ICE chains man to bed for 37 days without checking immigration status.

P

Poor Richard Saunders

Well-known member
Contributor
Here is the court ruling which provides more details

In its Opposition, Respondents [the government] provide no evidence that Petitioner is a noncitizen,
that he entered the United States unlawfully, or that he violated any statute or regulation.
Even if the Court were to give weight to Respondent’s vague assertions that it might initiate
an immigration enforcement action at some point, that statement does not diminish
Petitioner’s showing of irreparable harm.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
https://bsky.app/profile/kyledcheney.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3m2fxhdumdd2q
View: https://bsky.app/profile/kyledcheney.bsky.social/post/3m2fxhdumdd2q



The facts on this are just insane.
Never informing why he is being held. Held under a false name. Denied access to meeting privately with a lawyer. Denied phone access to talk to anyone else. Paying a private company to guard him 24/7.

Others have calculated this probably has cost over $400,000 to keep this man under guard in the hospital.
Click to expand...
It’s Gestapo techniques.
 
Phantasmal said:
It’s Gestapo techniques.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Another lawsuit where Trump's fuckup will cost the American taxpayer not to mention the lack of humanity on the part of MAGAts.

5dc4e45bf4505d38f4f7b0d05bf2cc81.png
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Here is the court ruling which provides more details

In its Opposition, Respondents [the government] provide no evidence that Petitioner is a noncitizen,
that he entered the United States unlawfully, or that he violated any statute or regulation.
Even if the Court were to give weight to Respondent’s vague assertions that it might initiate
an immigration enforcement action at some point, that statement does not diminish
Petitioner’s showing of irreparable harm.
Click to expand...
1759684476603.png
 
The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “neither equity nor the public’s interest are
furthered by allowing violations of federal law to continue.” Galvez v. Jaddou, 52 F.4th
821, 832 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion that the
balance of hardships weighed in favor of plaintiffs who credibly alleged that the
government was violating the INA). That the government has an interest in enforcing its
immigration laws is of no moment because “our system does not permit agencies to act
unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.” Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep’t of Health &
Hum. Servs., 594 U.S. 758, 766 (2021)

Every conservative member of the current Supreme Court agreed with the highlighted statement that agencies can't act unlawfully in pursuit of desirable ends. (This was during Covid.) It will be interesting to see if they still agree with this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top