Politico: ‘We are arresting the mayor right now, per the deputy attorney general’

An account of bodycam footage, submitted in a recent court filling, provides new detail about a confrontation outside a New Jersey immigration facility.

The federal officer who arrested the mayor of New Jersey’s largest city outside an immigration detention center in May suggested that he was making the arrest at the direction of the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, Todd Blanche, according to law enforcement body camera footage described in a new court filing.

The filing, from Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), sheds new light on the chaotic scene on May 9 when Democratic lawmakers and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, attempting to conduct an oversight visit, clashed with immigration agents. Baraka was arrested for trespassing, but that charge was dropped. McIver was later charged with assaulting federal agents; she is seeking to get the case dismissed.

According to McIver’s attorneys, a Department of Homeland Security special agent was on the phone as the events unfolded that day. Citing bodycam footage they obtained in the case, the attorneys wrote that the special agent, after hanging up the call, turned to a group of fellow agents and announced: “We are arresting the mayor right now, per the deputy attorney general of the United States. Anyone that gets in our way, I need you guys to give me a perimeter so I can cuff him.”

POLITICO has not reviewed the bodycam video. Although the footage was submitted as an exhibit in the case, it was not yet publicly available. A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment, and a response from the Department of Homeland Security did not address whether Blanche had ordered the agents to make the arrest.

The special agent’s apparent suggestion that he was acting at Blanche’s direction is the latest sign that top Justice Department officials are harnessing the power of law enforcement against Democrats and other perceived enemies of President Donald Trump. Trump’s DOJ has opened investigations into various figures Trump disdains, including Jack SmithJames Comeyformer Homeland Security aides who criticized him and many others.

Federal law enforcement officials have also detained New York City Comptroller Brad Lander and handcuffed California Sen. Alex Padilla.

For months, Democrats have wondered if agents at the Newark immigration detention center had been instructed by a superior to arrest Baraka. Witness accounts and other video footage taken that day showed the mayor had been allowed inside a gated area by a guard, stood there peacefully for the better part of an hour and left the gated area when federal agents threatened him with arrest. That day, Rep. Rob Menendez (D-N.J.) told POLITICO that he’d witnessed an agent inside the gated area talking on the phone with someone who told the agent to arrest Baraka, who by the time of the call was outside the gate. McIver gave a similar account in a press conference at the time.

The description of the bodycam footage submitted in court last week by McIver’s attorneys bolsters that account. Quoting from the footage, her attorneys wrote that the special agent on the phone said of Baraka during the call: “Even though he stepped out, I am going to put him in cuffs.”

Then the agent made the comment about arresting the mayor “per the deputy attorney general.” Moments later, law enforcement officials came out of the gate and arrested Baraka, setting off a scrum involving the mayor and members of Congress. McIver is accused in a three-count indictment of slamming the special agent with her forearm, “forcibly” grabbing him and using her forearms to strike another agent. She has pleaded not guilty.

Less than two weeks later, federal prosecutors dropped a trespassing charge against Baraka. But a federal judge chided the effort to charge him in the first place. Magistrate Judge André M. Espinosa called it an “embarrassing retraction” that “suggests a failure to adequately investigate, to carefully gather facts and to thoughtfully consider the implications of your actions before wielding your immense power.”

Baraka is the progressive mayor of New Jersey’s largest city and at the time of his arrest was seeking the Democratic nomination for governor, an election he has since lost. Separately, he is suing the Trump administration for “malicious prosecution” in a lawsuit that names acting U.S. Attorney Alina Habba and Ricky Patel, a special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations’ Newark Division.

According to a comparison of court documents filed in the Baraka and McIver cases, Patel is the special agent overheard on the bodycam footage referring to the deputy attorney general.

McIver tries to harness Trump immunity ruling

The new revelations about the episode came in legal briefs asking to have McIver’s own case thrown out.

As part of that effort, McIver asked the judge overseeing the case, U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper, to rule that lawmakers have the same kind of immunity from prosecutions that the Supreme Court gave Trump.

Her attorneys said McIver’s visit to the detention facility, known as Delaney Hall, was a legislative act she cannot be prosecuted for. They cited the Supreme Court ruling last summer that gave Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for some actions he took during his first presidential term while fighting to subvert the 2020 election.

McIver’s attorneys also argued that she is facing intimidation and that Habba’s office, which is prosecuting the case, is undermining the Constitution’s “Speech or Debate” Clause. That clause grants members of Congress a form of immunity that is mostly impenetrable in investigations relating to the official duties of lawmakers, their aides or other congressional officials.

The Department of Homeland Security said the argument is laughable.

“Suggesting that physically assaulting a federal law enforcement officer is ‘legitimate legislative activity’ covered by legislative immunity makes a joke of all three branches of government at once,” the Homeland Security Department’s assistant secretary, Tricia McLaughlin, said in a statement.

If lawmakers don’t continue to receive such protections, McIver’s legal team warns of dire consequences for the country.

“If these charges are allowed to move forward, they will send a chilling message to Congress on the risk it takes when it scrutinizes the Administration’s activities,” McIver’s defense team wrote. “The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to prevent that kind of message and intimidation.”

Former Sen. Bob Menendez — Rob Menendez’s father — has tried to use the speech or debate clause to shield himself from corruption charges. He is now serving an 11-year prison sentence and appealing the conviction. McIver’s attorneys cited a 3rd Circuit ruling against Menendez in 2016 — who was then facing different corruption charges that were later dropped — as making clear that members of Congress do have immunity for legislative actions but that the allegations against him were for things beyond the scope of that immunity. McIver’s team argued the Menendez case “could not be more different” from hers.

In another legal filing made last week, McIver also sought to dismiss the charges against her based on unconstitutional “selective” and “vindictive” prosecution, noting that the Justice Department walked away from prosecutions of hundreds of defendants from Jan. 6, 2021, despite clear video of many attacking police officers.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/08/18/newark-mayor-arrest-bodycam-footage-todd-blanche-00513734

America Uncovered: What Trump’s Proposal Could Mean for the 14th Amendment

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-trump-s-proposal-could-mean-for-the-14th-amendment/vi-AA1HPtzp

Charlotte Observer: Trump Loses Lawsuit as Judge Sides with Defendants

A federal judge has dismissed President Donald Trump’s copyright lawsuit against Bob Woodward, Simon & Schuster, and Paramount Global, ruling that Trump’s claims of co-authorship for the audiobook The Trump Tapes are not credible. The judge noted that conflicting copyright registrations need independent resolution of ownership issues. District Judge Paul Gardephe, citing Supreme Court guidance under the Copyright Act, ruled that authorship belongs to the creator.

Gardephe found Trump’s claim of joint authorship with Woodward unsubstantiated, noting Woodward and Simon & Schuster had filed their own copyright in February.

Gardephe ruled, “Trump’s legal claim does not ‘plausibly allege’ that he was the joint author of The Trump Tapes or has a copyright interest in them.”

Gardephe wrote, “The Supreme Court has instructed, under the Copyright Act, ‘the author is the party who actually creates the work, that is, the person who translates an idea into a fixed, tangible expression entitled to copyright protection.’”

Gardephe added, “While copyright registration may constitute prima facie evidence of ownership, where there are conflicting and adverse copyright registrations, the Copyright Office does not resolve the competing claims, and courts are called upon to make ‘an independent determination of copyright ownership.’”

Trump now has time to amend his complaint, though Gardephe doubts he can establish a valid copyright claim. Trump argued he holds rights to the recordings’ content despite not crafting the questions.

Paramount Global, the former owner of Simon & Schuster, is a defendant. Gardephe noted that it is “unlikely” Trump will be able to arrive at a different result.

Thos who stand up to this loser always seem to win! 🙂

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-loses-lawsuit-as-judge-sides-with-defendants/ar-AA1KDMIy

Bradenton Herald: Supreme Court Ruling Backfires on Trump Admin


“… we reiterate our concerns that the Trump administration has not shared the details of a plan to redistribute the Department’s work in a way that does not cause significant disruption for America’s college students.”


The Department of Education is reportedly experiencing operational challenges due to staffing cuts and new regulatory requirements, now challenged with meeting demands with fewer resources.

Staffing cuts of over 50% have most notably impacted Federal Student Aid and Civil Rights divisions. The Supreme Court has allowed the staff reductions amid ongoing legal proceedings.

Department leaders claimed they’re prepared to enforce new rules, but educators doubt their capacity. Shutting down the department requires Congress, though both parties have resisted the move.

President Donald Trump has supported reducing the federal role in education, though the department still offers aid and enforces standards. The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act has changed student loan repayment programs, expanded Pell Grant eligibility, and tightened college accountability.

Deputy Press Secretary at the Department of Education Ellen Keast said, “Just within President Trump’s first six months, the Department has responsibly managed and streamlined key federal student aid features.”

Keast added, “We will continue to deliver meaningful and on time results while implementing President Trump’s OBBB (‘One Big Beautiful Bill’) to better serve students, families, and administrators.”

A new law limits new borrowers to two repayment options and sets a 2028 deadline to shift specific income-driven plans. American Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Beth Akers said, “I do have significant concerns that the speed of the cuts will have left us with a department that is unable to effectively implement this legislation.”

Melanie Storey, President of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, said, “With significantly more work on the horizon to implement the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, we reiterate our concerns that the Trump administration has not shared the details of a plan to redistribute the Department’s work in a way that does not cause significant disruption for America’s college students.”

Pell Grants now cover short skill-based courses with departmental approval. A “do no harm” rule links federal aid to positive student outcomes, requiring collaboration with schools and agencies.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-ruling-backfires-on-trump-admin/ar-AA1KEjSs

Newsweek: Trump supporter detained by ICE Agents regrets vote: “Were all brainwashed”

A California man who voted for President Donald Trump has spoken out after being detained by immigration agents.

Brian Gavidia, a 29-year-old American citizen from Montebello, joined a lawsuit challenging immigration enforcement tactics after federal agents detained him on June 12, NBC 4 Los Angeles reported.

“I truly believe I was targeted because of my race,” Gavidia told the outlet, adding elsewhere in the interview, “We were all brainwashed.”

“While conducting a lawful immigration enforcement operation in Montebello, CA, Brian Gavidia was arrested for assaulting a law enforcement officer and interfering with agents during their duties,” Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek.

“Javier Ramirez was detained on the street for investigation for interference and released after being confirmed to be a U.S. citizen with no outstanding warrants,” she added.

Why It Matters

Millions of Americans voted for Trump in support of his promise to carry out widespread deportations of migrants living in the U.S. illegally, particularly those with criminal records. As immigration enforcement efforts ramp up across the country, concerns are mounting that the Trump administration is not, as it pledged, targeting the “worst first.”

Newsweek has documented several cases of Trump supporters being affected by the immigration raids.

What To Know

Gavidia voted for Trump, believing that his administration’s immigration agenda would target criminals, not everyday citizens, NBC 4 Los Angeles reported.

He told the outlet that during an immigration enforcement operation in the San Gabriel Valley, a federal agent pushed him against a wall and demanded proof of citizenship, asking him the name of the hospital where he was born.

Footage circulating on social media shows Gavidia shouting, “I was born here in the states, East LA bro!”

The video shows agents, who are wearing vests with “Border Patrol Federal Agent” on them, holding Gavidia’s hands behind his back.

Agents allegedly confiscated his Real ID and phone. Gavidia was later released and recovered his phone, but he said he never received his ID.

Convinced he was targeted because of his Latino heritage, Gavidia now rejects his prior support for the president.

“I believe it was a mistake because he ran on lies,” Gavidia said. “He said criminals.”

“If this was going to happen, do you think we would have voted? We’re humans. We’re not going to destroy our community. We’re not going to destroy our people,” he continued.

“We were all manipulated. We were all brainwashed,” Gavidia told NBC 4 Los Angeles. “And now look at us. We are all suffering because of it, and I feel guilty 100 percent.”

Gavidia is among seven plaintiffs in an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit that resulted in a court order limiting when federal agents can initiate immigration enforcement.

The filing requested that the court prohibit raids conducted without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. It also said agents concentrated operations in places where Latino workers were often found, such as local car washes and outside Home Depot locations.

California has been a key battleground state for immigration enforcement operations after Trump ordered federal agents to ramp up arrests in Democratic cities.

On August 1, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a temporary restraining order, originally issued by a federal judge, that placed limits on how the federal government could carry out immigration enforcement operations in Southern California.

An attorney for the Trump administration argued before a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, seeking a stay of the temporary restraining order while the case was appealed. The panel denied the request.

The decision upholds a July 11 ruling granting a restraining order sought by immigrant rights advocates to limit federal immigration enforcement in Los Angeles and other areas of Southern California. Under Judge Maame E. Frimpong’s directive, officers and agents may not detain individuals unless they have reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States in violation of immigration law.

What People Are Saying

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Newsweek“Any allegations that individuals have been ‘targeted’ by law enforcement because of their skin color are FALSE. What makes someone a target is if they are in the United States illegally. These types of disgusting smears are designed to demonize and villainize our brave ICE law enforcement. This kind of garbage has led to a more than 1,000 percent increase in the assaults on ICE officers. Politicians and activists must turn the temperature down and tone down their rhetoric.

“DHS enforcement operations are highly targeted, and officers do their due diligence. We know who we are targeting ahead of time. If and when we do encounter individuals subject to arrest, our law enforcement is trained to ask a series of well-determined questions to determine status and removability.

“We will follow the President’s direction and continue to work to get the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens off of America’s streets.”

Brian Gavidia told NBC 4 Los Angeles: “I believe I was racially profiled. I believe I was attacked because I was walking while brown. Where is the freedom? Where is the justice? We live in America. This is why I’m fighting today. This is why I’m protecting the Constitution.”

What Happens Next

Despite the legal restrictions, immigration raids continue. The Trump administration has appealed the Ninth Circuit’s decision that upheld the temporary restraining order. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will decide whether to lift or uphold the restrictions limiting broad-based immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-supporter-detained-ice-agents-immigration-2112676

Newsweek: Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update

The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump‘s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Why It Matters

The Justice Department’s plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights.

Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents.

At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory.

What To Know

On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump’s executive order.

The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration’s legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.

One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, “unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.”

The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction.

The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition “expeditiously” for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court’s decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October.

This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal.

The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized.

Fourteenth Amendment At Stake

Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts.

What People Are Saying

President Trump, during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: “Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two—on our land, ‘Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,’ … Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous.” Adding: “…we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We’re the only country that has it, you know.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: “Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court.”

DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: “In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term.”

Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: “You can’t ‘executive order’ your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order.”

What Happens Next

The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari.

The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year.

For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump’s executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.


What part of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is so hard to understand? Only a Totally Retarded Dumb-Assed Idiot (TRDAI) could miss the meaning of it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of TRDAIs in the Trump regime. 🙁


https://www.newsweek.com/justice-department-issues-birthright-citizenship-update-2110176

Independent: Trump team weighs releasing Ghislaine Maxwell’s interview with DOJ officials over Epstein case: report

It was not previously known that such a recording existed, but a final decision in whether to release it or not has yet to be made

The Trump administration is considering publicly releasing an audio recording of an interview with Ghislaine Maxwell and senior officials from the Department of Justice about Jeffrey Epstein, according to a new report.

It was not previously known that such a recording existed, and officials are currently discussing whether or not to release a transcript of the discussion between the British socialite and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Maxwell, 63, was the disgraced financier’s ex-girlfriend, and is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence after her 2021 conviction for her role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse multiple girls. Her attorneys have taken an appeal of her conviction to the Supreme Court.

The interview between the socialite and the DOJ came following ongoing pressure on the administration to be more transparent over the Epstein case, following a July 6 memo which stated that convicted pedophile died by suicide in 2019 and there was no evidence to support the existence of a so-called “client list.” Such claims caused uproar among the MAGA faithful.

Sources told CNN that the audio recording was currently being transcribed and digitized, but that some parts that may reveal sensitive information – like the names of victims – would need to be redacted.

The outlet reported that as of Tuesday morning, a final decision on whether to release the recording and the transcript, had not been made.

CNN also reported that, per its sources, some within the administration were concerned that making details from the interview public would bring the Epstein controversy back into the public spotlight, when many officials close to the president believe the story has largely died down.

When asked for comment by The Independent, the administration denied that any such decisions were being made about the transcript, and that Trump had already addressed the issue.

In a statement, Steven Cheung, White House Communications Director, said: “This is nothing more than CNN trying desperately to create news out of old news. He already addressed this issue in an interview with Newsmax, a real news outlet that routinely gets better ratings than CNN.”

Discussions about the recordings and transcript come after the DoJ admitted that the grand jury transcripts in Maxwell’s criminal case, contain mostly publicly available information.

Trump previously asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to make public “any and all pertinent” grand jury transcripts in both the Epstein and Maxwell cases, in order to stymie the ongoing furore.

A judge overseeing Maxwell’s case asked the government to provide more information to the court. The department provided a version of the transcripts that identifies which information is not publicly available. However, Bondi admitted in a Monday filing that “much” of the information in the transcripts was already made publicly available.

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/ghislaine-maxwell-doj-interview-epstein-b2802282.html

San Francisco Chronicle: Trump asks SCOTUS to allow profiling in California ICE raids


Any attorney who files or argues in favor of this appeal should be disbarred!

Any justice who votes in favor of this appeal should impeached and removed!


The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to allow officers to arrest suspected undocumented immigrants in Southern California because of how they look, what language they’re speaking and what kind of work they’re doing, factors that federal judges have found to be baseless and discriminatory.

Last month’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, “threatens to upend immigration officials’ ability to enforce the immigration laws in the Central District of California,” D. John Sauer, the Justice Department’s solicitor general, said Thursday in a filing with the Supreme Court. “This Court should end this attempted judicial usurpation of immigration-enforcement functions” and suspend the injunction while the case is argued in the lower courts, Sauer wrote.

The Central District, which includes Los Angeles County and six other counties, has nearly 20 million residents, more than any other federal court district in the nation. It became the focus of legal disputes over immigration enforcement after President Donald Trump took control of the California National Guard in June and sent thousands of its troops to the streets in Los Angeles to defend immigration agents against protesters of workplace raids.

A 9th Circuit panel upheld Trump’s commandeering of the National Guard, rejecting a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom. But Frimpong, an appointee of President Joe Biden, ruled July 11 that immigration officers were overstepping legal boundaries in making the arrests, and issued a temporary restraining order against their practices.

In a ruling Aug. 1 upholding the judge’s decision, another 9th Circuit panel said federal officers had been seizing people from the streets and workplaces based on four factors: their apparent race or ethnicity, the language they spoke or accent in their voice, their presence in a location such as a car wash or an agricultural site, and the type of work they were doing.

That would justify the arrest of anyone “who appears Hispanic, speaks Spanish or English with an accent, wears work clothes, and stands near a carwash, in front of a Home Depot, or at a bus stop,” the panel’s three judges said. They agreed with Frimpong that officers could not rely on any or all of those factors as the basis for an arrest.

But the Trump administration’s lawyers said those factors were valid reasons for immigration arrests in the Central District.

In April, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston issued a similar order against the Border Patrol, prohibiting immigration arrests in the Eastern District of California unless officers have a reasonable suspicion that a person is breaking the law. The district is based in Sacramento and extends from Fresno to the Oregon border.

“You can’t just walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers,’” Thurston, a Biden appointee, said at a court hearing, CalMatters reported. The Trump administration has appealed her injunction to the 9th Circuit.

The administration’s compliance with the Central District court order was questioned by immigrant advocates on Wednesday after a raid on a Home Depot store near MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, in which officers said 16 Latin American workers were detained. An American Civil Liberties Union attorney, Mohammad Tajsar, said the government “seems unwilling to fulfill the aims of its racist mass deportation agenda without breaking the law.”

There is ample evidence that many businesses in the district “unlawfully employ illegal aliens and are known to hire them on a day-to-day basis; that certain types of jobs — like day labor, landscaping, and construction — are most attractive to illegal aliens because they often do not require paperwork; that the vast majority of illegal aliens in the District come from Mexico or Central America; and that many only speak Spanish,” Sauer told the Supreme Court.

“No one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion” that someone is an illegal immigrant, the Justice Department attorney said. “But in many situations, such factors — alone or in combination — can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States.”

The Supreme Court told lawyers for the immigrants to file a response by Tuesday. 

The case is Noem v. Perdomo, No. 25A169.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/scotus-immigration-california-20809308.php

Raw Story: Supreme Court used wrong statute to make monumental birthright citizenship ruling: expert

Conservative legal scholar Jack Goldsmith revealed that the U.S. Supreme Court relied on an incorrectly cited statute to justify its shocking birthright citizen ruling.

Goldsmith, a former United States Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel under the George W. Bush administration, wrote that the decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett contained a key error, as Slate legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern summarized.

“Justice Barrett’s opinion in the universal injunction case rests on an error: For the purposes of historical analysis, she looked at the wrong statute and got the relevant date wrong by nearly *a century,*” wrote Stern on Bluesky Tuesday.

Goldsmith’s analysis looked at 18 interim orders that deal specifically with President Donald Trump’s administration. Notably, he specified that the cases involving a kind of ban on universal injunctions came amid lower courts’ efforts to temporarily pause Trump’s executive orders from going into effect until after they can be litigated.

The ruling in June stated that injunctions should only affect those involved in legal challenges, and shouldn’t be applied over huge swathes of the public.

It specifically referred to injunctions involving challenges to Trump’s attempts to limit birthright citizenship — a Constitutional law that states anybody born in the U.S. is a citizen. It said injunctions could only affect individuals or groups involved in the legal action, not the nation as a whole.

“The Court stated that Section 11 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 ‘endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over ‘all suits . . . in equity,’ and still today . . . ‘is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies,'” the article cites the ruling.

However, he noted, it appears the Court didn’t look at the text or context of Section 11 when making its ruling.

“The Court’s claim that equitable remedies are authorized by Section 11 and thus ‘must have a founding-era antecedent’ is novel,'” the article continues, meaning that it’s new or unusual. “It [is] also questionable since Section 11 cannot have authorized equitable remedies in CASA.”

That’s when Goldsmith drops the hammer, saying “Section 11 is a jurisdictional statute” and that the jurisdiction in the CASA case was “based on federal question jurisdiction and suits against the United States. Neither head of jurisdiction is mentioned in Section 11, because neither existed until the last quarter of the nineteenth century. And none of the three heads of subject matter jurisdiction in Section 11 has any legal connection to CASA.”

So, under the Supreme Court’s logic “that jurisdictional statutes authorize equitable remedies, it should have looked to the state of remedies beginning in 1875, when the federal question jurisdiction statute was enacted, not 1789.”

So it seems that Amy Coney Barrett is not much brighter than the fascist who nominated her in 2020.

https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett

NBC News: Stanford student newspaper sues Trump officials over immigration law that they say led to chilling of free speech

The Stanford Daily accused the administration of using immigration provisions to threaten deportation, leading to censorship and violating First Amendment rights.

Stanford University’s student newspaper sued the Trump administration Wednesday over two provisions in federal immigration law that it says the officials have wielded against those with pro-Palestinian views.

The Stanford Daily, in addition to two former college students, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, accusing the administration of using the provisions to threaten deportation and the revocation of visas. They say the situation has led to censorship and violations of free speech rights.

The paper’s staff members who are on visas have self-censored and declined assignments related to the war in Gaza, fearful that their reporting could jeopardize their lawful immigration status, the lawsuit said.

“In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is helping represent the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “Free speech isn’t a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

A senior State Department official declined to comment and directed NBC News to comments Rubio has about visa holders and complying with U.S. law.

In April, Rubio wrote in an opinion piece published on Fox News that he would be taking a “zero-tolerance approach to foreign nationals who abet terrorist organizations.”

“The Supreme Court has made clear for decades that visa holders or other aliens cannot use the First Amendment to shield otherwise impermissible actions taken to support designated foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizballah, or the Houthis, or violate other U.S. laws,” Rubio said.

Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, described the lawsuit as “baseless.”

“There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,” she said in a statement.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs take aim at the Deportation Provision and Revocation Provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The first provision allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary “personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” The second gives the secretary the power to revoke a visa or documentation at his or her discretion.

As the lawsuit points out, the Trump administration has cited the Deportation Provision as the basis for trying to deport Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested and detained for more than three months. Similarly, the administration used the Revocation Provision to detain Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who has also since been released.

Because of the administration’s use of the statutes, the lawsuit said, the Stanford Daily has received a number of requests from lawfully present noncitizens to have their names, quotes or photos removed from articles. Many international students have stopped speaking to the paper’s journalists, and current and former writers have asked for their opinion editorials to be taken down, the lawsuit said.

“The First Amendment cements America’s promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,” the lawsuit said. “And when a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights, the Constitution prevails.”

One of the unnamed plaintiffs appeared on the Canary Mission, the suit said. The website, run by an anonymous group, has published a detailed database of students, professors and others who it says have shared anti-Israel and antisemitic viewpoints. It has been accused of doxxing and harassment, in addition to launching personal attacks that depict pro-Palestinian activists as being in “support of terrorism,” the Middle East Studies Association of North America said. The plaintiff has stopped publishing and “voicing her true opinions” on the Palestinian territories and Israel, the suit said.

Canary Mission has told NBC News that it documents people and groups who “promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews” across the political spectrum. It did not respond to criticisms of its work.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that block the officials from using the provisions against them based on engaging in what they consider protected speech.

“There’s real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,” Greta Reich, the Stanford Daily’s editor-in-chief, said in a statement. “The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stanford-student-newspaper-sues-trump-officials-immigration-law-rcna223477