Tag Archives: Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Independent: Fruit vendor arrested by border patrol outside Gavin Newsom event speaks out after six weeks in ICE prison

Posted on by
Reply

Strawberry delivery driver released on bond after abrupt arrest as agents patrolled governor’s event

Angel Rodrigo Minguela Palacios was unloading boxes of strawberries during his final delivery in Los Angeles when a band of masked Border Patrol agents surrounded him and asked for his identification.

Minguela had unwittingly entered a political minefield on August 14 outside the Japanese American National Museum in Little Tokyo, where California Governor Gavin Newsom was addressing a crowd about his plans to fight back against a Republican-led gerrymandering campaign to maintain control of Congress.

Federal agents deployed by Donald Trump’s administration were patrolling the street directly in front of the building.

The timing of the spectacle drew immediate scrutiny and backlash, with the governor speaking out in the middle of his remarks to condemn what was happening just outside the event. “You think it’s coincidental?” he said.

Minguela, 48, was released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody last week after nearly two months inside a facility he described as a “prison” with lights on at all hours of the day, no beds and only a concrete floor to sleep on.

Detainees received little food, and the conditions were so bleak that some of the men inside volunteered to self-deport rather, he told CBS News.

“Those days were the hardest,” Minguela told The Los Angeles Times. “My first day there on the floor, I cried. It doesn’t matter that you’re men, it doesn’t matter your age. There, men cried.”

Minguela, who is undocumented, has lived in the United States for more than a decade after entering the country from Mexico on a tourist visa. He overstayed his visa after fleeing violence in the Mexican state of Coahuila, where he had been kidnapped twice and stabbed by people trying to steal money from ATMs he was servicing, according to The Times.

He does not have a criminal record.

Minguela was released on bond and is equipped with an ankle monitor as an immigration judge determines next steps in his case.

A spokesperson for Homeland Security said he “was arrested for breaking our country’s laws by overstaying his visa” but remains unclear why he was targeted for arrest.

Minguela had overstayed a tourist visa after fleeing the Mexican state of Coahuila in 2015 because of violence he faced there, his partner said. She said he had worked servicing ATMs there, was kidnapped twice and at one point was stabbed by people intent on stealing the money. After his employers cut staff, she said, he lost his job, helping drive his decision to leave.

On August 14, Minguela left his partner and three children — ages 15, 12 and six — while they were still asleep as he prepared for his daily delivery route at 2 a.m. He had worked for the same produce delivery company for eight years and never missed a day.

Minguela was unloading several boxes of strawberries and a box of apples when he noticed a group of masked Border Patrol agents roaming the area surrounding Newsom’s event.

Video from the scene shows the agents passing his van then doubling back and looking inside to find Minguela. He presented a red “know your rights” card from his wallet and handed it to an agent.

“This is of no use to me,” he said, according to The Times. Agents then asked him his name, nationality and immigration paperwork before leading him away in handcuffs.

“Immigration has already caught me,” Minguela wrote in text messages to his partner. “Don’t worry. God will help us a lot.”

U.S. Border Patrol El Centro Sector Chief Gregory Bovino was observing the arrest. He turned to the officers and shouted out “well done” moments before speaking with reporters who were filming the scene.

“We’re here making Los Angeles a safer place since we don’t have politicians that will do that,” Border Patrol El Centro Sector Chief Gregory Bovino told FOX 11. “We do that ourselves, so that’s why we’re here today.”

Asked whether he had a message for Newsom, who was speaking roughly 100 feet away, Bovino said he wasn’t aware where the governor was.

“I think it’s pretty sick and pathetic,” Newsom said of the arrest.

“They chose the time, manner, and place to send their district director outside right when we’re about to have this press conference,” he said. “That’s everything you know about Donald Trump’s America … about the authoritarian tendencies of the president.”

Minguela believes he was targeted for his appearance.

Immigration raids throughout the Los Angeles area in June sparked massive protests demanding the Trump administration withdraw ICE and federal agents from patrolling immigrant communities.

In response, Trump federalized National Guard troops and sent in hundreds of Marines despite objections from Democratic city and state officials.

A federal judge determined the administration had illegally deployed the Guard as part of an apparent nationwide effort to create “a national police force with the president as its chief.”

The Supreme Court also recently overturned an injunction that blocked federal agents from carrying out sweeps in southern California after a judge determined they were indiscriminately targeting people based on race and whether they spoke Spanish, among other factors.

The court’s opinion drew a forceful rebuke from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice on the bench, who accused the conservative justices of ignoring the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful searches and seizures

“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,” she wrote in a dissenting opinion.

“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be “free from arbitrary interference by law officers,’” she added. “After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.”

Fruit vendor arrested outside Gavin Newsom event speaks out after ICE detention
Strawberry delivery driver released on bond after abrupt arrest as agents patrolled governor’s event

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gavin-newsom-los-angeles-ice-arrest-border-patrol-b2831503.html

Hollywood Reporter: Trump’s Attack on ABC Is Illegal. It Might Not Matter

Posted on by
Reply

The carrot or the stick? Trump has utilized every lever of government to target networks critical of him.

The chain of events that led to ABC’s suspension of Jimmy Kimmel Live! unfolded unusually fast. It started with a thinly-veiled threat from Federal Communications Chair Brendan Carr that his agency might take action against the network over accusations that the late night host mischaracterized the politics of the man who allegedly killed Charlie Kirk.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” he said to right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson. “These companies can find ways to change conduct, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Within five hours, Nextstar, an owner of ABC affiliate stations around the country, said that it would pre-empt the show “for the foreseeable future.” Minutes later, ABC pulled it indefinitely.

Since the start of his second term, President Trump has used every lever of government to fight back against what he considers conservative bias in mainstream media and adversarial coverage. By dangling carrots of selective regulatory enforcement and favorable regulation, he’s effectively been able to strongarm networks, which disguise the could-be censorship as private business decisions. Consider Skydance’s acquisition of Paramount, with CEO David Ellison intending to make major changes at CBS News, possibly by bringing on The Free Press founder Bari Weiss in a leading role at the network.

Kimmel was “fired because of bad ratings more than anyone else,” Trump, who predicted the late night host’s firing in July, said at a press conference in London. Later, he suggested revoking the licenses of adversarial broadcast networks. “I would think maybe their licenses should be taken away,” he said. Carr also told CNBC earlier in the morning that “we’re not done yet,” hinting at further changes in media.

And like approval of Paramount’s sink-or-swim merger with Skydance, Kimmel’s suspensions shines a spotlight on the power that Trump wields over dealmaking and regulatory matters in decisions with the potential to transform the long term trajectory of a company. Media execs are on notice: Bob Iger allowed ABC News’ settlement of a defamation lawsuit from Trump; Jeff Bezos revamped The Washington Post‘s opinion section to bring it more in line with Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal; Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong shifted the paper’s strategy to increasingly platform conservative views.

Here, Carr knew the affiliate networks had leverage. Nextstar reaches 220 millions viewers in the country, and it appears the company drew a hard line over Kimmel’s remarks. The FCC didn’t formally have to do anything.

“The threat is real,” says Floyd Abrams, a leading First Amendment lawyer who’s argued more than a dozen free speech cases before the Supreme Court.

To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of U.C. Berkeley School of Law, lines were clearly crossed. “The government, including the FCC, never can impose sanctions for the views expressed,” he says. “But that is exactly what Carr threatened and ABC capitulated.”

Important to note: Nextstar is seeking regulatory approval for its $6.2 billion megamerger with Tegna that, if greenlit, would make it by far the largest owner of local TV stations in the country. But first, the FCC has to raise the 40 percent ownership cap in order to advance the deal.

By pre-empting Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Nextstar was able to curry favor with Carr. The company “stood up and said, ‘Look, we have the license, and we don’t want to run this anymore. We don’t think it serves the interests of our community,’” he said during a Wednesday segment on FOX News’ Hannity. “I’m very glad to see that America’s broadcasters are standing up to serve the interests of their community.”

Yes, Carr’s threat likely violates the First Amendment, legal scholars say, but that only matters if Disney is willing to go to court. The entertainment giant had clear incentives to fold. It has ambitions, perhaps ones that will require regulatory approval in the near future, outside of ABC. There’s the looming threat of government retaliation if it didn’t suspend Kimmel.

Recently, Disney has tried to avoid the partisan political fray. By its thinking, its brand is built on fairytales and fantasies, not taking positions on socially divisive topics, which have come with consequences (Conservatives go to Disney World too). Take the company, under pressure from its employees, criticizing a Florida education barring classroom discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity. State legislators, at the direction of Gov. Ron DeSantis, responded by assuming control of the special tax district that encompasses its 25,000-acre resort. A years-long, bitter feud with its most vital partner for its parks business that likely contributed to former chief executive Bob Chapek’s ouster and a dragging stock price, which culminated in a proxy fight with activist investor Nelson Peltz, followed.

If it does sue, which is very unlikely, Disney could lean on precedent created by an unlikely ally: The National Rifle Association. In a case before the Supreme Court last year, the justices unanimously found that the gun group’s First Amendment rights were violated when New York state officials coerced private companies into blacklisting it. The takeaway, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, is that the constitution “prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech.”

There are obvious parallels, says Eugene Volokh, a professor at U.C.L.A. law school and influential conservative blogger. “It’s clear that the FCC used coercive pressure — the threat of investigation or cancelling the Nextstar, Tegna merger,” he says.

It’s true that Kimmel’s remarks about the political affiliation of Kirk’s shooter were incorrect. It matters to get things right. But Carr’s intervention thrusts the FCC — and government — into a miscast role as the arbiter of truth. There’s a right to speculate on current events, even if it later turns out to be wrong.

“We’ve never been in a situation like this,” Abrams says. “It’s a real body blow to free expression.”

Trump’s Attack on ABC Is Illegal. It Might Not Matter
The carrot or the stick? Trump has utilized every lever of government to target networks critical of him.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/jimmy-kimmels-suspension-trump-era-first-amendment-threat-1236375335

CNN: Kavanaugh faces blowback for claiming Americans can sue over encounters with ICE

Posted on by
Reply

Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s breezy suggestion this week that Americans who are roughed up by ICE can sue agents in federal court is drawing pushback from civil rights attorneys who note the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has in recent years made those cases nearly impossible to win.

Writing to explain the court’s emergency ruling Monday that allowed the Trump administration to continue “roving” immigration patrols in Southern California, Kavanaugh brushed aside concerns that masked ICE agents had pushed, shoved and detained Hispanics – in one instance throwing a US citizen against a fence and confiscating his phone.

“To the extent that excessive force has been used,” Kavanaugh wrote in a 10-page concurrence, “the Fourth Amendment prohibits such action, and remedies should be available in federal court.”

But in a series of recent decisions – including two that involved incidents at the border – the Supreme Court has severely limited the ability of people to sue federal law enforcement officers for excessive force claims. Kavanaugh, who was nominated to the court by Trump during his first term, was in the majority in those decisions.

“It’s bordering on impossible to get any sort of remedy in a federal court when a federal officer violates federal rights,” said Patrick Jaicomo, a senior attorney at the libertarian Institute for Justice who has regularly represented clients suing federal agents.

Lauren Bonds, executive director of the National Police Accountability Project, said that it can be incredibly difficult for a person subjected to excessive force to find an attorney and take on the federal government in court.

“What we’ve seen is, term after term, the court limiting the avenues that people have available to sue the federal government,” Bonds told CNN.

Sotomayor dissents

To stop a person on the street for questioning, immigration officials must have a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the country illegally. The question for the Supreme Court was whether an agent could rely on factors like a person’s apparent ethnicity, language or their presence at a particular location, to establish reasonable suspicion.

A US district court in July ordered the Department of Homeland Security to discontinue the practice of making initial stops based on those factors. The Supreme Court on Monday, without an explanation from the majority, put that lower court order on hold – effectively greenlighting the administration’s approach while the litigation continues in lower courts.

In a sharp dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited the stories raised by several of the people in Southern California who had been caught up in the crackdown.

“The government, and now the concurrence, has all but declared that all Latinos, US citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction,” wrote Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Jason Gavidia, a US citizen, was approached in June by masked agents who repeatedly questioned his citizenship status, pressing him to name the hospital in which he was born, according to court records. When he could not answer that question, he said, agents racked a rifle, took his phone and pushed him up against a metal fence.

He was later released.

Another US citizen, Jorge Viramontes, was grabbed and escorted by agents into a vehicle and held in a “warehouse area” for further questioning, according to court documents.

Richard Re, a Harvard Law professor, viewed Kavanaugh’s remark in the opinion differently. Maybe, Re wrote on Tuesday, Kavanaugh was attempting to signal something about where he thinks the law should go.

“When you have an important sentence that’s very ambiguous, it’s usually deliberately so,” Re, who clerked for Kavanaugh when he was an appeals court judge, told CNN.

“I think it’s not clear what to make of that remark,” Re said. “It could suggest a genuine interest, on at least one pivotal justice’s part, in revitalizing Fourth Amendment remediation.”

Limited recourse

The court has for years been limiting the ability of people who face excessive force to sue federal agents, litigation that proponents say can act as a check on such behavior.

In 2020, the court’s conservative majority blocked a damages lawsuit from the family of a 15-year-old Mexican boy who was shot and killed across the border by a Border Patrol agent.

Three years ago, the court similarly rejected a suit from a US citizen who owned a bed and breakfast near the Canadian border and who said he was pushed to the ground as Border Patrol agents questioned a guest about their immigration status.

Lawsuits against federal police are controlled by a 1971 precedent, Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents, that involved federal drug agents who searched the home of a man without a warrant. The Supreme Court allowed that lawsuit, but in recent years it has significantly clamped down on the ability of people to file suits in any other circumstance besides the warrant involved in the Bivens case. The right to sue federal agents, the court has maintained, should be set by Congress, not the courts.

Americans may also sue the government for damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, if its employees engage in wrongdoing or negligence. But federal courts have carved out a complicated patchwork of exceptions to that law as well. Earlier this year, in a case involving an FBI raid on the wrong house, a unanimous Supreme Court allowed the family to sue, but also limited the scope of a provision of the law that was aimed at protecting people who are harmed by federal law enforcement.

The tort law, Bonds said, is “incredibly narrow, incredibly complex and definitely not a sure thing.”

‘Shadow docket’ criticism

Kavanaugh’s opinion came as the court has faced sharp criticism in some quarters for deciding a slew of emergency cases in Trump’s favor without any explanation.

The Supreme Court has consistently sided with Trump recently, overturning lower courts’ temporary orders and allowing the president to fire the leadership of independent agencies, cut spending authorized by Congress and pursue an aggressive crackdown on immigration while litigation continues in lower courts.

Those emergency cases don’t fully resolve the legal questions at hand – and the court is often hesitant to write opinions that could influence the final outcome of a case – but they can have enormous, real-world consequences.

Emergency cases are almost always handled without oral argument and are addressed on a much tighter deadline than the court’s regular merits cases.

In that sense, Kavanaugh’s opinion provided some clarity about how at least one member of the court’s majority viewed the ICE patrols.

He noted Sotomayor’s dissent and pointed out that the issue of excessive force was not involved in the case.

“The Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness standard continues to govern the officers’ use of force and to prohibit excessive force,” Kavanaugh said.

What he didn’t explain, several experts note, is how a violation of those rights could be vindicated.

“Sincerely wondering,” University of Chicago law professor William Baude posted on social media, “what remedies does Justice Kavanaugh believe are and should be available in federal court these days for excessive force violations by federal immigration officials?”

Kavanaugh faces blowback for claiming Americans can sue over encounters with ICE | CNN Politics
Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s breezy suggestion this week that Americans who are roughed up by ICE can sue agents in federal court is drawing pushback from civil rights attorneys who note the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has in recent years made those cases nearly impossible to win.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/10/politics/kavanaugh-blowback-ice

USA Today: ‘Unconscionably irreconcilable’. Sotomayor rips Supreme Court’s pro-Trump ICE ruling

Posted on by
Reply

The liberal justice called the order “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees.”

  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion criticizing the majority’s decision and the Trump administration’s actions.
  • Sotomayor argued the ruling allows the government to seize people based on their appearance, language, and type of work.
  • The Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s order that had restricted ICE agents’ tactics in Los Angeles.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the Trump administration’s operation of the Los Angeles immigration raids, vowing not to stand idly by while the United States’ “constitutional freedoms are lost.”

On Sept. 8, the Supreme Court lifted a restraining order from a federal judge in LA who had restricted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from conducting stops without reasonable suspicion.

In July, US District Judge Maame Frimpong of the Central District of California said the government can’t rely solely on the person’s race, the language they speak, the work they perform, and whether they’re at a particular location, such as a pickup site for day laborers.

However, the Sept. 8 reversal by the Supreme Court’s mostly conservative majority gave the Trump administration another victory, as Sotomayor condemned the vote.

“That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” Sotomayor wrote in a blistering, 21-page dissent on Sept. 8. “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job.”

Sotomayor called the order “unconscionably irreconcilable with our nation’s constitutional guarantees.”

The justice, an Obama appointee, ripped her high court conservative colleagues and the government over the ruling. Sotomayor declared that all Latinos, whether they are U.S. citizens or not, “who work low-wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”oss California by broadening its scope from those only with criminal records to anyone in the United States without proper authorization. The crackdown ignited protests, prompting Trump to call in the National Guard and eventually the Marines to diffuse the outrage.

In June, the Trump administration ramped up immigration raids across California by broadening its scope from those only with criminal records to anyone in the United States without proper authorization. The crackdown ignited protests, prompting Trump to call in the National Guard and eventually the Marines to diffuse the outrage.

Sotomayor takes exception to Kavanaugh’s explanation

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who agreed with the Trump administration, said in his concurrence on Sept. 8 that the District Court overreached in limiting ICE’s authority to briefly stop people and ask them about their immigration status.

“To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a ‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors,” Kavanaugh said.

He added, “Immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence have been an important component of US immigration enforcement for decades, across several presidential administrations.”Despite fears, still looking for work: 

Sotomayor took exception to Kavanaugh’s comments. She said ICE agents are not simply just questioning people, they are seizing people by using firearms and physical violence.

Sotomayor added that the Fourth Amendment, which is meant to protect “every individual’s constitutional right,” from search and seizure, might be in jeopardy.

“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be ‘free from arbitrary interference by law officers,'” Sotomayor said. “After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.” 

‘Unconscionably irreconcilable’. Sotomayor rips Supreme Court’s pro-Trump ICE ruling

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/09/08/sotomayor-supreme-court-ruling-unconscionably-irreconcilable/86048909007

Salon: Sotomayor says SCOTUS ruling lets ICE “seize anyone who looks Latino”

Posted on by
Reply

Sotomayor worried that the ruling made Latinos living in Los Angeles “fair game” for ICE harassment

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the Supreme Court’s decision to allow wide-scale ICE raids and immigration stops in Los Angeles to continue on Monday. In a scathing dissent, she said the court was giving the Department of Homeland Security a green light to “seize anyone who looks Latino.”

The Monday ruling lifted an injunction on “roving” ICE actions in Southern California. That order from a lower court judge barred agents from carrying out detentions based on ethnicity, languages being spoken, employment or location.

While the Supreme Court’s ruling was unsigned, it appeared to be supported along partisan lines as all three liberals dissented. Writing for the liberal justices, Sotomayor called the order “unconscionable” and said it made Latinos throughout the region “fair game.”

“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low-wage job,” Sotomayor wrote.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, concurring with the unnamed majority, said ethnicity was a  “a ‘relevant factor’” for ICE agents to consider. He added that  “many” undocumented immigrants in the Los Angeles area “do not speak much English,” and work low-wage, manual labor jobs.

“Under this Court’s precedents, not mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote.

In her dissent, Sotomayor raised concerns about how the ruling could impact constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure.

“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be free from arbitrary interference by law officers,” she wrote. “After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.”

Sotomayor says SCOTUS ruling lets ICE “seize anyone who looks Latino” – Salon.com
Sotomayor worried that the ruling made Latinos living in Los Angeles “fair game” for ICE harassment.

https://www.salon.com/2025/09/08/sotomayor-says-scotus-ruling-lets-ice-seize-anyone-who-looks-latino

Independent: Federal agents to ‘flood the zone’ after Supreme Court opens door for racial profiling in Los Angeles immigration raids

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is vowing to “FLOOD THE ZONE” after the Supreme Court opened the door for federal law enforcement officers to roam the streets of Los Angeles to make immigration arrests based on racially profiling suspects.

A 6-3 decision from the nation’s high court Monday overturned an injunction that blocked federal agents from carrying out sweeps in southern California after a judge determined they were indiscriminately targeting people based on race and whether they spoke Spanish, among other factors.

The court’s conservative majority did not provide a reason for the decision, which is typical for opinions on the court’s emergency docket.

In a concurring opinion, Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” but it can be a “relevant factor” for immigration enforcement.

Attorney General Pam Bondi called the ruling a “massive victory” that allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to “continue carrying out roving patrols in California without judicial micromanagement.”

The Department of Homeland Security said its officers “will continue to FLOOD THE ZONE in Los Angeles” following the court’s order.

“This decision is a victory for the safety of Americans in California and for the rule of law,” the agency said in a statement accusing Democrat Mayor Karen Bass of “protecting” immigrants who have committed crimes.

Federal law enforcement “will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor,” according to Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

The court’s opinion drew a forceful rebuke from liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice on the bench, who accused the conservative justices of ignoring the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful protects against unlawful searches and seizures

“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,” she wrote in a dissenting opinion.

“The Fourth Amendment protects every individual’s constitutional right to be “free from arbitrary interference by law officers,’” she added. “After today, that may no longer be true for those who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little.”

Immigration raids throughout the Los Angeles area in June sparked massive protests demanding the Trump administration withdraw ICE and federal agents from patrolling immigrant communities.

In response, Trump federalized National Guard troops and sent in hundreds of Marines despite objections from Democratic city and state officials. The administration deployed roughly 5,000 National Guard soldiers and Marines to the Los Angeles area, assisting with more than 170 law enforcement operations carried out by federal agencies, according to the Department of Defense.

The Pentagon has ended most of those operations, but hundreds of National Guard members remain active in southern California.

California Governor Gavin Newsom sued the administration, alleging the president illegally deployed the troops in violation of a 140-year-old law that prohibits the military from performing domestic law enforcement operations.

ACLU legal director Cecillia Wang, representing groups who sued to block indiscriminate raids in Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court order “puts people at grave risk.”

The order allows federal agents “to target individuals because of their race, how they speak, the jobs they work, or just being at a bus stop or the car wash when ICE agents decide to raid a place,” she said.

“For anyone perceived as Latino by an ICE agent, this means living in a fearful ‘papers please’ regime, with risks of violent ICE arrests and detention,” Wang added.

In his lengthy concurring opinion, Kavanaugh suggested that the demographics of southern California and the estimated 2 million people without legal permission living in the state support ICE’s sweeping operations.

He also argued that because Latino immigrants without legal status “tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work,” work in construction, and may not speak English, officers have a “reasonable suspicion” to believe they are violating immigration law.

Sotomayor criticized Kavanaugh’s assessment that ICE was merely performing “brief stops for questioning.”

“Countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents and the fact they make a living by doing manual labor,” she wrote. “Today, the court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities.”

Because the court did not provide a reasoning behind the ruling, it is difficult to discern whether the justices intend for the order to have wider effect, giving Donald Trump a powerful tool to execute his commands for millions of arrests for his mass deportation agenda.

Bass warned that the ruling could have sweeping consequences.

“I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of Los Angeles, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country,” she said in a statement.

Feds to ‘flood the zone’ after Supreme Court allows roving ICE raids
Trump administration promises ‘roving patrols’ after conservative justices allow ICE to target Latinos and Spanish speakers

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/supreme-court-ice-immigration-raids-racial-profiling-b2822602.html

Newsweek: Trump admin grapples with birthright citizenship dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is seeking more time in federal court as it considers how to bring a challenge to birthright citizenship before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a consent motion filed on August 19 in the District of Maryland, government lawyers requested an additional 30 days to respond to an amended complaint in CASA Inc. v. Trump.

The case contests executive order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order denies citizenship at birth when the mother is unlawfully present (or lawfully but temporarily present) and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment by email outside regular working hours on Wednesday.

Why It Matters

The case goes to the core of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which for more than a century has guaranteed citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil.

A successful challenge could affect hundreds of thousands of children born each year to undocumented parents, while also testing the limits of presidential power to redefine constitutional rights through executive orders.

With the Trump administration signaling that it plans to seek a Supreme Court review, the litigation has the potential to reshape immigration law and the broader debate over American identity.

What To Know

The plaintiffs, a coalition of immigrant-rights organizations led by CASA, amended their complaint in June.

On July 18, the government’s deadline to respond was extended to August 22. The new motion seeks to push that date back to September 22.

According to the filing, the delay is tied to the administration’s broader legal strategy.

The Justice Department acknowledged that multiple lawsuits were pending against the executive order across different jurisdictions. To resolve the matter more definitively, the solicitor general is preparing to ask the Supreme Court to take up the issue in its next term.

“To that end, the Solicitor General of the United States plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Executive Order next Term, but he has not yet determined which case or combination of cases to take to the Court,” government attorneys wrote.

The administration emphasized that the extension request was not an attempt to stall the proceedings. “This request is not made for purposes of delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the relief requested herein, particularly because Plaintiffs consent to the same,” the motion said.

On August 7, the court in Maryland granted a classwide preliminary injunction, applying nationwide to members of the certified class.

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

Executive order 14160 has drawn criticism from immigrant advocacy groups, which argue that birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

The constitutional provision says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The administration, however, has contended that the clause does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants.

By moving toward a Supreme Court review, the administration appears to be seeking a definitive ruling on the scope of the citizenship clause. The outcome could have significant implications for immigration law and the legal status of U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents.

What People Are Saying

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing the administration’s approach in the Supreme Court, said on May 15: “Your argument … would turn our justice system into a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime, in which everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, emphasizing constitutional precedent, added: “So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents.”

What Happens Next

If the Trump administration’s request for more time is approved, the government’s deadline would move to September 22. For now, a nationwide injunction continues to block the order, leaving it unenforceable.

Justice Department lawyers say they are considering which case to present to the Supreme Court for review in the next term, a move that could bring arguments before the justices in 2026. Both sides have agreed to the extension, and the government emphasized that no party would be harmed by the delay. While the extension keeps the litigation on hold, the broader fight over birthright citizenship is poised to escalate.

On June 27, the court ruled on nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA but did not decide the merits of birthright citizenship. The administration now plans to seek a full review next term on the lawfulness of the executive order itself. If the court grants the review, it will put the question of the core citizenship clause before the justices in a way not seen since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Trump admin grapples with birthright citizenship dilemma
The Trump administration is seeking a 30-day delay as the DOJ maps the Supreme Court’s path to test birthright citizenship.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-grapples-birthright-citizenship-dilemma-2116126

USA Today: ‘Spaghetti against the wall?’ Trump tests legal strategies as judges block his policies

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is fighting to kill 40 court orders blocking its new policies.

  • Solicitor General John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to halt nationwide injunctions against Trump policies but said if class-action lawsuits took their place, he would oppose them too.
  • Legal experts said if the Supreme Court abolishes nationwide injunctions, Trump could cut his losses by limiting the reach of court rulings that go against him.

As the Trump administration fights to kill 40 court orders blocking some of his most controversial or aggressive new policies, legal experts say the government’s strategy is to break the cases apart, into individual disputes, to delay an eventual reckoning at the Supreme Court.

One called President Donald Trump’s legal strategy a “shell game.” Another said government lawyers were “throwing spaghetti against the wall” to see what sticks.

“Their bottom line is that they don’t think these cases should be in court in the first place,” said Luke McCloud, a lawyer at Williams and Connolly who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Brett Kavanaugh when he was on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. “They are looking for a procedural mechanism that will make it the most challenging to bring these sorts of cases.”

‘Spaghetti against the wall?’ Trump tests legal strategies as judges block his policies
Some of Trump’ most aggressive policy changes are being blocked by judges all the way to the Supreme Court. To some, the response feels like a shell game.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/17/trump-legal-strategies-federal-judges-injunctions/83673013007

Raw Story: ‘Oof’: Legal experts shocked by Trump DOJ proposal revealed in big Supreme Court hearing

Posted on by
Reply

University of Michigan law professor Leah Litman wrote her own comical paraphrasing of U.S. Supreme Court justices’ comments. In one case, she pointed out Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s “partial list of the SCOTUS precedents (4) this order violates.”

Litman then paraphrased Chief Justice John Roberts in her own words.

“Chief: let’s stop this murder, please,” she quipped.

In one exchange, Justice Elena Kagan asked, if they assume this is a completely illegal executive order, how do the courts actually stop it?

Sauer said it would file a class action.

Kagan said that he would then argue that there isn’t a class to certify under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Sauer agreed, so Kagan asked what other options there were.

Sauer suggested every affected individual would sue.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned if Sauer was seriously proposing such an idea.

Litman wrote her own paraphrasing: “Oh dang Elena Kagan ‘assume you’re really f—— wrong and this order is wildly illegal. Are you saying every individual child has to sue to establish their citizenship?'”

Lawyer and journalist at Rewire, Imani Gandy commented, “Every child of undocumented immigrants has to file their own lawsuit. Millions of lawsuits. Makes perfect sense.”

Civil litigator Owen Barcala posted on Bluesky, “This is such a good point, I’m frustrated I didn’t see it. If the gov issues a clearly illegal order that applies to millions and it is losing in every individual case, why would it ever appeal the losses? So what if they can’t enforce it as to a dozen people if they can still do it for millions?”

MSNBC and Just Security legal analyst Adam Klasfeld cited a debate between Sotomayor and Solicitor General John Sauer.

“Sotomayor notes that barring nationwide injunctions, as the Trump admin asks, would mean that courts would be powerless to stop a ‘clearly, indisputably unconstitutional’ act, taking every gun from every citizen. We couldn’t stop that?” Klasfeld posted on Bluesky, quoting the justice.

&c.

https://www.rawstory.com/birthright-citizenship-2672024689

KFOR: Homeland Security admits Oklahoma raid targeted wrong people

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security admits they know the mom and three daughters who say ICE agents left them traumatized when they raided their Oklahoma City home were not the suspects they were after.

Since KFOR first told you about the family’s ordeal on Monday, hundreds of people from all corners of the country are asking, How could this have happened?

That is the same question KFOR has been asking, and so far, it still has not been answered.

…

[The U.S. Department of Homeland Security] finally responded Wednesday, confirming the raid on Marissa’s house was part of that nationwide operation, and admitting for the first time that Marissa and her family were not supposed to be targeted.

Telling KFOR, “Ice was carrying out a court-authorized search warrant for a large-scale human smuggling investigation. The search warrants included the location of an address where U.S. citizens recently moved. The previous residents were the intended targets.”

…

[Attorney Patrick Jaicomo] says his group will represent Marissa for free too. Telling us her case fits a years-long pattern of questionable raids.

“Based on the facts as I understand them right now, there’s no question that there was a lack of due diligence,” said Jaicomo.

So Homeland Security admits that they f*ck*d up, but thus far has failed to explain why and has not returned the cell phones / laptops / cash that they looted from the home.

Looters should be shot on sight! Especially government looters! No mercy for these fascist DHS pond scum!

https://kfor.com/news/local/homeland-security-admits-oklahoma-raid-targeted-wrong-people

A similar case recently in the news:

Supreme Court seems likely to rule narrowly for family whose house was wrongly raided by FBI
The Supreme Court seemed likely Tuesday to rule narrowly in favor of a family trying to hold law enforcement accountable in court after an FBI raid that wrongly targeted their Atlanta home.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-fbi-raid-wrong-house-df4fd6235660a67e4b34a1f790c674ca

Supreme Court considers lawsuit arising from ‘wrong house’ FBI raid
FBI agents burst into an Atlanta house with flash-bang grenades and guns drawn, but victims have struggled to hold the government accountable for their actions.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-considers-lawsuit-arising-wrong-house-fbi-raid-rcna200461

https://kfor.com/ap-politics/ap-supreme-court-hears-arguments-on-case-about-fbi-raid-on-wrong-georgia-home