Chokeholds, Bikers, ‘Roving Patrols’: Are Trump’s ICE Tactics Legal?
Introduction to the Case
An appellate court appears poised to side with the federal judge who blocked immigration agents from conducting “roving patrols” and snatching people off the streets of Southern California, likely setting up another Supreme Court showdown. Arguments in the case were held Monday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the judges at times fiercely questioning the lawyer for the Trump administration about the constitutionality of seemingly indiscriminate sweeps by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
The Constitutionality of ICE Tactics
“I’m just trying to understand what would motivate the officers … to grab such a large number of people so quickly and without marshaling reasonable suspicion to detain,” said Judge Ronald M. Gould of Seattle. Earlier this month, a lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order that has all but halted the aggressive operations by masked federal agents, saying they violate the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Justice Department’s Argument
The Justice Department called the block that was ordered by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong “the first step” in a “wholesale judicial usurpation” of federal authority. “It’s a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov M. Roth argued Monday. “We don’t think that happened, and we don’t think it’s fair we were hit with this sweeping injunction on an unfair and incomplete record.”
The 9th Circuit Panel’s Response
That argument appeared to falter in front of the 9th Circuit panel. Judges Jennifer Sung of Portland, Ore., and Marsha S. Berzon of San Francisco heard the case alongside Gould — all drawn from the liberal wing of an increasingly split appellate division. “If you’re not actually doing what the District Court found you to be doing and enjoined you from doing, then there should be no harm,” Sung said.
The Impact of the Injunction
Frimpong’s order stops agents from using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement across Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. The judge found that without other evidence, those criteria alone or in combination do not meet the 4th Amendment bar for reasonable suspicion. “It appears that they are randomly selecting Home Depots where people are standing looking for jobs and car washes because they’re car washes,” Berzon said. “Is your argument that it’s OK that it’s happening, or is your argument that it’s not happening?”
Precedent Cases
Arguments in the case hinge on a pair of dueling Golden State cases that together define the scope of relief courts can offer under the 4th Amendment. The Department of Justice has staked its claim largely on City of Los Angeles vs. Lyons, a landmark 1983 Supreme Court decision about illegal chokeholds by the Los Angeles Police Department. In that case, the court ruled against a blanket ban on the practice, finding the Black motorist who had sued was unlikely to ever be choked by the police again.
The Easyriders Case
The American Civil Liberties Union and its partners point to other precedents, including the San Diego biker case Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. vs. Hannigan. Decided in the 9th Circuit in 1996, the ruling offers residents of the American West more 4th Amendment protection than they might have in Texas, New York or Illinois. In the Easyriders case, 14 members of a Southland motorcycle club successfully blocked the California Highway Patrol from citing almost any bikers they suspected of wearing the wrong kind of helmet, after the court ruled a more narrow decision would leave the same bikers vulnerable to future illegal citations.
Expert Analysis
Professor Orin S. Kerr of Stanford Law School, whose work on 4th Amendment injunctions was cited in the Justice Department’s briefing, said, “It’s the bulwark of privacy protection against policing. What the government can do depends on really specific details. That makes it hard for a court to say here’s the thing you can’t do.” Another expert, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said the Los Angeles Police Department chokehold case set a standard that litigants “need to show it’s likely it could happen to you again in the future.”
Conclusion
The case of Trump’s ICE tactics is complex and multifaceted, with both sides presenting strong arguments. The 9th Circuit panel’s decision is expected to have significant implications for immigration enforcement and the 4th Amendment. As the case continues to unfold, it is clear that the issue of "roving patrols" and the use of chokeholds will remain a contentious and highly debated topic.
FAQs
Q: What is the main issue in the case of Trump’s ICE tactics?
A: The main issue is whether the ICE tactics, including "roving patrols" and the use of chokeholds, violate the 4th Amendment.
Q: What is the 4th Amendment?
A: The 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Q: What is the significance of the Easyriders case?
A: The Easyriders case sets a precedent for 4th Amendment protection in the American West, allowing for broader injunctions in cases where law enforcement is conducting "roving patrols."
Q: What is the expected outcome of the 9th Circuit panel’s decision?
A: The expected outcome is that the panel will side with the federal judge who blocked the ICE tactics, setting up another Supreme Court showdown.
Q: What are the implications of the case for immigration enforcement?
A: The case has significant implications for immigration enforcement, as it challenges the use of certain tactics and raises questions about the balance between national security and individual rights.
