The Dissent's Warning

The Dissent's Warning

PART I

Following "Operation At Large," a federal district court in Los Angeles issued a temporary injunction to stop the government's immigration enforcement raids. The court's order was based on its finding of a "mountain of evidence" that armed agents were making "detentive stops" without the required reasonable suspicion. The court found that agents were relying on a problematic combination of factors, including:

* Apparent race or ethnicity.

* Speaking Spanish or English with an accent.

* The type of location (e.g., car washes, bus stops).

* The type of work the person appeared to be doing (e.g., day labor).

The district court ruled that using these factors alone likely violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The government appealed this injunction, arguing it was an overly broad "straitjacket" on their ability to enforce immigration laws.

This legal battle continued, with the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately siding with the government. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court lifted the temporary injunction, allowing the government to resume its "roving patrols" and sweeps. The majority opinion argued that the factors cited by the lower court could, when considered as part of the "totality of the circumstances," contribute to a finding of reasonable suspicion. The three dissenting justices, however, wrote that the ruling effectively greenlit racial profiling and allowed for the seizure of people based on their looks, accents, and manual labor jobs.

The case has been controversial, with opponents arguing that the government's tactics have swept up and harmed U.S. citizens and others lawfully in the country.

PART II

Here is a more expanded explanation of the key arguments and reasoning.

Fourth Amendment and Reasonable Suspicion:

The core legal dispute centers on the Fourth Amendment's requirement of "reasonable suspicion" for a non-consensual stop or seizure. The document argues that the government's actions violated this principle by relying on a set of factors that are not sufficiently "particularized" to any single person.

* The "Hunch" vs. "Articulable Facts" Standard: 

The dissent contrasts the government's approach with the legal standard established in cases like Terry v. Ohio (392 U.S. 1). A lawful stop requires "specific articulable facts" that lead a reasonable officer to suspect a person is involved in criminal activity. The government, however, used broad generalizations—a person's appearance, language, and work location—as a substitute for this required specificity. The dissent characterizes this as an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch,'" which is constitutionally insufficient.

* The "Large Category of Innocent People" Problem: 

A central theme of the legal reasoning is that a profiling system that ensnares a vast number of law-abiding citizens is inherently unconstitutional. The dissent highlights that the factors used by agents—being "Latino," speaking "Spanish," working at a "car wash"—apply to a huge portion of the Los Angeles population, including millions of U.S. citizens and legal residents. This lack of a particularized basis for suspicion is seen as a direct violation of the principles laid out in Reid v. Georgia and United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. The argument is that if these factors alone were sufficient, the government could justify seizing almost anyone in a major metropolitan area with a large Latino population, which would undermine the fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment to prevent "arbitrary and oppressive interference" with personal liberty.

Standing for Injunctive Relief:

The debate over legal "standing" is a critical procedural barrier the plaintiffs had to overcome. Standing requires a plaintiff to show a personal stake in the outcome, which includes a likelihood of future harm.

* Distinguishing the Lyons Precedent: 

The document's reasoning for why the plaintiffs have standing hinges on a key distinction from Los Angeles v. Lyons. In Lyons, the Court found no standing because the future harm was speculative—the plaintiff would have to be pulled over again and an officer would have to illegally apply a chokehold, an action not officially sanctioned by the department. In contrast, the Los Angeles plaintiffs faced a "real and immediate threat" because the raids were a systematic, officially sanctioned operation. The government itself had declared its intent to continue these raids on the same types of locations where the plaintiffs were working. The dissent argues that this pattern of conduct makes future harm not just possible, but "likely."

* The "Fantasy" of Individualized Exemption: 

The reasoning for the district-wide injunction is directly tied to the nature of the government's conduct. The court found that agents "seize first and ask questions later," often using force before even a single question is posed. Given this pattern, it would be a "fantasy" to expect agents to pause a raid to check if an individual is one of the named plaintiffs. Therefore, a broad injunction was deemed the only effective way to prevent the illegal seizures from continuing against the specific plaintiffs and the class they represent. This reasoning is an application of the "complete relief" principle outlined in cases like Trump v. CASA, Inc., justifying a broader injunction when a narrower one would be ineffective.

From Tariffs to Handouts

From Tariffs to Handouts: Saving Soybeans with a Side of Socialism.

Remember when Trump’s tariffs were gonna "Make America Great Again"? Well, here’s the plot twist: the same administration that slapped tariffs on soybeans now has to subsidize those very farmers to keep them afloat. That’s right—America First, unless it means bailing out American farmers, in which case, hello, government handouts.

So, how big will this bailout be? Half a billion? A billion? It’s like watching an old-school bait-and-switch. First, the government punishes farmers with tariffs, then swoops in with taxpayer cash to fix the mess they created. If this isn’t the perfect example of hypocrisy, I don’t know what is.

Here’s the kicker: Trump’s team spent years railing against “big government” and “socialism,” only to turn around and create a new kind of socialism—one where the government intervenes to save the very people harmed by their own policies. It’s almost poetic how they went from “free-market capitalism” to full-on welfare for the well-connected.

“Democracy is winning in the courts.”

This is a summary of an article by Amber Phillips in The Washington Post.

This is the link to the article on Facebook: Amber Phillips' article in The Washington Post.

In the past week, democracy advocates have scored significant wins against President Trump’s authoritarian moves in the courts. Key victories include:

1. Military Use in LA: A judge ruled Trump violated the law by using troops for police-like duties during protests, citing the Posse Comitatus Act.

2. Utah Gerrymandering: A judge ordered the redraw of Utah's gerrymandered congressional maps, which could give Democrats a new seat, showing that gerrymandering overreach can backfire.

3. Mail-In Voting in Pennsylvania: A court ruled that Pennsylvania can’t discard ballots with minor date errors, protecting voters’ rights and striking down a law deemed unconstitutional.

4. Lawsuit Against Judges in Maryland: A judge dismissed Trump’s attempt to sue federal judges in Maryland over deportation cases, calling it dangerous to democracy.

5. D.C. Arrests: In Washington D.C., judges and jurors are pushing back against the Trump administration’s handling of arrests, calling out illegal searches and mistreatment.

These rulings are part of a broader trend where the judicial system is standing up to Trump’s efforts to expand executive power, although the future remains uncertain, especially if the cases reach the Supreme Court.