synder. She asked, “Why can’t they perform their duties without a mask? They did that until 2025, did they not? How in the world do those who don’t mask manage to operate?”
I remarked at the time that the court seemed to miss the central point. The question is not whether the federal government can continue to function under limitations imposed by various states, but whether those states have the authority to impose such conditions.
I do not believe that they do.
Nevertheless, Judge Synder came to the right conclusion for the wrong reason. She enjoined the mask requirement, but did so on the basis that California exempted its own officers.
“Even though the United States has failed to demonstrate that the facial covering prohibition of the No Secret Police Act unduly interferes with federal functions, the court acknowledges that it is nonetheless an incidental regulation on law enforcement officers. The intergovernmental immunity doctrine prohibits imposing such a regulatory burden, albeit minimal and incidental to operations, in a discriminatory manner against the federal government.”
By adopting this narrow basis, the court was able to enjoin the No Secret Police Act while rejecting an injunction against the No Vigilantes Act and certain other provisions of the No Secret Police Act. I think the court is wrong and should be reversed.
Snyder rejected the rationale of the federal government that these masks are being used to protect ICE agents from “doxing,” even though various agents have been targeted and threatened. Synder waved off the concern and said that the government had not shown by such masking is essential to carrying out such functions. Her opinion relies on broad, unsupported assumptions. Because officers are facing these security concerns, she concludes that they will continue regardless: “Security concerns exist for federal law enforcement officers with or without masks. If anything, the court finds that the presence of masked and unidentifiable individuals, including law enforcement, is more likely to heighten the sense of insecurity for all.”
It is a bizarre rationalization. The court is simply imposing its judgment on what will make officers safer, rather than emphasizing whether these agencies have the discretion to make such judgments in the execution of federal law. Yet the court still enjoins the law because it discriminates between federal and state officers. (Not surprisingly, Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener, the author of the mask ban, immediately declared that they would amend the law to add state law enforcement).
The Court then upheld a state requirement that federal officers cannot conceal their identities in a discussion more befitting a legislative committee than a court:
“The Court finds that these Acts serve the public interest by promoting transparency, which is essential for accountability and public trust. Moreover, the Court finds no cognizable justification for law enforcement officers to conceal their identities during their performance of routine, non-exempted law enforcement functions and interactions with the general public.”
In my view, Judge Snyder twists the analysis into knots to try to preserve as much of these laws as possible while giving the Administration the minimum level of deference.
Under the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, the Supreme Court has mandated in cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 317 (1819), that “the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional law enacted by congress to carrying into execution the powers vested in the general government.” A state cannot intrude into this authority absent a “clear and unambiguous” authorization from Congress, Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486, U.S. 174, 180 (1988).
Snyder finds that the California laws discriminate but do not constitute direct regulation of the federal government. She does so through a “functionalist” approach that avoids bright lines of supremacy. She simply dismisses the objections, saying the federal government has not shown that wearing masks is “essential” to carrying out these functions. Consider that approach for a second. A wide range of state regulations on federal officers could be deemed permissible, since federal officers can still functionally carry out arrests. States could dictate everything from uniform requirements, such as masks, to vehicle conditions to verbal commands or warnings.
The opinion is spotty in its analysis and sweeping in its implications. It is, in my view, ripe for reversal either before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court.
Here is the opinion: a 30-page decision: United States v. California
Turley writes: “Under the intergovernmental immunity doctrine, the Supreme Court has mandated in cases such as McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 317 (1819), that “the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional law enacted by congress to carrying into execution the powers vested in the general government.” A state cannot intrude into this authority absent a “clear and unambiguous” authorization from Congress, Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486, U.S. 174, 180 (1988).”
This is ignores the seminal Supreme Court case of Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 US 1, 75 (1890). Supremacy Clause immunity protects federal officers from “allegedly criminal conduct undertaken in [the] discharge of [their] federal duties,” if the officer was: (1) authorized by federal law and (2) “did no more than what was necessary and proper” in discharging his or her duties.”
While this is not a well-defined area of law (largely because we have rarely had a federal government take such brash and antagonistic law enforcement actions as our current one), it is categorically wrong for Turley to suggest that, absent Congress, states are powerless to pierce through intergovernmental immunity. Shame on you, Professor, for failing to correctly articulate this very important area of law.
I trust Truley’s interpretation a lot more than any liberal troll ignorant of the law. Of do you have a law license, a PhD. in law and your own website? If so please list it so all of us here can come and troll your site too. You sure like to piss in the wind.
“do you have a law license, a PhD. in law and your own website?”
I am not a strong proponent of credentialism (I am also NAL:-) But just on a surface examination of Turley’s claim and the commenter’s refutation, the decision cited by Turley was apparently affirmed in Goodyear Atomic Corp v. Miller in 1988, which would also appear to moot the 1890 decision the commenter cited.
For the record, I am a lawyer…
But you don’t really care because you have no substantive response to the post.
I can not see how your 130 year old case conflicts with Turley.
McCulloch v. Maryland is an ACTUAL seminal SCOTUS case.
Regardless, Turley is correct – FBI Agents at Ruby ridge were acting outside the constitution outside their authority, they murdered people who were engaged in self defense from unknown people shootig at them on their own property.
The state tried to prosecute the FBI agents and ran into a brick wall in federal court.
Ruby Ridge (or later Waco) were far more egregious than anything ICE has done.
“Ruby Ridge (or later Waco) were far more egregious than anything ICE has done.”
I would state that more strongly. The Ruby Ridge and Mt. Carmel incidents should not be even be cited in a shared frame of reference with current ICE enforcement of existing immigration law. The sole commonality is the participation of a FedGov agency.
It conflicts with what Turley said because it provides a clear exception to Turley’s claim in the article.
There are limits to Supremacy Clause immunity. It does not apply when when federal officers’ actions exceed what is necessary and proper to discharge their duties. Whether masking is necessary and proper is a judgment call, of course, but the point I was making is that Turley failed to acknowledge this limitation.
Instead, he incorrectly states that Congressional action is the only limitation.
OT: Who is holding their breadth until Turley writes an article about the Trump administration pressuring social media companies to censor First Amendment speech?
https://www.thefire.org/news/fire-sues-bondi-noem-censoring-facebook-group-and-app-reporting-ice-activity
Of course, he won’t apply the same opinion he professed AT LENGTH against the Biden admin to his buddy, the Don?
This is about as pure as test as possible to see whether he values the party over principle.
From what I can tell – fire will likely win.
But only a moron things this is anywhere close to the political censorship of Biden.
You CAN track police – but that is conduct that is barely protected by the first amendment.
Politicals speech is the most highly protected speech.
But I would love a Turley article on this.
Interesting. I made two consecutive replies to the commenter who wanted to do away with all state courts in favor of a single, Federal, jurisdiction. My comment cited the requirement to amend the Constitution to accomplish that, and also made reference to the ****C**o**n**v**e**n**t**i**o**n****o**f****S**t**a**t**e**s**** initiative. The first comment was acknowledged as submitted, but after 5 minutes, did not appear. So I submitted a second comment, reworded slightly. Submission of that comment was also acknowledged, but it did not appear, either. Three hours later, I still see neither comment. Both comments were very civil; neither contained anything that could conceivably be construed as insults or profanity (even by an “AI” bot). Furthermore, this is far from the first time I have experienced comments on that same subject matter being suppressed here. Is that WordPress’ work? Turley’s administrative team? I completely agree with the premise that this blog is Jonathan Turley’s property, and that he (or his assignee) is free to manage it as he believes appropriate. Nevertheless, I think it is undeniably curious that a blog authored by a Professor of Constitutional Law, who so fervently champions free speech, should so consistently nuke any mention of a popular and important political initiative that has a direct bearing on the Constitution. Wouldn’t you agree?
Turley’s argument is just him being upset that a “bright line” was not set. He’s also trying to dismiss the judge’s legitimate point about the masking. ICE and CBP can still do their jobs without one. The doxing issue is just part of the hazard of the job. It’s a public exposure that is perfectly within the law and for accountability.
If a ban on masks were to be enforceable it would force those agents to behave more lawfully and professionally because their anonymity is what allows them to be cruel and lawless. Just as it allows anonymous posters to be racist and bigoted without suffering consequences.
By being exposed ICE and CBP agents will have to behave more appropriately and restraint themselves from getting too aggressive. It can also expose bad hires like fired cops for abuses, former Proud Boys members, criminals, and likely those who are members of Hispanic and asian communities. It would create a sense of shame once exposed. That is what they are trying to prevent. Because it would expose their shoddy hiring practices and poor vetting. Two things that can put DHS on the spot for its incompetence and lawlessness.
Another point that refutes Turley’s argument. Body cameras supposedly a state could require ICE agents to wear body cameras for accountability and accuracy of their claims. They have been lying a lot you know.
Get a job
“By being exposed ICE and CBP agents will have to behave more appropriately and restraint themselves from getting too aggressive.”
Because if they are too aggressive in your view, you’ll kill them and their families, right?
That’s the sole purpose of this law — identifying law enforcement targets to harass, intimidate and kill.
Just be honest.
“Turley’s argument is just him being upset that a “bright line” was not set. ”
No, there is a bright line already the court did not follow it.
“He’s also trying to dismiss the judge’s legitimate point about the masking. ICE and CBP can still do their jobs without one.”
Not relevant, judges decide what is legal and constitutional and what is not.
They have no authority to decide what is a good idea and what is not./
” The doxing issue is just part of the hazard of the job. It’s a public exposure that is perfectly within the law and for accountability.”
Depending on the details – doxing can be a crime
https://legalclarity.org/is-doxxing-illegal-a-look-at-laws-and-penalties/
When you say it is part of the hazzards of the job – that means it is a crime.
If the doxing intentionally or recklessly leads to stalkin or harrasement it is a crime.
“If a ban on masks were to be enforceable it would force those agents to behave more lawfully and professionally because their anonymity is what allows them to be cruel and lawless.”
They are not anonymous, If they misbehave you have video it will be trivial for a court to identify them.
Many of the photos I have seen ICE has bandges with numbrs – that identifies them in the event you have misconduct.
But not sufficiently for you to send people to threaten their families.
Regardless you are debating “policy” – reasons why officers should or should not wear masks.
That is outside he jurisdiction of the courts.
Police tacticle gear
https://a.storyblok.com/f/198504/636×386/29b0742dee/law-enforcement-gear-thumbnail.jpg/m/1230×630
“By being exposed ICE and CBP agents will have to behave more appropriately and restraint themselves from getting too aggressive. ”
No they will be stalked, they families will be stalked their children will be stalked and ultimately one of them or their families will end up dead.
And that will be true REGARDLESS of their conduct – those of you on the left are NOT after a more polite ICE,
Your after ICE OUT – you want them gone and you will engage in violence to do so.
No one doubts that if you doxx them they will get harrassed – not for bad conduct. but for being in ICE, and you will harrass them until the quit.
“It can also expose bad hires like fired cops for abuses, former Proud Boys members, criminals, and likely those who are members of Hispanic and asian communities.”
???? Since when is it the job of left wing nuts to vet the hiring of ANY law enforcement ?
Criminals generally can not posess a gun, regardless they are already excluded.
I know of no reason a proud boys member can not join ICE any more than Rotary club members.
Regardless, how many PBs have actually been hired ?
And in what world can ICE not hire Asians and Hispanics – not hiring because of race is RACISM.
” It would create a sense of shame once exposed. ”
And that would make doxxing a crime.
When you seek to expose someones identity with the intent of subjecting them to stalking hrrasment or ridicule – that is a crime.
“That is what they are trying to prevent. ”
Correct they are wearing masks so that idiot left wing nuts do not act stupid make criminals of themselves or possibly worse – potentially co conspirators in violent crimes.
“Because it would expose their shoddy hiring practices and poor vetting.”
ICE oversight is congresses job.
“Two things that can put DHS on the spot for its incompetence and lawlessness.”
Yet no evidence of either.
ICE under Trump has 1/3 the rate of violent encounters than under Obama.
“Another point that refutes Turley’s argument. Body cameras supposedly a state could require ICE agents to wear body cameras for accountability and accuracy of their claims. ”
The reason that ICE did not have many body cameras is because Biden did not provide funding.
ICE officers are right now as BBB funding kicks in getting more body cameras.
In almost ever ICE encouter there are several officers holding cellphones because they WANT video of their actions and environment.
But have no body cam.
Regardless it should be obvious to you that state law can not force federal agents to wear body cameras.
Absolutely they should and the BBB funds those so we will be seeing alot more.
Absolutely Body cameras expose LEOs that behave badly.
But far more often they take away any doubt that the officers was behaving properly
Most officers WANT body cams.
“They have been lying a lot you know.”
Yet you can provide no example.
John Say, agents being masked allows them to behave more aggressively and unprofessionally. I gives them anonymity and your claim that courts can trivially identify any agents is wrong. Since DHS has already been caught lying to judges and disobeying orders there is no trust or credibility. They cannot be trusted to follow court orders much less identify agents accused of conduct. That is why they are masked to prevent easy identification and avoid accountability.
“ The reason that ICE did not have many body cameras is because Biden did not provide funding.”
That’s a lie. Trump canceled Biden’s body camera order.
“ In May 2022, then-President Joe Biden issued an executive order expanding the use of body cameras to all federal law enforcement officers.
In January, the incoming Trump administration rescinded that order, along with almost 100 others it considered “harmful.”
In early February, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, was one of the first agencies to get rid of its body cameras. Subsequent videos show plainclothes immigration agents making arrests with no visible body cameras.”
https://www.propublica.org/article/drug-enforcement-administration-ends-body-camera-program-trump
“ When you seek to expose someone’s identity with the intent of subjecting them to stalking hrrasment or ridicule – that is a crime.”
Ah, but intent is the problem. Just exposing them is not a crime. You must be able to prove intent to make it a crime. Agents know the moment they are exposed they are subject public scrutiny which ls perfectly legal. If officers believe they are being harassed or threatened they can notify local authorities.
“ It can also expose bad hires like fired cops for abuses, former Proud Boys members, criminals, and likely those who are members of Hispanic and asian communities.”
???? Since when is it the job of left wing nuts to vet the hiring of ANY law enforcement ?
Criminals generally can not posess a gun, regardless they are already excluded.
I know of no reason a proud boys member can not join ICE any more than Rotary club members.
Regardless, how many PBs have actually been hired ?”
Didn’t say it’s the job of the left to vet the hiring. It’s the exposure of DHS poor hiring practices which is a serious problem.
Yeah “generally” criminals cannot posses a gun, but recent Supreme Court rulings have made certain crimes including felonies not applicable to the restriction. How do you know they are already excluded when DHS has lowered standards and has poor vetting practices?
The proud boys are racists and bigots with militant aspirations. Essentially white supremacists who have been eager to kick out foreigners because they don’t want them here. DHS has already hired former Proud Boys felons with histories of assaulting law enforcement who have been pardoned by Trump. A pardon does not change the fact that they were convicted of a felony in the past. That is not a very smart hiring decision and absolutely the reason why DHS has so many problems with lawlessness within their ranks.
Difficult to survive as a civilization when so many judges appear to be activist imbeciles intoxicated with actual power.
I’d really like to see, “Overturned 3 times? You’re no longer judging cases AND you lose your pension”. This would provide some incentive for lower courts to actually follow existing case-law instead of “feelings”. Have to wonder – how many times has this (alleged) judge already been overturned?
Absurd. A party can not appeal a case they won. There is no controversy to allow for standing.
The US didn’t win part of the case re required disclosure of names during discussions.
That is not the law. A party that has lost on some points and won on others is entitled to appeal.
Bondi is pretty notorious for showing up to R functions pretty liquored up with pool boys in tow.
Wonder if she had some nips this morning and has vodka in her water bottle before the hearing?
Evidence ?
Just arrest every Nazi interfering with ICE
Definitely. Now what’s your plan?
Tin Soldiers And Waltz Be A Coming
O.J. was guilty AND Fuhrman lied. Woke don’t get it.
Still wrapping my head around mandated mask wearing which proved useless in the pandemic to mandatory identity exposure to officers performing their job with family threatened, while it is common for the DEA.
Unwrap it. Its simply using the law (lawfare) to prevent ICE personnel from their lawful duty; lets the crazies photograph them and then kill them and their families. But I’m just guessing.
mask wearing which proved useless
saved countless lives
Nope
ROFL
Find a single study controlled study that show masks work.
There is not even a study that masks work agains the flu which is only half as contageous.
Your on the wrong side of the math and the studies.
Worse with near certainty you have been provided with the evidence of your error – probably many times,
but you continue to spew nonsense you know or should know if you are not a moron is lies.
and you wonder why no one beleives you ?
When Turley says “some of us” he means those who were trained in R rhetoric in the Reagan Bush years who are giving Trump a reach around now.
Yes, when logic and analysis vs. feelings and pretzel thinking were in vogue. In other words, rational thought.
That rational thought has led directly to giving the best reach arounds and ball gargling for a wannabe dictator ever.
Envy
So call it ball envy. Whatever. Your choice.
“..call it ball envy…”
So, as some of us have long suspected, you *are* nothing but a furry tranny who was born with XX chromosomes, and has decided that she desperately needs a penis appendage attached to her body
Judges hiding behind walls and doors and armed security protecting their courthouses, appointed for life, have a god complex. They think they do not have to follow the law, or the Constitution, or anything else. All they need do is “feel” and rule based on their personal beliefs. Shame on these leftwing extremists.
THEY KICKBACK BUCKS TO THE LAWYERS who won, with their help.
Is it “backwards” day?
re: Olly
You gave some very good points. Most Americans want violent criminals deported to their home country.
Trump’s unconstitutional implementation was the problem.
If there was an existing removal order and the immigrant wasn’t complying with the legal order, that is “probable cause” for ICE officials to apply for a judicial-warrant.
If that evidence existed, any judge would approve a judicial-warrant for ICE officials to target that individual immigrant.
Trump’s approach was essentially akin to a 18th Century “General Warrant” (fishing expedition) which is illegal in the United States since 1791. General Warrants helped cause the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence – it’s a foreign concept of governing.
Trump even admitted that these were illegal fishing expeditions, naming one operation “Catch of the Day”. Had Trump had operated within the U.S. Constitution he would have been highly successful.
When any president practices foreign style “General Warrants” – officials pick up anyone with dark skin and dark hair including American citizens or legal immigrants following the law.
By contrast, Obama deported the most immigrants of any president (more than Trump, Biden or Bush) focusing on deporting violent criminals and immigrants already in prison for violent offenses.
I agree that no president gets to use general warrants or ignore the Fourth Amendment. If enforcement lacks particularized legal basis, courts should step in.
But that is a separate question from whether immigration enforcement itself is a federal power. It is. States do not get to regulate how federal law is executed simply because they disagree with policy.
My concern is structural. When immigration policy swings sharply between administrations, enforcement surges follow. That triggers backlash, and suddenly every action is framed as tyranny and every state resistance as virtue.
We need clarity on both principles at the same time. Federal officers must act within constitutional limits. And the Supremacy Clause still means what it says.
Without that civic understanding, every enforcement debate turns into a constitutional crisis.
Civics. Sure lets educate illegals while were at it. The DSA too eh?
Ever work for the federal government in any meaningful capacity, like DOJ, FBI, Congress? Answer: um… um…
Civics is not partisan, and it is not limited to citizens by party label. Understanding constitutional structure strengthens the country, not a faction. As for federal experience, I served 20 years active duty Navy. But constitutional principles do not depend on a résumé. They stand or fall on their merits.
If my argument is wrong, address the substance. If it is right, my employment history is irrelevant.
My congressman’s résumé says he is a Navy vet and a licensed attorney. He says ICE isn’t “law enforcement”. He said that while standing next to the local sheriff and DA. To me that denies an obvious fact they all ought to know. It’s one thing for California to pass laws telling state and local government not to coöperate with ICE, but to claim ICE isn’t law enforcement is prima facie gaslighting and encourages and valorizes obstructive behavior. The Democratic party platform is open borders, but they rarely come right out and say it.
Creekan, I’m a Navy veteran. If someone is enforcing federal laws passed by Congress, that’s law enforcement. You can disagree with the policy, but the authority is there. But a résumé doesn’t make someone a formed citizen. I have good friends who served honorably and can’t stand this administration. Military service deserves respect, but it doesn’t automatically mean someone understands or agrees on constitutional structure.
Team jerseys don’t form citizens either. Being loyal to a party isn’t the same thing as understanding how our system is supposed to work. What matters is whether actions line up with constitutional principles. If any party pushes ideas that cut against those principles, then yes, that’s a formation problem. And that standard has to apply across the board.
The question isn’t which team you’re on. It’s whether we’re staying faithful to the framework.
The policy shift is “do we follow the law, or not”,
it is do we detain and deport illegals. NOT How do we deport illegals.
The processes is the same, only the numbers deported are different.
Anon,
You are flat out ignoring the history of administrative warrants. Sure SCOTUS has not ruled definitively on same but your description of the situation is false.
I think Trump needs to accelerate deportations. The Left’s corrupt and illegal flooding of our nation with illegal aliens needs to be met with an agressive and effective response to clean up the mess.
Lefties like Waltz and Frey need to be arrested, imprisoned, and charged with insurrection. Anti-ICE activism that crosses the line from protest to criminal acts needs to result in arrests. F the sanctuary principle.
Turley is correct – a bad ruling needs to be corrected, even if it nominally favors the federal government.
I don’t think judicial warrants have ever been required for federal authorities to remove illegal aliens with final removal orders. If I am wrong, please explain how.
Judicial warrants are for crimes.
Deportation orders and warrants are civil.
ICE should not need a warrant to arrest ANYONE illegally in the U.S. any more than any law enforcement needs a warrant to arrest an escaped convict. The purpose of an arrest warrant is show to an independent authority, i.e. a judge that there is PROBABLE CAUSE an individual has committed a crime. Like the escaped convict by being out of prison is evidence beyond reasonable doubt he has committed the crime of escaping from prison, the illegal alien by his mere presence in this country is proof beyond doubt he has broken the law. Thus, all illegal aliens should be subject to being picked up and deported.
“ICE should not need a warrant to arrest ANYONE illegally in the U.S”
They do not.
They need a warrant for exactly the same things that other LEOs do,
to enter a home when they are not in hot pursuit or given permission.
Like any LEO ICE can stop you on the street and ask for ID. But like any LEO they can not order you to produce ID unless they have reasonable suspicion. SCOTUS has said they CAN use race to get to reasonable suspicion but not RACE ALONE.
They need some reason to beleive you are an illegal alien.
But NOTHING prevents them or any other LEO from asking questions so long as you are “free to go”
I-205 Warrants of Removal
“Trump even admitted that these were illegal fishing expeditions”
Even in fishing, if the catch isn’t legal, you throw it back; the same rule should apply to illegal immigrants.
“Trump’s unconstitutional implementation was the problem.”
How ?
4th amendment
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
What part is ICE violating ?
“If there was an existing removal order and the immigrant wasn’t complying with the legal order, that is “probable cause” for ICE officials to apply for a judicial-warrant.”
No it is not. An ICE removal order is CIVIL
A judicial warrant is criminal
I would note ICE warrants are signed sworn and then signed off by article II immigration court judges.
Judicial warrants are signed off on by article II magistrate judges.
There is no difference except one is civil and the other criminal.
The only reason for this judicial warrant nonsense is the likely MOSTLY false beleif that a magistrate judge is less likely to issue a warrant.
But there is absolutely no difference in the requirements for an ICE warrant and one from an article II magistrate judge.
This whole claim by the left is just a red herring.
I would further note that the ONLY reason you do not see ICE DHS saying – so we will just get judicial warrants is there are 685 INS Judges.
That has signed off on about 1Million warrants last year. There are 517 federal magistrate judges.
Unless you immediately double the number of magistrate judges – immigration wants come to a screeching halt.
There is no diffrence in the qualifications
And both are far more qualified that local district magistrates who do not even need to be lawyers.
“If that evidence existed, any judge would approve a judicial-warrant for ICE officials to target that individual immigrant.”
Of course the evidence exist – a deportation order is a judicial finding by an INS judge that the person in the order is not legally allowed to be in the US. Probable cause had to be met to issue the order.
“Trump’s approach”
There is no “Trumps approach” nothing has changed – except that the law is actually being enforced.
The process has been the same for longer than ICE has existed.
” was essentially akin to a 18th Century “General Warrant” (fishing expedition) which is illegal in the United States since 1791. General Warrants helped cause the Revolutionary War and Declaration of Independence – it’s a foreign concept of governing.”
No these are not general warrants,
They are warrants for specific people.
“Trump even admitted that these were illegal fishing expeditions, naming one operation “Catch of the Day”. Had Trump had operated within the U.S. Constitution he would have been highly successful.”
Again how has he not ?
What is trump doing that Biden or obama did not.
Obama deported 480K people/year – Trump is only deporting twice as many – not 10,000 times as many.
Again the process is UNCHANGED
BTW – both prioritized criminals.
But Obama was big on raiding businesses. Trump is not.
Trump is mostly going after illegals one at a time.
Obama was getting hundreds a day from a chick processing plant.
PLEASE learn something about what you are writing before making idiotic claims.
“When any president practices foreign style “General Warrants” – officials pick up anyone with dark skin and dark hair including American citizens or legal immigrants following the law.”
What is general about an ICE warrant or a deportation order ?
A general warrant BTW does NOT meet the requirements of Specificity in the 4th amendment.
When the parson to be deported is named – that is as specific as you can get.
“By contrast, Obama deported the most immigrants of any president (more than Trump, Biden or Bush) focusing on deporting violent criminals and immigrants already in prison for violent offenses.” Mostly correct.
Biden did more business sweeps that Trump.
Other than that – they BOTH prioritized criminals. They used the same ICE agents, and the same courts and the same warrants, and the same deportation orders.
Obama did not have the sanctuary city problem Trump does.
Homan has already said that he will radically reduce ICE in Minneapolis if ICE is allowed to pick up illegals at jails and prisons.
Trump will fairly quickly exceed Obamas totals. But it is still true that Obama deported ALOT of illegals.
He was nicknamed the Deporter in cheif.
I think Professor Turley is right about the structural issue, but I keep noticing something else. We keep starting these debates in the middle of the story.
Why are we at a point where federal immigration enforcement is this intense in the first place? Why are states and federal agents colliding at this scale?
When Congress fails to produce durable immigration policy and administrations swing sharply in opposite directions, the stress shows up downstream. States push back. Courts split the difference. The Supremacy Clause gets tested.
My concern is formation. If citizens do not understand that immigration enforcement is a federal power tied to national sovereignty, then every policy swing turns into a federalism crisis.
This case is not really about masks. It is about whether we still recognize constitutional hierarchy when political pressure rises.
Doesn’t help that all sides (but one much more than the others) does it’s damndest to obfuscate and mislead it’s followers into blindly believing whatever the hell they want; therefore, the narrative can be whatever they want. The new hotness is convincing AWFLs that the SAVE Act will forcibly prevent married women from voting due to discrepancies with their birth certificates.
OLLY,
Seems we have a highly uninformed or misinformed public. Just look at the comments here on the good professor’s blog. The willingly or perhaps unknowingly present misinformation, disinformation or outright lies. As noted, why? They seem to have this weird idea they are fighting against . . . something. What that is, they cannot say or resort to the “Nazi” rhetoric, while ignoring the fact ICE is enforcing immigration laws, as enacted by Congress. Any sane and rational person would say, “Well, then we have to change the law.” Nope. Just watch the videos of Good, Pertti, the mob that mobbed the IT guys eating lunch. The “checkpoints.” Democrats like Walz, Frey, and MSM have put it into Americans heads they are fighting against . . . nothing.
This does NOT help, GOP lawmaker shocked after anti-ICE sheriff was stumped by ‘fifth-grade civics’ question
‘I was not expecting to have to get into a fifth-grade civics lesson with a duly elected sheriff,’ a GOP lawmaker remarked after the hearing
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/gop-lawmaker-shocked-after-anti-ice-sheriff-stumped-fifth-grade-civics-question?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Seems we have a highly uninformed or misinformed public.
So educate the dems and they’ll see the light of liberty, you’re saying?
Watching videos only titivates, not inform or convince the public.
And Fox News is not unbiased; they exacerbate the problem with obfuscation and lies; they spew, to enrage the public. And so , here we are.
Upstate, I think the deeper issue is formation, not party labels.
ICE enforces laws passed by Congress. If citizens dislike the outcome, the constitutional remedy is to change the law. That is basic civics.
But we now have a culture where enforcement of existing law is framed as oppression, and disagreement with policy is framed as moral resistance. That confusion does not happen by accident. It reflects decades of civic decline. The sheriff question is not about left or right. It is about whether public officials understand the structure of government at all. Who makes the law. Who enforces it. Who changes it. When that understanding fades, every enforcement action feels illegitimate to someone.
The solution is not louder rhetoric. It is rebuilding civic literacy so citizens know where authority actually resides.
OLLY,
I get what you are saying and agree. But we have a situation where people do not want to learn even basic civics. They just want to scream, yell, obstruct, make demands, assault people and LEOs. You cannot teach civics to irrational, emotional people. And some of these people are teaching children to “hate ICE.”
Upstate, I understand the frustration. It can feel like people do not want to learn even basic civics. But there were periods in our history when forming citizens was not optional. It was understood as necessary.
At the founding, Jefferson argued for education so citizens could recognize tyranny. Noah Webster wrote textbooks to cultivate republican character, not just literacy. In the early republic, sermons, town meetings, and local associations reinforced moral restraint and public responsibility. Tocqueville observed that Americans practiced self-government in daily life long before exercising it nationally.
In the 19th century, the common school movement tied education directly to forming republican virtue. Even into the mid-20th century, civics courses emphasized constitutional structure, jury duty, voting, and informed participation. The assumption was simple: liberty requires disciplined citizens.
Over time that shifted. Civic education became procedural instead of philosophical. Knowledge of structure replaced reflection on first principles. Eventually civic expression became performative. Signaling replaced study. Outrage replaced formation.
So yes, the frustration is real. But if our republic rises or falls on the capacity of its citizens for self-government, then rebuilding that capacity is not optional. It is necessary.
My entire approach on this blog has shifted toward that formation question. I wrote Awakening a Forgotten Republic to set the table. My next project is intended to move from reflection to action and put formation into practice.
We either recommit to forming citizens capable of self-government, or we accept permanent civic volatility. I am not ready to accept that.
Assuming the government isn’t sending boys ten thousand miles away to satisfy the ego demands of an idiot who cheated to get elected by stuffing a vote collection box and whose inner circle included enforcers.
How many had to die in foreign jungles before the people had a chance to reject that monster, though he quit first due to the right to protest his ass off?
Remember, we’re dealing with wokers: unemployed, middle-aged, white women, spoiled, pot smoking soap opera devotees.
“Civic education became procedural instead of philosophical. Knowledge of structure replaced reflection on first principles. Eventually civic expression became performative. Signaling replaced study. Outrage replaced formation.”
Correct. And I think it bears mention that one of the prime (arguably the most important) drivers responsible for that shift was teachers’ unions bent on corrupting the public education system to dual ends: their own own job security, to be unassailable under nearly any and all circumstances; the inculcation of Marxism and similar collectivist beliefs into that system in order to indoctrinate students, and ensure that society would be unable to revert to moral values based on individual behavior and worth. Unfortunately, they largely succeeded in their efforts. I did find something hopeful in browsing the net this morning. By itself, it cannot accomplish very much, but I hold out a tiny bit of hope that it could indicate the beginning of a societal turn-around. To me, this change goes to the heart of what I believe you are terming “formation”.
The Classic Learning Test Finally Gives The Woke College Board And SAT Some Competition
https://thefederalist.com/2026/02/11/the-classic-learning-test-finally-gives-the-woke-college-board-and-sat-some-competition/
“CLT is attempting to end the partisan paradigm. The purpose of K-12 education has never been to indoctrinate students, despite academia’s increasing efforts. Rather, the purpose of primary education was to develop citizens who were capable of free thought. This has been evident since America’s founding, as in 1780 Johns Adams wrote that “wisdom and knowledge . . . diffused generally among the body of the people [are] necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.”
Don, I appreciate you expanding on what I wrote, and thanks for the Federalist link. The Classic Learning Test is interesting and I’m going to look into it more.
When I think about what’s happening in education, I try to start with the results. If civic education has drifted away from teaching first principles and deeper thinking, that’s the outcome we can see. The next question is what’s producing that outcome. Incentives, unions, curriculum standards, administrative pressures, all of that plays a role.
I understand why your diagnosis resonates with people. But if we really want change, we have to understand how the system is working, not just who we think is to blame. If the CLT helps bring back serious engagement with foundational ideas instead of just more signaling, that would be a step in the right direction. Real reform is going to come from restoring formation, not just changing who’s in charge.
PRISONS work
. I agree with everything you’ve said, Olly. There is a problem with acceptance of majority/minority rule.
The minority feels “oppressed” whenever their individual decisions are overruled by a majority of voters. The majority minority system is unacceptable to those people in disagreement with the majority. They then give their position the “moral” label and do so without an argument proving their position.
Summation is these are irrational people, moving to State separation, organized, violent , encouraged and funded. The “system” (Constitution) didn’t work for them and they imagine another system is better not knowing either system in reality. They’re being led by power seekers wanting money.
Civic formation would work in a homogeneous environment. There isn’t agreement ultimately. Government is too large and intrusive.
Well said, Olly. Just my opinion, but the reason that immigration enforcement is so “intense” now is because Democrats see this issue as the one to bring down the Trump Administration, both in the mid-terms as well as in 2028. The opposition appears to be unusually well organized and very well financed. I started my law enforcement career in the Border Patrol in 1975 and learned that it was Congressional Democrats, and their friends in Labor Unions, that scuttled the very successful Bracero Program that allowed Mexicans to enter the U.S. legally to work the growing seasons and then return home. Amazing how much is changed. Greg
Greg, I appreciate the history. I actually had to look up the Bracero period after your comment, so thank you for that reference.
It reinforces something important. Immigration policy has swung back and forth for decades depending on political coalitions, labor interests, business pressures, and electoral strategy. That volatility is part of the larger problem. When immigration becomes primarily a political weapon instead of a policy problem to be solved, enforcement intensity will always track political cycles. One administration tightens. The next loosens. Then tightens again. That creates instability and constant backlash.
I try to step back from which party benefits. The deeper issue is that Congress has failed to produce durable immigration policy for a generation. That vacuum guarantees executive swings and state resistance.
Until that structural instability is addressed, every enforcement surge will be interpreted as strategy rather than governance.
“The deeper issue is that Congress has failed to produce durable immigration policy for a generation.” Interesting, Olly. What do you believe is wrong or perhaps missing from existing immigration laws that would make enforcement in the future ‘less swingy’ to political will? Personally, I’d like to see states receive less federal money each time enforcement is thwarted or attempted-thwarted(?).
That’s a good question JAFO.
I don’t think we’re missing laws. We have plenty of immigration law. The problem is that Congress has written them in a way that leaves huge room for executive discretion. So one administration enforces hard, the next softens it, and the posture swings back and forth even though the statute hasn’t changed. Add to that the fact that parts of our immigration system are outdated. Work visas, asylum timelines, border processing. When the law doesn’t match economic reality, enforcement becomes reactive instead of steady. And Congress has avoided durable reform for years because immigration is more useful as a campaign issue than as a solved problem. That guarantees swings.
If you want less “swingy,” Congress would need to tighten up statutory priorities, modernize work pathways, and speed up asylum decisions so cases are resolved quickly instead of lingering for years.
On your idea about withholding federal funds from states, that’s possible in some areas under the spending power, but that gets complicated fast and can create a different federalism fight.
At the end of the day, though, this comes back to formation. If voters reward volatility and outrage, politicians will give it to them. Stable policy requires a citizenry that values stability.
. Olly, I’ll check out out here, the system relies on keeping your word, honesty. That’s probably a principle somewhere 😴
. Durable immigration policy, you say? Lack of enforcement, a list of various visas etc , misunderstanding as civic formation failure all lent it to abuses. It should be simple for simple people with checkpoints one of which is NOT a standard DL.
The US is like the human body. Break a knee and you’ve got a limp, break two and a wheelchair, brain failure then you die etc.
OLLY
As you say, it is important to recognize constitutional hierarchy, especially when political pressure rises.
Look no further than the good citizens serving as grand jurors in Washington DC, who rejected the political attempt to indict Senator Mark Kelly and the other 5 Democrat lawmakers who dared to remind service members of their constitutional duty to refuse to obey illegal orders.
Jeanine Pirro, in a blatantly political move, attempted to indict patriotic veterans who simply re-stated the Constitution and reminded service members of the duty imposed on them by their oath to uphold it.
Thankfully, good, loyal, patriotic citizens recognized this crisis of federal overreach and responded accordingly by rejecting this blatantly unconstitutional and political attempt to criminalize speech.
We should also give thanks that Jeanine Pirro is completely incompetent. It serves to negate her malevolence.
I agree that constitutional hierarchy matters, especially when political pressure is high. That cuts both ways.
Grand juries serve as an independent check in our system. If they declined to indict, that is part of the constitutional process working as designed. But it does not automatically mean federal authority was illegitimate, nor does it automatically mean political heroism occurred. It simply means the legal threshold for indictment was not met.
The oath issue is also important. Service members swear to uphold the Constitution, not an individual. At the same time, determining whether an order is lawful is not a matter of personal political judgment. There are established military and legal channels for that.
My concern is broader than personalities. When every prosecutorial decision is framed as tyranny and every refusal as patriotism, we blur the line between legal process and political narrative.
Constitutional hierarchy requires restraint at every level. Federal officials must stay within lawful authority. Elected officials must avoid inflaming constitutional language for political theater. Citizens must resist turning every dispute into a crisis.
The health of the system depends on all three.
OLLY
Your point about the need for restraint at all 3 levels is well taken.
However, at the moment, we do not have a situation where restraint is being manifest by the federal government. We have a situation where we have a completely lawless administration that is running rough shod over previously accepted norms. The blatant political attempt to indict the 6 Democrats for advising military members that they do not have to follow illegal orders is just the latest and perhaps most egregious example of this lawlessness by the administration. DOJ attempted to indict these patriotic veterans because Trump instructed them to do so. He said that they were guilty of sedition and should be executed.
When the “health of the system”, as you put it, is so far out of balance like this, then the citizens have a duty to act in any way that they can to resist the excesses of the administration. The DC Grand Jury voted unanimously to refuse to indict the 6 Democrats. Not one single juror voted to indict. This is historic. It virtually never happens. They were sending a very clear message, that unfortunately this administration will ignore.
Similarly, a very large proportion of the citizenry feels that ICE is overstepping its authority and infringing on their Constitutional rights. They also have an obligation to resist and send a message to the administration.
The only way that balance can be restored is for the citizens to make their dissatisfaction known, and for the administration to respond appropriately.
Unfortunately, the administration never responds appropriately. They simply double down and demonize the dissenters. This creates a situation that spirals out of control, dissent increases and the administration grows more recalcitrant.
The conduct of the present administration is an existential threat to the Republic.
One reason I am careful with words like “tyranny” and “existential threat” is because I’ve spent a great deal of time studying what those moments actually looked like.
In my book, I walk through in detail what genuine tyranny felt like to the colonists. Every pathway for redress was blocked. Petitions were ignored. Representation was denied. Local self-government was dissolved. Military power was imposed without accountability. The ordinary legal and political remedies had collapsed. That was existential.
Today, even in heated moments, we still have courts reviewing executive action. Grand juries declining indictments. Elections changing leadership. Legislatures passing and repealing laws. Protest protected by the First Amendment. Those are not signs of a system that has eliminated redress. That does not mean executive overreach is impossible. It means we should measure our language against historical benchmarks.
If we label every intense policy dispute as tyranny, we lose the ability to recognize the real thing should it ever arise. That is why I focus so heavily on formation. Citizens need a benchmark. Without one, every moment feels existential.
That, to me, is a formation issue.
Excellent
Come on Man! We can all see that horse-faced judge has more hairspray on her brain than her helmet head!
A successful appeal on the grounds that Prof. Turley recommends would no doubt be beneficial to the US as a whole, but it may be far too late to help save California (from itself) in any meaningful way. The people of that State have not only dug their own grave: one foot is on the bottom; and the other rests on rapidly crumbling earth…
California Has Become Uninvestable
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2026/02/09/california-has-become-uninvestable-n3811709
“California is still beautiful, but its glitz and glamour, forests and beaches, and still wonderful weather can no longer distract from the fact that it is run by a government class that has been pillaging the wealth and destroying the economic vitality of the state.”
Your source is Hotair? Definitely a primary source. You go fool.
So you don’t disagree with the quoted passage then, as your sole objection is the identity of the messenger.
Um… good thing you have telepathic powers.
If you disagree
Invest in California
But the fact is capital and people are fleeing a state that nature has made paradise
“Your source is Hotair?”
No. Are you illiterate, or brain-damaged (not mutually exclusive propositions, especially in your case, and I do use the word “case” with due care)? A quick glance at the by-line by even the laziest clown would show that my source is David Strom. Funny, but even left-wing Wikipedia has nothing bad to say about Strom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Strom
Good essay. The idea that states can regulate a federal function so long as a judge thinks that function can still be performed despite the regulation is destructive of federal authority. Even the 9th Circuit may see this. If not, SCOTUS should rectify things.
Talk about twisted. I had to read your explanation 17 times and I still don’t get it.
Anyway, what I want and need to say is, “Let’s get this animal who took Nancy Guthrie!” If everyone looks for clues/hints/behaviors that implicate this m. f., and reports them, he’ll lose his pathetic, twisted brain. Let’s drive this killer into such deep paranoia, he’ll beg to be caught.
Yes. He’s a killer. She could not have survived his attack. Not possible. Let’s get him, boys. Come on!
“I had to read your explanation 17 times and I still don’t get it. ”
That is a textbook case of the functional illiteracy produced by our public school systems. Also, re: Nancy Guthrie, are you privy to inside information on the case beyond the identification of a person of interest, or is your foaming-at-the-mouth rant just you flinging excrement at a wall and hoping for some adhesion?
Why care so much about a grandma, when I haven’t heard a peep from your ilk about the, what’s the number, at least 300k missing children since 2021?
Well said professor. Such mental gyrations in the court would be laughable if this was not so serious. I do hope that it is appealed. These actions remind me of the mental gymnastics carried out by a Federal District Court and a Circuit Court of Appeals in the 1965-1966 era when Julian Bond was not seated in the Georgia legislature despite the passage of the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. Both the district court and the appeals court upheld the legislature’s action. He was denied his seat because he did not support the Viet Nam war. Luckily the SCOTUS took the appeal on an expedited review and overruled by 9-0. These states’ action’s in Illinois, Minnesota, California and others remind me of those Jim Crow states that resisted Federal authorities. I hope, in time, they are brought to heel and their money sources are disrupted if not outright blocked. As far as I am concerned these states put the rest of us at risk, as well as law enforcement, by hindering legal application of emigration law. We and other states have lost too many citizens, and legal immigrants to actions by illegals both in and outside of state governments (ie state officeholders)
We gotta drop the multi-tier law structure. Waste of time, money, resources and there’s no need. The Federal government should be the only body controlling our laws. We shrunk in size.
Drop? We’re accepting proposals. Please post your plan. .
The constitution gives the policing power to the states
The federal government only has the power to enforce federal laws that operate in the legislate domain of federal power
Immigration is absolutely one of those
But ordinary criminal conduct is not
Unless that conduct involves legitimate federal activity
Ie you can not trespass on federal property
Or assault or obstruct federal officers
But ice can not enforce general laws like blocking streets unless they are blocking ice
As we have seen time and again jurists aren’t always the enlightened, high minded, unbiased arbiters of the meaning of the law they purport to be. You can make a pretty good guess who appointed them by the decisions they render. Yes there are Obama and Biden judges whose presence keeps the appellate courts and SCOTUS busier than they should be.
Here’s hoping the DOJ attorneys read Professor Turley’s e-letter!
You seem to think the DOJ is deaf, dumb and blind on all issues in it purview. If we have an all seeing and knowing federals government, how is that?
My opinion, Law is a messy business. so they have to pick their battles.