> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> They are literally letting them target based on race
Not really. SCOTUS lifted a district court's stay.
Trump wanted that. SCOTUS gave in. The district court now goes back to figuring out what's going on, except with the stay lifted instead of in place. "Allow" is too permissive a term because nothing was sanctioned and eventual challenges based on racial profiling have not been precluded; that's why Reuters didn't use the term.
From a Reddit standard of discussion, "allow" works. If you have any knowledge of our legal system, it misrepresents the opinions.
You are nitpicking. The Supreme Court is allowing racial targeting right now. It is happening, right now. People are being roughhandled, thrown to the ground, handcuffed right now. People are going missing from their families right now, for the "crime" of having non-white skin, speaking Spanish and working menial jobs.
The fact that they will make a decision a posteriori about it (in, what, several months? Maybe? There isn't any deadline after the Sept. 24th hearing) doesn't change the fact racial profiling is happening at this very hour because the Supreme Court took the action to go against a lower court that stopped it. You are splitting hairs and playing with words from the comfort of your comfortable armchair, free from any personal concern, with no skin in the game, because "ooooh, someone may misunderstand the Supreme Court's decision scope and breadth, we can't allow that to happen".
No, within the context of the Supreme Court they didn’t allow it any more than that one district court ruling stopped it. It’s this sort of misinterpretation of what lifting a stay really means for folks on the ground that poisons a lot of lay discussion.
