Supreme Court lifts restrictions

[Thinker101]

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for federal agents to conduct sweeping immigration operations for now in Los Angeles, the latest victory for President Donald Trump's administration at the high court. Lifting a restraining order from a judge who found that roving patrols were conducting indiscriminate stops in and around LA.

Self deportation must be sounding like a better deal every day.

MSN

 

[1srelluc]

We know.

Thread 'Supreme Court Lifts Limits on Immigration-Enforcement Tactics in Los Angeles (for now at least)'

Sep 8, 2025

Once again, SCOTUS vacates a temporary hold on the a President’s policy re apprehension of illegal aliens.

Supreme Court Lifts Limits on Immigration Raids in Los Angeles — The Wall Street Journal

Order lets Trump administration proceed with patrols that earlier targeted largely Latino areas

apple.news

Maybe some national bar association can step up to educate the lower courts and the parties that the lower courts are NOT empowered to put themselves into the shoes of the President. The Judicial Branch is NOT the Executive Branch.

For now, a win for the Trump Administration and for the Constitution.

• BackAgain
• Replies: 122
• Forum: Current Events

• 
• 
• 

 

[Hafar1014]

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for federal agents to conduct sweeping immigration operations for now in Los Angeles, the latest victory for President Donald Trump's administration at the high court. Lifting a restraining order from a judge who found that roving patrols were conducting indiscriminate stops in and around LA.

Self deportation must be sounding like a better deal every day.

MSN

Take out the trash

 

[Thinker101]

We know.

Thread 'Supreme Court Lifts Limits on Immigration-Enforcement Tactics in Los Angeles (for now at least)'

Sep 8, 2025

Once again, SCOTUS vacates a temporary hold on the a President’s policy re apprehension of illegal aliens.

Supreme Court Lifts Limits on Immigration Raids in Los Angeles — The Wall Street Journal

Order lets Trump administration proceed with patrols that earlier targeted largely Latino areas

apple.news

Maybe some national bar association can step up to educate the lower courts and the parties that the lower courts are NOT empowered to put themselves into the shoes of the President. The Judicial Branch is NOT the Executive Branch.

For now, a win for the Trump Administration and for the Constitution.

• BackAgain
• Replies: 122
• Forum: Current Events

• 
• 
• 

Oops, didn't show up in "similar threads".

 

[toobfreak]

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for federal agents to conduct sweeping immigration operations for now in Los Angeles, the latest victory for President Donald Trump's administration at the high court. Lifting a restraining order from a judge who found that roving patrols were conducting indiscriminate stops in and around LA.

Democraps brag they stopped Trump, for a few weeks, but are angry because 80-90% of everything they try to interfere with through judicial activism gets overturned. Then they come on here and angrily call all of us fascists, and make threats against Trump and ICE. "Well get you!!!" "Just you wait!!!"

Self deportation must be sounding like a better deal every day.

There is always self-immolation as well. We will clean up the mess, we don't mind.

 

[Mashmont]

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for federal agents to conduct sweeping immigration operations for now in Los Angeles, the latest victory for President Donald Trump's administration at the high court. Lifting a restraining order from a judge who found that roving patrols were conducting indiscriminate stops in and around LA.

Self deportation must be sounding like a better deal every day.

MSN

What's going to be cool, guys, is that California's Democrat majority will start slipping, because illegals are the foundation of CA's 40-year election-stealing engine. So it's going to really start looking like Californians overwhelmingly reject the left. And Democrats will be powerless to explain it. What are they going to say? "Our poll shills have left the country?"

 

[Dante]

The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for federal agents to conduct sweeping immigration operations for now in Los Angeles, the latest victory for President Donald Trump's administration at the high court. Lifting a restraining order from a judge who found that roving patrols were conducting indiscriminate stops in and around LA.

Self deportation must be sounding like a better deal every day.

MSN

Duplicate thread

 

[Dante]

Oops, didn't show up in "similar threads".

OopS!!!


it happens

 

[Billiejeens]

Oops, didn't show up in "similar threads".

Luckily, we have a Hall Monitor.

 

[berg80]

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.

The court’s three liberal members dissented.

“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,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, “ Justice Sotomayor added, “I dissent.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court-los-angeles-immigration.html

Right on cue, another unsigned ruling.

WASHINGTON — Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.

In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges — appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:

Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.

In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

Ten judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court needs to explain its rulings better, with some urging Chief Justice John Roberts to do more to defend the judiciary against external criticism.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Thinker101]

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.

The court’s three liberal members dissented.

“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,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, “ Justice Sotomayor added, “I dissent.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court-los-angeles-immigration.html

Right on cue, another unsigned ruling.

WASHINGTON — Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.

In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges — appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:

Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.

In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

Ten judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court needs to explain its rulings better, with some urging Chief Justice John Roberts to do more to defend the judiciary against external criticism.

www.nbcnews.com

Gee, my guess is those "some judges" will just have to be "frustrated", or risk more slap downs by the SC.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Take out the trash

O.K.

I want them gone.

But don't be harsh.

It's not their fault.

This country can't make up it's mind and if I was in their shoes....I'd be doing the same thing.

 

[berg80]

Gee, my guess is those "some judges" will just have to be "frustrated", or risk more slap downs by the SC.

Are they slap downs if they don't include a legal rationale, or any explanation at all? It's more like the conservatives are rubber stamping autocracy without any clarification as to why.

 

[Thinker101]

O.K.

I want them gone.

But don't be harsh.

It's not their fault.

This country can't make up it's mind and if I was in their shoes....I'd be doing the same thing.

No, pretty sure the country made up its mind when laws were enacted to address illegals crossing the border. The problem is the politicians/judges/states that don't want to follow the laws.

 

[HikerGuy83]

No, pretty sure the country made up its mind when laws were enacted to address illegals crossing the border. The problem is the politicians/judges/states that don't want to follow the laws.

I want them gone too.

I said that.

I don't think calling them trash is justified.

 

[Thinker101]

Are they slap downs if they don't include a legal rationale, or any explanation at all? It's more like the conservatives are rubber stamping autocracy without any clarification as to why.

That's a thought, maybe they need an autopen.

 

[gmeyers1944]

The problem is that many federal district court judges don't recognize separation of powers. President Trump is only exercising proper executive branch powers. How is it permitted for a federal district judge to make decisions with nationwide effect. Shouldn't his rulings effect only people in his district?

 

[berg80]

That's a thought, maybe they need an autopen.

Shove it.

Lower court judges overseeing the avalanche of lawsuits against President Donald Trump’s powergrab are increasingly voicing their concerns and frustrations with the Supreme Court’s handling of the second Trump administration thus far.

In recent court opinions and rare media interviews, judges have critiqued the high court for overturning lower court rulings while offering little to no legal explanation. The practice, judges have said, is unleashing uncertainty throughout the federal judiciary and hampering lower courts’ abilities to defend the rule of law.

They have also accused SCOTUS of failing to protect the integrity of the judiciary amid Trump’s unprecedented assault on the courts.

Currently, no legal challenge to Trump’s second-term policies has reached the Supreme Court through ordinary proceedings.

Normally, after working their way through district and appellate courts, cases are filed to the Supreme Court’s merits docket. If accepted, merits docket cases are entitled to formal briefs and oral arguments and are resolved with lengthy written opinions detailing the legal reasoning of the majority and including any concurring and dissenting opinions.

Every action SCOTUS has taken in Trump-related cases this year has instead been through its emergency — or “shadow” — docket.

Unlike its traditional merits process, cases that go through the court’s emergency docket normally do not undergo full briefing or oral argument and are usually decided in just a few days, often through unsigned and unexplained orders.

Federal Judges Are Fed Up With SCOTUS

Read about the fight for democracy from activists, elected officials, legal experts and others.

www.democracydocket.com

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Shove it.

Lower court judges overseeing the avalanche of lawsuits against President Donald Trump’s powergrab are increasingly voicing their concerns and frustrations with the Supreme Court’s handling of the second Trump administration thus far.

In recent court opinions and rare media interviews, judges have critiqued the high court for overturning lower court rulings while offering little to no legal explanation. The practice, judges have said, is unleashing uncertainty throughout the federal judiciary and hampering lower courts’ abilities to defend the rule of law.

They have also accused SCOTUS of failing to protect the integrity of the judiciary amid Trump’s unprecedented assault on the courts.

Currently, no legal challenge to Trump’s second-term policies has reached the Supreme Court through ordinary proceedings.

Normally, after working their way through district and appellate courts, cases are filed to the Supreme Court’s merits docket. If accepted, merits docket cases are entitled to formal briefs and oral arguments and are resolved with lengthy written opinions detailing the legal reasoning of the majority and including any concurring and dissenting opinions.

Every action SCOTUS has taken in Trump-related cases this year has instead been through its emergency — or “shadow” — docket.

Unlike its traditional merits process, cases that go through the court’s emergency docket normally do not undergo full briefing or oral argument and are usually decided in just a few days, often through unsigned and unexplained orders.

Federal Judges Are Fed Up With SCOTUS

Read about the fight for democracy from activists, elected officials, legal experts and others.

www.democracydocket.com

Aww, poor judges can’t tie up Trumps actions in courts for years on end.

 

[Leo123]

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.

The court’s three liberal members dissented.

“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,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, “ Justice Sotomayor added, “I dissent.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court-los-angeles-immigration.html

Right on cue, another unsigned ruling.

WASHINGTON — Federal judges are frustrated with the Supreme Court for increasingly overturning lower court rulings involving the Trump administration with little or no explanation, with some worried the practice is undermining the judiciary at a sensitive time.

Some judges believe the Supreme Court, and in particular Chief Justice John Roberts, could be doing more to defend the integrity of their work as President Donald Trump and his allies harshly criticize those who rule against him and as violent threats against judges are on the rise.

In rare interviews with NBC News, a dozen federal judges — appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents, including Trump, and serving around the country — pointed to a pattern they say has recently emerged:

Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.

In rare interviews, federal judges criticize Supreme Court's handling of Trump cases

Ten judges tell NBC News the Supreme Court needs to explain its rulings better, with some urging Chief Justice John Roberts to do more to defend the judiciary against external criticism.

www.nbcnews.com

The liberal scotus judges are lying when they say:

“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,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

We DO NOT 'seize anyone who looks Latino" said the 3 loony females on the court.