🚨🚨🚨BREAKING: 9th Cir. denies Trump Administration stay regarding district court's efforts to micromanage ICE "except as to a single clause" but that single clause is what allowed ICE to do it's job! Still reading so clarity to follow. 1/ 
2/ As I noted before one of the problems with the court's injunction is that you can't enjoin a situation where the situation depends on all of the facts and circumstances, for instance, if a voluntary encounter which needs no reasonable suspicion.
3/ On that point: That is exactly what the training is. You can see from this language the specific details needed to know whether there is or isn't reasonable suspicion.
4/ This is BS. Trump Administration stressed that it was a totality of the circumstances.
5/ On standing issue, decision concludes individual plaintiffs and those organizations help will be victims because of breadth of ICE efforts. This seems inconsistent with case law.
6/ As I noted at start the "except as permitted by law" is what made the injunction a nothing-burger because those facts can be considered as part of totality of circumstances. But now the appellate court by removing that language is making legal factors illegal. . . unless it is caveated later. (Still reading).
7/ Okay, so this gloss by the court allows ICE to continue it's arrest because it will never be just those 4 factors...it will also include, for instance, that presence at a particular location was a location where evidence showed past violations by employers.
8/ And it says "detentive stops" which means any one of those 4 factors alone can be use to decide whether to have a consensual encounter.
9/ So, this discussion explains my point re that this doesn't really handcuff ICE because fact that past violations by employer is another factors.
10/ This is problematic and wrong!
11/ YIKES! So NOW the 9th Cir. is changing the injunction to say they can't consider other factors!!!
12/ And the court then contradicts itself by citing law that makes clear that those factors do count!
13/ So court again contradicts itself recognizing it is a factor here:
14/14 Here's the entire opinion. I'll do a high-level summary shortly to this play-by-play. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
