"A federal appeals court highlights that anti-ICE radicals are not the peaceful protesters the ACLU and a Biden judge made them out to be.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered anti-ICE activists a crushing blow on Monday, granting a full stay of an activist judge's ruling that had threatened to greatly restrict U.S. Immigration and
Kate Menendez, a U.S. district judge nominated by former President Joe Biden, ruled in favor of the radicals on Jan. 16, prohibiting federal agents from arresting, retaliating against, and using nonlethal munitions or crowd dispersal tools against "all persons who do or will in the future record, observe, and/or protest against" Operation
Metro Surge and related operations in Minnesota.
The Biden judge also barred ICE from "stopping or detaining drivers and passengers in vehicles where there is no reasonable articulable suspicion that they are forcibly obstructing or interfering with Covered Federal Agents."
To the likely chagrin of anti-ICE activists in Minnesota, an Eighth Circuit panel comprising two judges nominated by former President George W. Bush and one judge appointed by President Donald Trump granted the DHS a full stay of Menendez's injunction, claiming that it "is unlikely to survive the government's interlocutory appeal."
The court highlighted two reasons why the "government has made 'a strong showing' that its challenge to the injunction 'is likely to succeed on the merits,'" the first of which is that the "grant of relief to such a broad uncertified class is just a universal injunction by another name."
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in Trump v. CASA Inc. that the nationwide injunctions weaponized against the Trump administration by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts."
"Even if 'courts may issue temporary relief to a putative class,' this one has no chance of getting certified," wrote the appellate court.
The Eighth Circuit panel noted further that the radicals whom the ACLU of Minnesota want to shield from consequence aren't exactly the "peaceful and unobstructive" protesters imagined by the lesser court.
"We accessed and viewed the same videos the district court did," said the appellate court. "What they show is observers and protesters engaging in a wide range of conduct, some of it peaceful but much of it not."
The second reason cited by the panel for why the Trump administration's challenge is likely to succeed is that the "injunction is too vague" and requires a fair bit of mind-reading on the part of federal agents.
"Even the provision that singles out the use of 'pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools' requires federal agents to predict what the district court would consider 'peaceful and unobstructive protest activity,'" wrote the court. "The videos underscore how difficult it would be for them to decide who has crossed the line: They show a fast-changing mix of peaceful and obstructive conduct, with many protesters getting in officers' faces and blocking their vehicles as they conduct their activities, only for some of them to then rejoin the crowd and intermix with others who were merely recording and observing the scene."
"Liberal judges tried to handcuff our federal law enforcement officers, restrict their actions, and put their safety at risk when responding to violent agitators," wrote Bondi. "The DOJ went to court. We got a temporary stay. NOW, the 8th Circuit has fully agreed that this reckless attempt to undermine law enforcement cannot stand."
Blaze
No comments:
Post a Comment