Usually, when the Federal Government is reliably accused of violating the Rights Act, the Government’s lawyer will tell the Federal Judge that the alleged misconduct has never happened. By no means your honor, The lawyer will protest. None of the agent of this government never did anything like that!
But Name v. Over There is no normal case. Instead of refusing to obviously unconstitutional behavior, Trump’s administration openly accepts such behavior and urges US Supreme Court judges to do the same. This is a rare occurrence where both the government and its opponents agree that the federal agents behaved specifically; Both sides just disagree whether specific behavior should be considered good or bad.
The specific behavior examined here is racial profiling. Several US citizens said they were illegally seized by federal immigration agents in Los Angeles, based solely on illegal factors such as their “obvious race or ethnicity” or that they “spoke Spanish or spoke English with an accent.”
And since these citizens (and others) are “most likely to show” that they were unlawfully confiscated in violation of the fourth amendment, the US Court of Appeal for the 9th District, adopted earlier this month, Trump’s administration was temporarily blocked to use tactics such as part of its immigration in the Great Los Angeles district.
In response, Trump’s administration is now asking the Supreme Court to annul the block and allow the rounds to be re -initiated. And in the latest legal filing, the administration did not try to deny that its agents would return to the outside.
In fact, according to the emergency request, the SCOTUS, signed by John Sauer, General Attorney General, “obvious ethnicity may be a factor that supports a reasonable suspicion under appropriate circumstances.” Translation: If the federal agent believes that something “looks illegal”, the agent should freely use that person, based on his “obvious ethnicity” without relieving any fourth correctional alarm bells.
In addition, in response to the argument that the alleged federal government racial profiling came from an excessive dragnet that inevitably appreciates innocent US citizens, Trump’s administration told the Supreme Court that “the high prevalence of illegal foreigners should Enable agents to stop comparing a wide range of individuals. ”
Take some time to run that sink. The Trump’s administration wants the Supreme Court to bless a peculiar systematic racial profiling that covers federal agents that stop the “wide -scale range” based only on factors such as “obvious ethnicity”. And if US citizens’ rights, such as the fourth amendment, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, despite your skin color, is cluttered along the way, Trump’s administration’s message to those affected citizens is: difficult success.
To put it mildly, the Supreme Court has many legal reasons why Trump’s administration has recognized racial profiling on the fourth basis of amendment. But will the court decide so? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not that clear.
Although the current Supreme Court was in some cases a fourth amendment defender, the court was known to refer to law enforcement in other benefits, including even when it was quite clear that federal agents violated someone’s constitutional rights.
Thus, the result of this case is likely to turn on how much respect the Supreme Court chooses to meet Trump’s immigration agenda. Better or worse we will find out the extent of that respect soon enough.
The Post Trump is asking the Supreme Court to bless the immigration agent’s racial profiling primarily on the website “Supervision.com”.