5 ms·

IANAA: what legal powers does the city/state have to expel ICE agents? Especially as they are operating in, at best, increasingly shady legality. I always unde

IANAA: what legal powers does the city/state have to expel ICE agents? Especially as they are operating in, at best, increasingly shady legality. I always understood that the USA is built on a delicate balance of power between the federal and state governments. But here the federal government is sending thugs who, masked or unmasked, are brazenly killing people in bizzare circumstances. And the best the state can do is PTFO?

salawat 9mo ago
>IANAA: what legal powers does the city/state have to expel ICE agents? Especially as they are operating in, at best, increasingly shady legality. If ICE weren't acting like brown shirts, not much. It'd be Federal tasking happening according to due process;probably after the State informed the Feds they would not delegate local LEO to their task. Now, seeing as ICE are acting like brown shirts; things are kinda complicated. Technically, charges can be brought against specific agents breaking the laws of the State. If those agents happen to be Minnesotan, it may be something that stays internal to the States courts. However, if they are from out-of-state, things get complicated, because then you start dealing with nasty things like Federal jurisdiction, and the fact the Federal government isn't going to be terribly motivated to do anything other than paper over things in the most convenient way they can. Now as to whether Minnesota could just outright expel ICE; it'd be something that hasn't been tested since the Civil War. Typically, when you start doing things like that, the Feds escalate quickly. This type of thing has previously been avoided through attempts at maintaining some degree of professional conduct amongst Federal agents, and getting buy-in from the locals. We are now firmly in interesting times.
- hypeatei 9mo ago
  > things are kinda complicated. Technically, charges can be brought against specific agents breaking the laws of the State Yes, and the complicated part is federal supremacy[0]. The federal government can "convert" the case against the agent into a federal one and essentially just turn a blind eye which means no justice. No doubt that this administration would protect agents executing citizens by saying it was "part of their duty" to be there and doing that. Relevant: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11213 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11213 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
softwaredoug 9mo ago
They can prosecute federal agents but the bar is VERY high from what I understand.
toomuchtodo 9mo ago
Make it illegal to enable any commercial transactions within the state supporting federal agents. No food sales, no fuel sales, no hotel stays, no medical care, no rental cars. Make them drag their supply chain in like the Middle East. In state economic deplatforming.
- _DeadFred_ 9mo ago
  Crazy I never thought the Third Amendment would be needed in my lifetime but I think you nailed it with this.
  - treetalker 9mo ago
    I knew a guy at DOJ who always said the Third is the most important one
  - datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
    IANAL but has the 3rd been tested in this way? The very narrow interpretation is that you can’t be forced to let a soldier sleep on your bed. A more metaphorical interpretation would be that federal agents don’t have the constitutional authority to indefinitely occupy a locale even a state.
- maxerickson 9mo ago
  Make it illegal to enable any commercial transactions within the state supporting federal agents. No food sales, no fuel sales, no hotel stays, no medical care, no rental cars. Make them drag their supply chain in like the Middle East. In state economic deplatforming. You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash?
  - toomuchtodo 9mo ago
    > You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash? If supporting domestic terrorism for economic gains, yes. How you provide the support is irrelevant. State charges cannot be pardoned. Based on the general strike this week, good luck finding a favorable jury for aiding and abetting. "You can just do things." If the federal government files suit, ignore them and keep going while you tie it up in court and run out the clock on this administration. It is easy to forget that supporters of this admin and these actions are in a minority. Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions - https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal...
oceansky 9mo ago
Legal eagle has more in-depth analysis of this. But in summary, there's basically no recourse.
- CamperBob2 9mo ago
  They have the same recourse the colonists had to eject King George's men. And the same duty.
  - solaire_oa 9mo ago
    As much as I agree with this sentiment and think it's poignant, civil conflict in the modern era would be unthinkably terrifying, so I wouldn't take this position lightly. Or at the very least I wouldn't compare a modern conflict as being functionally similar to the Revolutionary War.
hdgvhicv 9mo ago
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us. For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury
crote 9mo ago
> what legal powers does the city/state have to expel ICE agents? What makes you believe ICE is going to follow a judge's orders? They are already routinely violating it when it comes to deporting people. Or, if you want to be even more pessimistic: what makes you believe the current Supreme Court is going to rule based on law, instead of based on political affiliation? The USA's balance of power is horribly broken. To give just one simple example related to the previous: having the Supreme Court be nominated by the President and confirmed by a simple majority in the Senate? That's just asking for trouble. It'd be far better to have judges nominated by a politically-independent organisation (like the currently-sitting judges, or a national bar association) and confirmed by a two-thirds majority in the House/Senate (preventing anyone controversial, so you get boring, professional, and by-the-book judges - like they are supposed to be).
- sleight42 9mo ago
  Regardless of judicial rulings of any sort, who will enforce them? Seemingly all of the enforcement apparatus in the US has been co-opted. The individual state governments aren't meaningfully resisting. Their law enforcement isn't arresting "federal agents" to put them through state legal system. These perps should be jailed and forced to appeal before a judge for a bail hearing, possibly held without bail as they are clearly threats, and then put on trial in a state court. Without this, where is the enforcement? The classic question: who watches the watchmen? Right now, no one.
  - int_19h 9mo ago
    Truth is, most cops wouldn't confront ICE even if explicitly ordered to do so. The majority of them are supporting all this.
- direwolf20 9mo ago
  Does an ICE officer have any more rights than any other random non-ICE murderer? Can the police put them in prison for murdering?
  - komali2 9mo ago

salawat 9mo ago

>IANAA: what legal powers does the city/state have to expel ICE agents? Especially as they are operating in, at best, increasingly shady legality. If ICE weren't acting like brown shirts, not much. It'd be Federal tasking happening according to due process;probably after the State informed the Feds they would not delegate local LEO to their task. Now, seeing as ICE are acting like brown shirts; things are kinda complicated. Technically, charges can be brought against specific agents breaking the laws of the State. If those agents happen to be Minnesotan, it may be something that stays internal to the States courts. However, if they are from out-of-state, things get complicated, because then you start dealing with nasty things like Federal jurisdiction, and the fact the Federal government isn't going to be terribly motivated to do anything other than paper over things in the most convenient way they can. Now as to whether Minnesota could just outright expel ICE; it'd be something that hasn't been tested since the Civil War. Typically, when you start doing things like that, the Feds escalate quickly. This type of thing has previously been avoided through attempts at maintaining some degree of professional conduct amongst Federal agents, and getting buy-in from the locals. We are now firmly in interesting times.

hypeatei 9mo ago
> things are kinda complicated. Technically, charges can be brought against specific agents breaking the laws of the State Yes, and the complicated part is federal supremacy[0]. The federal government can "convert" the case against the agent into a federal one and essentially just turn a blind eye which means no justice. No doubt that this administration would protect agents executing citizens by saying it was "part of their duty" to be there and doing that. Relevant: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11213 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11213 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

softwaredoug 9mo ago

They can prosecute federal agents but the bar is VERY high from what I understand.

toomuchtodo 9mo ago

Make it illegal to enable any commercial transactions within the state supporting federal agents. No food sales, no fuel sales, no hotel stays, no medical care, no rental cars. Make them drag their supply chain in like the Middle East. In state economic deplatforming.

_DeadFred_ 9mo ago
Crazy I never thought the Third Amendment would be needed in my lifetime but I think you nailed it with this.
- treetalker 9mo ago
  I knew a guy at DOJ who always said the Third is the most important one
- datsci_est_2015 9mo ago
  IANAL but has the 3rd been tested in this way? The very narrow interpretation is that you can’t be forced to let a soldier sleep on your bed. A more metaphorical interpretation would be that federal agents don’t have the constitutional authority to indefinitely occupy a locale even a state.
maxerickson 9mo ago
Make it illegal to enable any commercial transactions within the state supporting federal agents. No food sales, no fuel sales, no hotel stays, no medical care, no rental cars. Make them drag their supply chain in like the Middle East. In state economic deplatforming. You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash?
- toomuchtodo 9mo ago
  > You're gonna prosecute Minnesotans for accepting cash? If supporting domestic terrorism for economic gains, yes. How you provide the support is irrelevant. State charges cannot be pardoned. Based on the general strike this week, good luck finding a favorable jury for aiding and abetting. "You can just do things." If the federal government files suit, ignore them and keep going while you tie it up in court and run out the clock on this administration. It is easy to forget that supporters of this admin and these actions are in a minority. Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions - https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/ https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal...

oceansky 9mo ago

Legal eagle has more in-depth analysis of this. But in summary, there's basically no recourse.

CamperBob2 9mo ago
They have the same recourse the colonists had to eject King George's men. And the same duty.
- solaire_oa 9mo ago
  As much as I agree with this sentiment and think it's poignant, civil conflict in the modern era would be unthinkably terrifying, so I wouldn't take this position lightly. Or at the very least I wouldn't compare a modern conflict as being functionally similar to the Revolutionary War.

hdgvhicv 9mo ago

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us. For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury

crote 9mo ago

> what legal powers does the city/state have to expel ICE agents? What makes you believe ICE is going to follow a judge's orders? They are already routinely violating it when it comes to deporting people. Or, if you want to be even more pessimistic: what makes you believe the current Supreme Court is going to rule based on law, instead of based on political affiliation? The USA's balance of power is horribly broken. To give just one simple example related to the previous: having the Supreme Court be nominated by the President and confirmed by a simple majority in the Senate? That's just asking for trouble. It'd be far better to have judges nominated by a politically-independent organisation (like the currently-sitting judges, or a national bar association) and confirmed by a two-thirds majority in the House/Senate (preventing anyone controversial, so you get boring, professional, and by-the-book judges - like they are supposed to be).

sleight42 9mo ago
Regardless of judicial rulings of any sort, who will enforce them? Seemingly all of the enforcement apparatus in the US has been co-opted. The individual state governments aren't meaningfully resisting. Their law enforcement isn't arresting "federal agents" to put them through state legal system. These perps should be jailed and forced to appeal before a judge for a bail hearing, possibly held without bail as they are clearly threats, and then put on trial in a state court. Without this, where is the enforcement? The classic question: who watches the watchmen? Right now, no one.
- int_19h 9mo ago
  Truth is, most cops wouldn't confront ICE even if explicitly ordered to do so. The majority of them are supporting all this.
direwolf20 9mo ago
Does an ICE officer have any more rights than any other random non-ICE murderer? Can the police put them in prison for murdering?
- komali2 9mo ago