Comment by rich_sasha
3 days 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.
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?
> 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).
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.
Truth is, most cops wouldn't confront ICE even if explicitly ordered to do so. The majority of them are supporting all this.
Does an ICE officer have any more rights than any other random non-ICE murderer? Can the police put them in prison for murdering?
> Can the police put them in prison for murdering?
Of course they can, but the governor and mayor know that ordering the police to do this means they completely lose what little control they have over the police, since the police support ICE and will believe it to be their patriotic duty to refuse the order.
1 reply →
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
>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.
> 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
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
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.
Crazy I never thought the Third Amendment would be needed in my lifetime but I think you nailed it with this.
I knew a guy at DOJ who always said the Third is the most important one
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.
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?
No, its prosecution for supporting terrorists.
14 replies →
> 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...
16 replies →
You're being downvoted, I think unfairly, because this is a completely valid rebuttal.
Without going into a diatribe about how governments necessitate coercion and violence, enforcing such a "law" would indeed be counterproductive and hard to enforce, like you're indicating.
That said, mutual agreement by businesses and citizenry to make efforts to identify federal agents, then refuse to conduct business seems like it should already be entering discussions (if it isn't). Additional coercion by the local government doesn't need to enter the equation of civil disobedience.
Legal eagle has more in-depth analysis of this. But in summary, there's basically no recourse.
They have the same recourse the colonists had to eject King George's men. And the same duty.
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.
They can prosecute federal agents but the bar is VERY high from what I understand.