5 ms·

U.S. Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting ICE Raids to Continue in LA

44 points by Kapura 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
Opinions: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf#page=11 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf#...
- neuronexmachina 1y ago
  I think the dissent said it pretty well: > A Federal District Court found that these raids were part of a pattern of conduct by the Government that likely violated the Fourth Amendment. Based on the evidence before it, the court held that the Government was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: (1) their apparent race or ethnicity; (2) whether they spoke Spanish or English with an accent; (3) the type of location at which they were found (such as a car wash or bus stop); and (4) the type of job they appeared to work. Concluding that stops based on these four factors alone, even when taken together, could not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonable suspicion, the District Court temporarily enjoined the Government from continuing its pattern of unlawful mass arrests while it considered whether longer-term relief was appropriate. > Instead of allowing the District Court to consider these troubling allegations in the normal course, a majority of this Court decides to take the once-extraordinary step of staying the District Court’s order. That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. 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. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.
  - xracy 1y ago
    I feel like scotus dissents in this day and age need to be a lot more approachable for the average person. And I like this dissent for being short and to the point. I think oftentimes the dissents can get in the weeds of legal discussions, and this just needs to be as simple as "this law says this is illegal in plain text." From there, it's on the media to pick up on the plain text of the dissent and actually talk about it for longer, because the majority opinions are like, splitting hairs.
java-man 1y ago
[flagged]
- metalliqaz 1y ago
  not even close. still picking up steam, to be honest. it can get a lot worse
shrubble 1y ago
Re “US Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting…” This is not the title of the article
- mdhb 1y ago
  It’s actually much more accurate and helpful than the one in the article which is itself editorialised. This just states the main outcome neutrally.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- aredox 1y ago
  But it is the content of the article, and of the decision. You would not play on words, if you were "colored".
- dgfitz 1y ago
  Title as of 1339 EST on TFA: US Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids Title here: U.S. Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting ICE Raids to Continue in LA
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  Thank you. Flagged; will unflag once fixed. From the HN guidelines: “…please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - kjkjadksj 1y ago
    Flagging will just bury this story not lead to a title change. I think dang has to do that not even the OP.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Flagging will just bury this story not lead to a title change Better buried than said dishonestly.
aredox 1y ago
[flagged]
legitster 1y ago
> Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict. Article III judges may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls. We merely ensure, in justiciable cases, that the Executive Branch acts within the confines of the Constitution and federal statutes. Just as this Court a few years ago declined to step outside our constitutionally assigned role to improperly compel greater Executive Branch enforcement of the immigration laws, see United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670; Biden v. Texas, 597 U. S. 785, we now likewise must decline to step outside our constitutionally assigned role to improperly restrict reasonable Executive Branch enforcement of the immigration laws. Consistency and neutrality are hallmarks of good judging, and in my view, we abide by those enduring judicial values in this case by granting the stay. I think pretty telling is the court's need to constantly address itself and it's legitimacy in these documents lately. I'm kind of on a divided opinion on this. This is clearly wrong and bad for America. But it's what the law says, the legislature isn't going to change it, and it's what America voted for. There are deep flaws in our democracy at a structural, legal level and I cannot reasonably expect the Judicial branch to go outside of their lane and solve them anymore than I think a couple of Supreme Court decisions could have avoided the civil war.
- aredox 1y ago
  >it's what America voted for This isn't true, and even if Trump had a wide majority to support him (which he didn't have, and hasn't now), you don't live in a "winners-take-all" system. The laws and Constitution have also been voted for.

44 points by Kapura 1y ago

Opinions: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf#page=11 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a169_5h25.pdf#...

neuronexmachina 1y ago
I think the dissent said it pretty well: > A Federal District Court found that these raids were part of a pattern of conduct by the Government that likely violated the Fourth Amendment. Based on the evidence before it, the court held that the Government was stopping individuals based solely on four factors: (1) their apparent race or ethnicity; (2) whether they spoke Spanish or English with an accent; (3) the type of location at which they were found (such as a car wash or bus stop); and (4) the type of job they appeared to work. Concluding that stops based on these four factors alone, even when taken together, could not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonable suspicion, the District Court temporarily enjoined the Government from continuing its pattern of unlawful mass arrests while it considered whether longer-term relief was appropriate. > Instead of allowing the District Court to consider these troubling allegations in the normal course, a majority of this Court decides to take the once-extraordinary step of staying the District Court’s order. That decision is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. 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. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.
- xracy 1y ago
  I feel like scotus dissents in this day and age need to be a lot more approachable for the average person. And I like this dissent for being short and to the point. I think oftentimes the dissents can get in the weeds of legal discussions, and this just needs to be as simple as "this law says this is illegal in plain text." From there, it's on the media to pick up on the plain text of the dissent and actually talk about it for longer, because the majority opinions are like, splitting hairs.

java-man 1y ago

[flagged]

metalliqaz 1y ago
not even close. still picking up steam, to be honest. it can get a lot worse

shrubble 1y ago

Re “US Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting…” This is not the title of the article

mdhb 1y ago
It’s actually much more accurate and helpful than the one in the article which is itself editorialised. This just states the main outcome neutrally.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
aredox 1y ago
But it is the content of the article, and of the decision. You would not play on words, if you were "colored".
dgfitz 1y ago
Title as of 1339 EST on TFA: US Supreme Court backs Trump on aggressive immigration raids Title here: U.S. Supreme Court Allows Racial Targeting ICE Raids to Continue in LA
JumpCrisscross 1y ago
Thank you. Flagged; will unflag once fixed. From the HN guidelines: “…please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.” https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- kjkjadksj 1y ago
  Flagging will just bury this story not lead to a title change. I think dang has to do that not even the OP.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Flagging will just bury this story not lead to a title change Better buried than said dishonestly.

aredox 1y ago

[flagged]

legitster 1y ago

> Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict. Article III judges may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls. We merely ensure, in justiciable cases, that the Executive Branch acts within the confines of the Constitution and federal statutes. Just as this Court a few years ago declined to step outside our constitutionally assigned role to improperly compel greater Executive Branch enforcement of the immigration laws, see United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670; Biden v. Texas, 597 U. S. 785, we now likewise must decline to step outside our constitutionally assigned role to improperly restrict reasonable Executive Branch enforcement of the immigration laws. Consistency and neutrality are hallmarks of good judging, and in my view, we abide by those enduring judicial values in this case by granting the stay. I think pretty telling is the court's need to constantly address itself and it's legitimacy in these documents lately. I'm kind of on a divided opinion on this. This is clearly wrong and bad for America. But it's what the law says, the legislature isn't going to change it, and it's what America voted for. There are deep flaws in our democracy at a structural, legal level and I cannot reasonably expect the Judicial branch to go outside of their lane and solve them anymore than I think a couple of Supreme Court decisions could have avoided the civil war.

aredox 1y ago
>it's what America voted for This isn't true, and even if Trump had a wide majority to support him (which he didn't have, and hasn't now), you don't live in a "winners-take-all" system. The laws and Constitution have also been voted for.