The constitution doesn't mention the size of juries either. That comes from common law.
These ate delaying tactics that will ultimately be overturned by a higher courtDamn..looks as though the courts are tired of ICE's abuses of our legal system.
One has to wonder if it really makes any difference though...as ignoring court orders and bad actors being protected by the Trump administration is rampant.
ICE suffers triple legal blow within hours
"ICE continues to act contrary to law, to spend taxpayer money needlessly, and to waste the scarce resources of the judiciary," one judge wrote.www.newsweek.com
In Oregon, U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, who was appointed by then President Joe Biden in 2024, issued a sweeping preliminary injunction blocking federal immigration officers from making warrantless civil immigration arrests unless they first conduct an individualized assessment that a person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, according to court filings.
The order, issued Tuesday in a case brought by two immigrants, found “ample evidence” that federal agents had engaged in a pattern and practice of ignoring statutory limits on their arrest authority. Judge Kasubhai said that ICE officers in the state routinely made warrantless arrests without the case-by-case determination required by federal law.
In Minnesota, U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who was appointed by then President Barack Obama in 2010, ordered the immediate release of a longtime resident after concluding that immigration authorities lacked lawful authority to detain him.
The case involved a Mexican citizen who has lived in the United States since 1988 and resides in St. Paul, Minnesota. According to court filings, he has a pending green card application and serves as the authorized caregiver for his 87-year-old father. He alleged masked ICE agents arrested him without a warrant on January 4, while he was leaving a family member’s home with his father, and detained him at the Freeborn County Jail in southern Minnesota, according to court documents.
Judge Nelson rejected the government’s argument that the man was subject to mandatory detention under a recent Department of Homeland Security interpretation of immigration law. Instead, she reaffirmed that noncitizens already residing in the United States are generally detained, if at all, under a statutory provision that requires a warrant.
In Pennsylvania, a federal judge issued a scathing assessment of ICE while ordering the release of a Brazilian asylum seeker detained in Philadelphia.
The ruling came from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where Judge Harvey Bartle III, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush in 1991, granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Guilherme Coelho Lopes, who had been held at the Philadelphia Federal Detention Center.
“Despite hundreds of similar rulings in this and other courts resoundingly in favor of the ICE-detainee petitioners ICE continues to act contrary to law, to spend taxpayer money needlessly, and to waste the scarce resources of the judiciary," Judge Bartle wrote.
Shkrt version:Damn..looks as though the courts are tired of ICE's abuses of our legal system.
One has to wonder if it really makes any difference though...as ignoring court orders and bad actors being protected by the Trump administration is rampant.
ICE suffers triple legal blow within hours
"ICE continues to act contrary to law, to spend taxpayer money needlessly, and to waste the scarce resources of the judiciary," one judge wrote.
In Oregon, U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai, who was appointed by then President Joe Biden in 2024, issued a sweeping preliminary injunction blocking federal immigration officers from making warrantless civil immigration arrests unless they first conduct an individualized assessment that a person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, according to court filings.
The order, issued Tuesday in a case brought by two immigrants, found “ample evidence” that federal agents had engaged in a pattern and practice of ignoring statutory limits on their arrest authority. Judge Kasubhai said that ICE officers in the state routinely made warrantless arrests without the case-by-case determination required by federal law.
In Minnesota, U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who was appointed by then President Barack Obama in 2010, ordered the immediate release of a longtime resident after concluding that immigration authorities lacked lawful authority to detain him.
The case involved a Mexican citizen who has lived in the United States since 1988 and resides in St. Paul, Minnesota. According to court filings, he has a pending green card application and serves as the authorized caregiver for his 87-year-old father. He alleged masked ICE agents arrested him without a warrant on January 4, while he was leaving a family member’s home with his father, and detained him at the Freeborn County Jail in southern Minnesota, according to court documents.
Judge Nelson rejected the government’s argument that the man was subject to mandatory detention under a recent Department of Homeland Security interpretation of immigration law. Instead, she reaffirmed that noncitizens already residing in the United States are generally detained, if at all, under a statutory provision that requires a warrant.
In Pennsylvania, a federal judge issued a scathing assessment of ICE while ordering the release of a Brazilian asylum seeker detained in Philadelphia.
The ruling came from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where Judge Harvey Bartle III, an appointee of President George H.W. Bush in 1991, granted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Guilherme Coelho Lopes, who had been held at the Philadelphia Federal Detention Center.
“Despite hundreds of similar rulings in this and other courts resoundingly in favor of the ICE-detainee petitioners ICE continues to act contrary to law, to spend taxpayer money needlessly, and to waste the scarce resources of the judiciary," Judge Bartle wrote.
Except you can only define a bad decision in terms of a majority opinion overturning a previous majority opinion.
Example?
Actually the overturning of Obergefell uses the same legal arguments that would have upheld Plessy and Dredd Scott.
And Brown V Board created a "right" that wasn't given in the original Constitution.
But there's that dang Constitution again. Guaranteeing equal protection.
Without the 14th, there would have been no Loving v Virginia
