The Supreme Court granted a stay of an injunction on ICE using profiling, including racial profiling, as reasonable suspicion to detain people they suspect of being illegally in the country. With the stay granted, ICE will be allowed to use “apparent ethnicity", accent and occupation as grounds to detain people.
This is not a final ruling on the case, but Kavanaugh’s concurrence asserts that the government should succeed in spite of 4th amendment issues that seemed obvious up until this order.
Do you really expect this administration to provide an actual, objective standard? Heck no! That would unduly restrict their arbitrary and capricious actions!
This will be pretty advantageous for Republicans next November when immigration agents are stationed outside voting locations in precincts with high numbers of minority voters. Nabbing them on the way in appears to be totally legal vote suppression now.
The Supreme Court on Monday lifted a federal judge’s order prohibiting government agents from making indiscriminate immigration-related stops in the Los Angeles area that challengers called “blatant racial profiling.”
The court’s brief order was unsigned and gave no reasons. It is not the last word in the case, which is pending before a federal appeals court and may again reach the justices.
Get used to more of that from this lapdog-dominated Supreme Court. So much for judicial independence and restraint of demagoguery by the courts.
Over the weekend I was discussing with another lawyer whether the SCt’s docket would consist of anything OTHER than appeals related to Trump. Truly an ugly time for American jurisprudence.
I have mixed feelings about this post. What you write is a possibility. But it will seem implausible to swing voters, as it does to me.
Reading Kavanaugh’s concurrence, I do not think he would find this acceptable. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, which Kavanaugh’s concurrence cites, says that there have to be other factors correlated with immigration law violation in addition to being Hispanic-looking in a high immigrant proportion neighborhood.
Also, there are a lot of Republicans in those voting locations, and I believe they are, on average, less determined and insistent than Democrats on exercising their right to vote.
And Trump is pushing the GOP own goal of requiring voter ID:
And again, this court uses the shadow docket to give the administration what it wants by overriding its own prior case law as applied by the lower courts. Plus, by using an unsigned and unexplained shadow docket opinion, it gives no guidance to lower courts on what kinds of ICE actions they should approve of or deny, if the facts differ from those in the case in question.
Once it wends its way back to the Supremes, they will have the option of overturning standing precedents (if Trump seems politically strong) or upholding them (if, by then, Trump seems politically weak, or if a Democrat has become president). So the Supreme Court’s game of Calvinball continues apace.
For sure that. But I also feel bad for Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson who endured a nomination hearing process that was basically thinly veiled racism and invective with grace and patience only to be completely marginalized by the majority.
“Should” being the operative term. But clearly SCOTUS for quite a while has been more about chipping rights away than reinforcing them. That is the diversity she brings to the court.
I’m not defending this decision, but the title of this thread is factually and blatantly wrong. In his concurring opinion, Kavanaugh explicitly states “To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion“.
