The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is appealing a federal district court decision that seeks to handcuff ICE operations in Minnesota.
The decision was issued Friday by Judge Kate Menendez, a Biden appointee. Scott posted her 83-page decision at the bottom of this post.
The DOJ filed their notice of appeal to the federal 8th circuit today, on the federal holiday.
There are at least two ways of looking at the Menendez decision:
One: it does nothing, it’s just a feel-good exercise that prohibits actions that ICE never engaged in to begin with (teargassing innocent protesters, etc.)
Two: it completely hamstrings ICE in Minnesota by making the agency constantly prove a negative, that they aren’t doing any of the prohibited actions.
Under the theory that judges don’t issue orders just for show, I’m leaning toward the second interpretation.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune noted the filing under the headline,
Department of Justice plans to appeal court order restricting ICE tactics in Minnesota.
The Star Tribune notes in a paywalled update,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that a recent court order limiting ICE tactics in Minnesota “didn’t change anything.”
The Jan. 16 court order blocks agents from arresting, detaining, retaliating against or using force and chemical irritants against peaceful protesters and observers.
What’s a “peaceful protester”? You’ll recall that during the George Floyd unpleasantness the term “mostly peaceful protests” was coined. If you are a mostly peaceful protester (only rioting and destroying intermittently during a given time interval), does the Menendez ruling make you immune to “retaliation” under this legal theory?
Or does the Abrahamic “one righteous resident of Sodom” rule apply? If a mob of violent rioters contains a single peaceful protester or observer, will the entire mob be spared the teargas? Only a Menendez can say.
How many rioters can dance on the head of a pin? Our robed masters will decide.
Today’s court filings by DOJ indicate that the appeal has not yet been assigned a case number.
Developing…
