As
regular
readers
of
this
column
know,
I’m
no
fan
of
Donald
Trump’s. But
even
a
stopped
clock
is
accurate
twice
a
day.
Can
we
admit
that
Trump
has
achieved
at
least
a
couple
of
worthwhile
things?
First: The
border. For
reasons
that
I
don’t
understand,
Joe
Biden
and
the
Democrats
didn’t
mind
having
a
ton
of
undocumented
people
enter
the
country. Trump’s
stopped
that. Good,
right?
You
might
disagree
with
having
the
military
join
in
the
deportation
effort,
or
having
masked
ICE
agents
round
people
up
on
the
streets,
or
deporting
people
who
have
been
living
upstanding
lives
in
the
United
States
for
years,
or
deporting
people
legally
entitled
not
to
be
deported,
or
deporting
people
to
countries
with
which
they
had
no
previous
contact, or
…
Wait!
I
was
supposed
to
be
giving
the
devil
his
due.
Closing
the
border
is
good.
It’s
only
the
surrounding
details
about
which
reasonable
people
might
differ.
I’m
going
to
give
Trump
credit,
and
then
I’m
going
to
shut
up.
What
else
has
Trump
done
that’s
undeniably
good? Causing
our
NATO
allies
to
commit
to
spending
5%
of
their
gross
domestic
product
for
defense.
The
United
States
has
been
bearing
a
disproportionate
share
of
the
cost
of
defending
NATO
for
decades. The
United
States
and
many
presidents
before
Trump
have
been
urging
the
other
NATO
countries
to
contribute
more,
and
those
countries
have
simply
ignored
us.
They’re
not
ignoring
us
anymore;
instead,
they’re
committing
to
coughing
up
in
their
own
defense.
That’s
good.
Again,
you
might
not
agree
with
Trump’s
methods. I’m
not
sure
that
basically
threatening
to
abandon
NATO
to
get
the
alliance’s
attention
was
a
great
idea. But
anything
short
of
threatening
abandonment
didn’t
seem
to
have
worked. Thus,
you
might
disagree
with
Trump’s
methods,
but
his
result
—
having
NATO
allies
commit
more
resources
to
the
cause
—
is
a
good
one. Right?
Right.
Anything
else?
Lifting
sanctions
on
Syria
may
prove
to
be
a
good
idea,
and
that’s
probably
a
uniquely
Trumpian
achievement. Any
other
administration
would
have
insisted
on
months
of
study
before
lifting
sanctions
on
Syria. Trump
didn’t
care
about
governmental
niceties;
he
just
acted. And
the
world
may
ultimately
benefit
from
that
action. We’ll
see.
I’m
starting
to
struggle
now.
Let
me
probe
deep
into
the
recesses
of
my
mind. Did
Trump
do
anything
else
that
was
good?
In
the
first
term: Operation
Warp
Speed,
which
resulted
in
the
COVID
vaccine,
was
a
great
success,
even
if
the
Republican
Party
now
appears
to
be
abandoning
vaccines
generally. The
Abraham
Accords,
establishing
diplomatic
relations
between
Israel
and
the
UAE
and
Bahrain,
were
a
good
start. We’ll
see
where
they
go.
Uh-oh.
I’m
running
out
of
ideas,
or
imagination,
or
breath.
There
are
many,
many
things
that
Trump
has
done,
before
and
during
his
second
term,
that
are
illegal,
loathsome,
or
harmful. The
pardons,
tariff
policy,
cutting
funding
meant
for
medical
research,
threatening
Panama
and
Greenland,
shoot
—
don’t
get
me
started. I’ve
done
that
before.
But
now,
for
the
sake
of
civility,
I’m
giving
Trump
credit
where
it
seems
to
be
due.
The
Supreme
Court
is
perfectly
willing
to
let
the
Trump
administration
break
the
law,
but
trial
judges
are
not.
And
so
on
Friday,
yet
another
federal
district
court
judge
issued
an
injunction
attempting
to
rein
in
ICE’s
goon
squads.
In
a
case
captioned
Perdomo
v.
Noem,
Judge
Maami
Ewusi-Mensah
Frimpong
of
the
Central
District
of
California
issued
a
temporary
restraining
order
barring
the
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
from
snatching
up
every
non-white
person
they
can
get
their
hands
on
and
locking
them
in
a
basement
without
access
to
food,
water,
medicine,
or
counsel.
Specifically,
she
ordered
DHS
to
stop
dispatching
“roving
patrols”
of
ICE
agents
to
arrest
people
without
cause
and
to
give
detainees
access
to
their
lawyers.
As
Judge
Frimpong
noted,
requiring
the
government
to
abide
by
the
Constitution’s
guarantees
of
process
and
access
to
counsel
should
be
“fairly
simple
and
non-controversial.”
Nevertheless,
the
Trump
administration
already
noticed
its
appeal
to
the
Ninth
Circuit
(even
though
TROs
are
not
immediately
appealable).
LA
Raiders
On
the
campaign
trail,
Donald
Trump
promised
to
be
the
deporter-in-chief.
But
in
fact,
his
deportations
got
off
to
a
slow
start,
with
fewer
than
1,000
immigrants
arrested
a
day
for
months.
This
infuriated
Stephen
Miller,
the
president’s
xenophobia
czar.
“Why
aren’t
you
at
Home
Depot?
Why
aren’t
you
at
7-Eleven?”
he
screamed
at
ICE
agents
in
May,
according
to
the
Washington
Examiner.
On
May
28,
Miller
and
DHS
Secretary
Kristi
Noem
tripled
ICE’s
quota
to
3,000
daily
arrests.
“Under
President
Trump’s
leadership,
we
are
looking
to
set
a
goal
of
a
minimum
of
3,000
arrests
for
ICE
every
day,
and
President
Trump
is
going
to
keep
pushing
to
get
that
number
up
higher
each
and
every
single
day,
so
we
can
get
all
of
the
Biden
illegals
that
were
flooded
into
our
country
for
four
years
out
of
our
country,”
Miller
boasted
to
Sean
Hannity.
A
week
later,
Trump
dispatched
ICE
to
Los
Angeles,
promising
“the
largest
Mass
Deportation
Operation
in
History.”
Since
then,
heavily
armed
ICE
agents
and
federal
officers
have
conducted
military-style
raids
on
farms
and
farmers’
markets,
car
washes,
bus
stops,
swap
meets,
churches,
and
public
parks.
The
agents,
typically
decked
out
in
body
armor
and
wearing
masks
without
any
visible
badges
or
insignia,
don’t
have
arrest
warrants,
and
routinely
refuse
to
identify
themselves.
ICE
goons
demand
proof
of
citizenship
from
anyone
who
“looks
Hispanic,”
and
they’ve
even
detained
many
citizens
who
failed
to
carry
around
their
passports.
Indeed,
the
entire
premise
of
Stephen
Miller’s
“7-Eleven”
exhortation
was
that
ICE
agents
should
go
where
immigrants
seek
work
and
racially
profile
their
way
to
meet
the
required
body
count.
But
tripling
arrests
to
meet
an
arbitrary
quota
doesn’t
magically
create
the
infrastructure
to
detain
them
in
accordance
with
the
Constitution.
Immigrants
are
being
held
in
a
temporary
processing
facility
in
the
basement
of
a
federal
building
known
as
B-18.
B-18
is
not
a
detention
facility:
It
has
no
beds,
showers,
or
medical
facilities.
Detainees
are
packed
into
“small,
windowless
rooms”
that
are
“so
cramped
that
detainees
cannot
sit,
let
alone
lie
down,
for
hours
at
a
time.”
They’ve
been
denied
food,
fresh
water,
and
medical
supplies.
That’s
torture.
Worse,
the
administration
has
also
denied
detainees
held
at
B-18
—
many
of
whom
are
citizens
and
have
broken
no
laws
—
the
right
to
counsel.
On
at
least
one
occasion,
ICE
closed
the
building
to
visitors
and
pepper-sprayed
lawyers
and
family
members
who
tried
to
get
in
to
see
detainees
being
held
there.
As
Judge
Frimpong
described
it,
“On
the
rare
occasions
when
attorneys
and
family
members
were
allowed
access
to
their
clients
or
loved
ones,
they
were
made
to
wait
hours
at
a
time
to
see
them,
and
the
resulting
visits
were
limited
to
a
mere
five
to
ten
minutes.”
Since
the
raids
began
on
June
6,
2025,
over
1,500
people
have
been
arrested
in
the
Los
Angeles
metro
area.
Hundreds
are
currently
being
held
in
that
basement.
The
best
defense
is
a
good
offense
None
of
this
is
remotely
legal,
and
the
government
hasn’t
even
attempted
to
argue
that
it
is.
DOJ
lawyers
more
or
less
conceded
in
open
court
that
it’s
unlawful
to
arrest
people
without
cause
based
solely
on
their
race
and
occupation
and
then
deny
them
access
to
counsel.
Instead,
the
government
raised
various
procedural
arguments,
complaining
that
the
plaintiffs
waited
over
a
month
to
file
their
complaint
and
“elected
not
to
file
a
new
case”
but
instead
joined
an
existing
habeas
case.
It
takes
a
particular
kind
of
chutzpah
to
deny
detainees
meaningful
access
to
a
lawyer
and
then
complain
that
they
took
too
long
to
file
their
complaint.
Judge
Frimpong
was
deeply
unimpressed:
The
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
expeditiously
in
this
case.
…
Considering
the
totality
of
the
circumstances-in
particular,
the
alleged
ongoing
denial
of
access
to
counsel
that
continued
at
least
until
the
filing
of
the
instant
TRO…
the
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
swiftly
to
file
the
first
amended
complaint
and
the
instant
TROs.
The
administration
also
argued
that
the
court
lacks
jurisdiction
to
hear
plaintiffs’
claims
because
of
8
U.S.C.
§
1252,
which
limits
how
detainees
may
challenge
final
orders
of
removal
issued
by
an
immigration
judge.
But
that
argument
flatly
contradicts
long-standing
Supreme
Court
precedent
as
well
as
common
sense.
Since
many
of
the
plaintiffs
in
this
case
are
US
citizens
who
have
been
unlawfully
arrested
and
detained,
they
don’t
have
immigration
proceedings
or
orders
of
removal,
final
or
otherwise.
As
Judge
Frimpong
concluded,
it
simply
“cannot
be”
the
case
that
citizens
have
no
venue
to
raise
constitutional
claims
“and
none
of
the
authority
cited
by
Defendants
says
it
is.”
The
only
other
argument
made
by
the
government
in
its
defense
was
to
“attempt
to
minimize
the
impact”
of
the
raids
by
“characteriz[ing]
them
as
limited
to
a
short
period
of
time
justified
by
nearby
civil
unrest.”
Knock
that
shit
off
Judge
Frimpong’s
TRO
has
two
components:
First,
it
mandates
that
anyone
warehoused
at
B-18
shall
have
meaningful
access
to
counsel.
The
government
must
open
B-18
for
legal
visitation
“seven
days
per
week,
for
a
minimum
of
eight
hours
per
day
on
business
days
(Monday
through
Friday),
and
a
minimum
of
four
hours
per
day
on
weekends
and
holidays.”
Detainees
must
also
be
permitted
“access
to
confidential
telephone
calls
with
attorneys,
legal
representatives,
and
legal
assistants
at
no
charge
to
the
detainee,”
and
those
calls
“shall
not
be
screened,
recorded,
or
otherwise
monitored.”
Second,
the
order
requires
ICE
to
quit
arresting
people
for
the
“crime”
of
being
Hispanic
and
standing
outside
a
convenience
store.
“As
required
by
the
Fourth
Amendment
of
the
United
States
Constitution,
Defendants
are
enjoined
from
conducting
detentive
stops
in
this
District
unless
the
agent
or
officer
has
reasonable
suspicion
that
the
person
to
be
stopped
is
within
the
United
States
in
violation
of
U.S.
immigration
law,”
she
wrote.
And
reasonable
suspicion
cannot
be
some
form
of
“he
fit
the
profile.”
Defendants
may
not
rely
solely
on
the
factors
below,
alone
or
in
combination,
to
form
reasonable
suspicion
for
a
detentive
stop,
except
as
permitted
by
law;
Apparent
race
or
ethnicity;
Speaking
Spanish
or
speaking
English
with
an
accent;
Presence
at
a
particular
location
(e.g.,
bus
stop,
car
wash,
tow
yard,
day
laborer
pick-up
site,
agricultural
site,
etc.);
or
The
type
of
work
one
does.
As
a
remedial
measure,
the
judge
also
required
ICE
to
document
the
grounds
for
stops
occurring
in
the
district
and
retrain
officers
to
understand
the
difference
between
reasonable
suspicion
and
racial
profiling.
“The
Court
does
not
find
prejudice
to
Defendants,”
she
concluded.
“Complying
with
the
law
does
not
impose
harm,”
and
“requiring
law
enforcement
to
comply
with
the
Constitution
does
not
prevent
law
enforcement
from
enforcing
the
law.”
Bragging
about
your
crimes
The
right-wing
reaction
to
Judge
Frimpong’s
order
has
been
predictably
disingenuous.
The
most
common
take
is
to
pretend
that
a
ban
on
racial
profiling
is
actually
a
ban
on
making
arrests
at
7-
Eleven
and
Home
Depot.
“This
is
the
equivalent
of
a
judge
making
the
ruling
that
the
DEA
can’t
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA,”
babbled
whichever
central
casting
rando
is
sitting
on
the
white
couch
at
Fox
and
Friends
this
week.
“It
makes
no
sense.
They
are
carrying
out
federal
immigration
law.”
Except
that
the
DEA
can’t
just
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA!
Cops
need
reasonable
suspicion
to
arrest
and
search
people,
and
looking
like
a
drug
user
in
a
place
where
people
use
drugs
won’t
cut
it.
That
same
morning,
America’s
Nazi
uncle
Tom
Homan
beamed
in
to
lawsplain
to
Judge
Frimpong
that
ICE
is
100
percent
doing
racial
profiling.
Homan:
“People
need
to
understand
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them
…
based
on
their
physical
appearance.”
Look,
people
need
to
understand,
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them.
They
just
need
totality
of
the
circumstances,
right?
They
just
go
through
the
observation,
get
our
typical
facts
based
on
the
location,
the
occupation,
their
physical
appearance,
their
actions.
A
uniformed
border
patrol
officer
walks
up
to
them
at
for
instance
a
Home
Depot
and
they
got
all
these
other
articulable
facts,
plus
the
person
walks
away
or
runs
away.
But
Homan
is
not
a
lawyer,
and
so
perhaps
on
Saturday
one
of
the
attorneys
at
DHS
sat
him
down
and
explained
that
he’d
just
admitted
that
ICE
agents
routinely
violate
the
Constitution.
By
Sunday,
he
was
back
on
air
with
CNN’s
Dana
Bash
explaining
that
adding
up
a
bunch
of
illegal
factors
magically
makes
it
legal
to
racially
profile
someone:
As
I
said
in
that
interview,
it’s
articulable
facts,
with
an
S.
So
appearance
can
be
just
one.
For
instance,
if
someone
has
an
MS-13
tattoo
on
their
face,
that
may
be
one
factor
to
add
to
other
factors
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
I
want
to
be
clear
about
that
again,
because
my
words
were
taken
out
of
context.
Physical
description
cannot
be
the
sole
reason
to
detain
and
question
somebody.
That
can’t
be
the
sole
reason
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
It’s
a
myriad
of
factors.
And
I
could
sit
here
for
the
next
half-hour
and
give
you
all
the
factors.
So
weird
that
they
send
this
guy
on
TV
but
never
to
court!
This
argument
will
likely
go
nowhere
with
the
Ninth
Circuit.
But
the
Supreme
Court
appears
willing
to
burn
down
generations-worth
of
civil
rights
law
to
avoid
saying
“no”
to
Trump.
So
…
¯(ツ)/¯
The
Supreme
Court
is
perfectly
willing
to
let
the
Trump
administration
break
the
law,
but
trial
judges
are
not.
And
so
on
Friday,
yet
another
federal
district
court
judge
issued
an
injunction
attempting
to
rein
in
ICE’s
goon
squads.
In
a
case
captioned
Perdomo
v.
Noem,
Judge
Maami
Ewusi-Mensah
Frimpong
of
the
Central
District
of
California
issued
a
temporary
restraining
order
barring
the
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
from
snatching
up
every
non-white
person
they
can
get
their
hands
on
and
locking
them
in
a
basement
without
access
to
food,
water,
medicine,
or
counsel.
Specifically,
she
ordered
DHS
to
stop
dispatching
“roving
patrols”
of
ICE
agents
to
arrest
people
without
cause
and
to
give
detainees
access
to
their
lawyers.
As
Judge
Frimpong
noted,
requiring
the
government
to
abide
by
the
Constitution’s
guarantees
of
process
and
access
to
counsel
should
be
“fairly
simple
and
non-controversial.”
Nevertheless,
the
Trump
administration
already
noticed
its
appeal
to
the
Ninth
Circuit
(even
though
TROs
are
not
immediately
appealable).
LA
Raiders
On
the
campaign
trail,
Donald
Trump
promised
to
be
the
deporter-in-chief.
But
in
fact,
his
deportations
got
off
to
a
slow
start,
with
fewer
than
1,000
immigrants
arrested
a
day
for
months.
This
infuriated
Stephen
Miller,
the
president’s
xenophobia
czar.
“Why
aren’t
you
at
Home
Depot?
Why
aren’t
you
at
7-Eleven?”
he
screamed
at
ICE
agents
in
May,
according
to
the
Washington
Examiner.
On
May
28,
Miller
and
DHS
Secretary
Kristi
Noem
tripled
ICE’s
quota
to
3,000
daily
arrests.
“Under
President
Trump’s
leadership,
we
are
looking
to
set
a
goal
of
a
minimum
of
3,000
arrests
for
ICE
every
day,
and
President
Trump
is
going
to
keep
pushing
to
get
that
number
up
higher
each
and
every
single
day,
so
we
can
get
all
of
the
Biden
illegals
that
were
flooded
into
our
country
for
four
years
out
of
our
country,”
Miller
boasted
to
Sean
Hannity.
A
week
later,
Trump
dispatched
ICE
to
Los
Angeles,
promising
“the
largest
Mass
Deportation
Operation
in
History.”
Since
then,
heavily
armed
ICE
agents
and
federal
officers
have
conducted
military-style
raids
on
farms
and
farmers’
markets,
car
washes,
bus
stops,
swap
meets,
churches,
and
public
parks.
The
agents,
typically
decked
out
in
body
armor
and
wearing
masks
without
any
visible
badges
or
insignia,
don’t
have
arrest
warrants,
and
routinely
refuse
to
identify
themselves.
ICE
goons
demand
proof
of
citizenship
from
anyone
who
“looks
Hispanic,”
and
they’ve
even
detained
many
citizens
who
failed
to
carry
around
their
passports.
Indeed,
the
entire
premise
of
Stephen
Miller’s
“7-Eleven”
exhortation
was
that
ICE
agents
should
go
where
immigrants
seek
work
and
racially
profile
their
way
to
meet
the
required
body
count.
But
tripling
arrests
to
meet
an
arbitrary
quota
doesn’t
magically
create
the
infrastructure
to
detain
them
in
accordance
with
the
Constitution.
Immigrants
are
being
held
in
a
temporary
processing
facility
in
the
basement
of
a
federal
building
known
as
B-18.
B-18
is
not
a
detention
facility:
It
has
no
beds,
showers,
or
medical
facilities.
Detainees
are
packed
into
“small,
windowless
rooms”
that
are
“so
cramped
that
detainees
cannot
sit,
let
alone
lie
down,
for
hours
at
a
time.”
They’ve
been
denied
food,
fresh
water,
and
medical
supplies.
That’s
torture.
Worse,
the
administration
has
also
denied
detainees
held
at
B-18
—
many
of
whom
are
citizens
and
have
broken
no
laws
—
the
right
to
counsel.
On
at
least
one
occasion,
ICE
closed
the
building
to
visitors
and
pepper-sprayed
lawyers
and
family
members
who
tried
to
get
in
to
see
detainees
being
held
there.
As
Judge
Frimpong
described
it,
“On
the
rare
occasions
when
attorneys
and
family
members
were
allowed
access
to
their
clients
or
loved
ones,
they
were
made
to
wait
hours
at
a
time
to
see
them,
and
the
resulting
visits
were
limited
to
a
mere
five
to
ten
minutes.”
Since
the
raids
began
on
June
6,
2025,
over
1,500
people
have
been
arrested
in
the
Los
Angeles
metro
area.
Hundreds
are
currently
being
held
in
that
basement.
The
best
defense
is
a
good
offense
None
of
this
is
remotely
legal,
and
the
government
hasn’t
even
attempted
to
argue
that
it
is.
DOJ
lawyers
more
or
less
conceded
in
open
court
that
it’s
unlawful
to
arrest
people
without
cause
based
solely
on
their
race
and
occupation
and
then
deny
them
access
to
counsel.
Instead,
the
government
raised
various
procedural
arguments,
complaining
that
the
plaintiffs
waited
over
a
month
to
file
their
complaint
and
“elected
not
to
file
a
new
case”
but
instead
joined
an
existing
habeas
case.
It
takes
a
particular
kind
of
chutzpah
to
deny
detainees
meaningful
access
to
a
lawyer
and
then
complain
that
they
took
too
long
to
file
their
complaint.
Judge
Frimpong
was
deeply
unimpressed:
The
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
expeditiously
in
this
case.
…
Considering
the
totality
of
the
circumstances-in
particular,
the
alleged
ongoing
denial
of
access
to
counsel
that
continued
at
least
until
the
filing
of
the
instant
TRO…
the
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
swiftly
to
file
the
first
amended
complaint
and
the
instant
TROs.
The
administration
also
argued
that
the
court
lacks
jurisdiction
to
hear
plaintiffs’
claims
because
of
8
U.S.C.
§
1252,
which
limits
how
detainees
may
challenge
final
orders
of
removal
issued
by
an
immigration
judge.
But
that
argument
flatly
contradicts
long-standing
Supreme
Court
precedent
as
well
as
common
sense.
Since
many
of
the
plaintiffs
in
this
case
are
US
citizens
who
have
been
unlawfully
arrested
and
detained,
they
don’t
have
immigration
proceedings
or
orders
of
removal,
final
or
otherwise.
As
Judge
Frimpong
concluded,
it
simply
“cannot
be”
the
case
that
citizens
have
no
venue
to
raise
constitutional
claims
“and
none
of
the
authority
cited
by
Defendants
says
it
is.”
The
only
other
argument
made
by
the
government
in
its
defense
was
to
“attempt
to
minimize
the
impact”
of
the
raids
by
“characteriz[ing]
them
as
limited
to
a
short
period
of
time
justified
by
nearby
civil
unrest.”
Knock
that
shit
off
Judge
Frimpong’s
TRO
has
two
components:
First,
it
mandates
that
anyone
warehoused
at
B-18
shall
have
meaningful
access
to
counsel.
The
government
must
open
B-18
for
legal
visitation
“seven
days
per
week,
for
a
minimum
of
eight
hours
per
day
on
business
days
(Monday
through
Friday),
and
a
minimum
of
four
hours
per
day
on
weekends
and
holidays.”
Detainees
must
also
be
permitted
“access
to
confidential
telephone
calls
with
attorneys,
legal
representatives,
and
legal
assistants
at
no
charge
to
the
detainee,”
and
those
calls
“shall
not
be
screened,
recorded,
or
otherwise
monitored.”
Second,
the
order
requires
ICE
to
quit
arresting
people
for
the
“crime”
of
being
Hispanic
and
standing
outside
a
convenience
store.
“As
required
by
the
Fourth
Amendment
of
the
United
States
Constitution,
Defendants
are
enjoined
from
conducting
detentive
stops
in
this
District
unless
the
agent
or
officer
has
reasonable
suspicion
that
the
person
to
be
stopped
is
within
the
United
States
in
violation
of
U.S.
immigration
law,”
she
wrote.
And
reasonable
suspicion
cannot
be
some
form
of
“he
fit
the
profile.”
Defendants
may
not
rely
solely
on
the
factors
below,
alone
or
in
combination,
to
form
reasonable
suspicion
for
a
detentive
stop,
except
as
permitted
by
law;
Apparent
race
or
ethnicity;
Speaking
Spanish
or
speaking
English
with
an
accent;
Presence
at
a
particular
location
(e.g.,
bus
stop,
car
wash,
tow
yard,
day
laborer
pick-up
site,
agricultural
site,
etc.);
or
The
type
of
work
one
does.
As
a
remedial
measure,
the
judge
also
required
ICE
to
document
the
grounds
for
stops
occurring
in
the
district
and
retrain
officers
to
understand
the
difference
between
reasonable
suspicion
and
racial
profiling.
“The
Court
does
not
find
prejudice
to
Defendants,”
she
concluded.
“Complying
with
the
law
does
not
impose
harm,”
and
“requiring
law
enforcement
to
comply
with
the
Constitution
does
not
prevent
law
enforcement
from
enforcing
the
law.”
Bragging
about
your
crimes
The
right-wing
reaction
to
Judge
Frimpong’s
order
has
been
predictably
disingenuous.
The
most
common
take
is
to
pretend
that
a
ban
on
racial
profiling
is
actually
a
ban
on
making
arrests
at
7-
Eleven
and
Home
Depot.
“This
is
the
equivalent
of
a
judge
making
the
ruling
that
the
DEA
can’t
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA,”
babbled
whichever
central
casting
rando
is
sitting
on
the
white
couch
at
Fox
and
Friends
this
week.
“It
makes
no
sense.
They
are
carrying
out
federal
immigration
law.”
Except
that
the
DEA
can’t
just
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA!
Cops
need
reasonable
suspicion
to
arrest
and
search
people,
and
looking
like
a
drug
user
in
a
place
where
people
use
drugs
won’t
cut
it.
That
same
morning,
America’s
Nazi
uncle
Tom
Homan
beamed
in
to
lawsplain
to
Judge
Frimpong
that
ICE
is
100
percent
doing
racial
profiling.
Homan:
“People
need
to
understand
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them
…
based
on
their
physical
appearance.”
Look,
people
need
to
understand,
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them.
They
just
need
totality
of
the
circumstances,
right?
They
just
go
through
the
observation,
get
our
typical
facts
based
on
the
location,
the
occupation,
their
physical
appearance,
their
actions.
A
uniformed
border
patrol
officer
walks
up
to
them
at
for
instance
a
Home
Depot
and
they
got
all
these
other
articulable
facts,
plus
the
person
walks
away
or
runs
away.
But
Homan
is
not
a
lawyer,
and
so
perhaps
on
Saturday
one
of
the
attorneys
at
DHS
sat
him
down
and
explained
that
he’d
just
admitted
that
ICE
agents
routinely
violate
the
Constitution.
By
Sunday,
he
was
back
on
air
with
CNN’s
Dana
Bash
explaining
that
adding
up
a
bunch
of
illegal
factors
magically
makes
it
legal
to
racially
profile
someone:
As
I
said
in
that
interview,
it’s
articulable
facts,
with
an
S.
So
appearance
can
be
just
one.
For
instance,
if
someone
has
an
MS-13
tattoo
on
their
face,
that
may
be
one
factor
to
add
to
other
factors
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
I
want
to
be
clear
about
that
again,
because
my
words
were
taken
out
of
context.
Physical
description
cannot
be
the
sole
reason
to
detain
and
question
somebody.
That
can’t
be
the
sole
reason
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
It’s
a
myriad
of
factors.
And
I
could
sit
here
for
the
next
half-hour
and
give
you
all
the
factors.
So
weird
that
they
send
this
guy
on
TV
but
never
to
court!
This
argument
will
likely
go
nowhere
with
the
Ninth
Circuit.
But
the
Supreme
Court
appears
willing
to
burn
down
generations-worth
of
civil
rights
law
to
avoid
saying
“no”
to
Trump.
So
…
¯(ツ)/¯
The
Supreme
Court
is
perfectly
willing
to
let
the
Trump
administration
break
the
law,
but
trial
judges
are
not.
And
so
on
Friday,
yet
another
federal
district
court
judge
issued
an
injunction
attempting
to
rein
in
ICE’s
goon
squads.
In
a
case
captioned
Perdomo
v.
Noem,
Judge
Maami
Ewusi-Mensah
Frimpong
of
the
Central
District
of
California
issued
a
temporary
restraining
order
barring
the
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
from
snatching
up
every
non-white
person
they
can
get
their
hands
on
and
locking
them
in
a
basement
without
access
to
food,
water,
medicine,
or
counsel.
Specifically,
she
ordered
DHS
to
stop
dispatching
“roving
patrols”
of
ICE
agents
to
arrest
people
without
cause
and
to
give
detainees
access
to
their
lawyers.
As
Judge
Frimpong
noted,
requiring
the
government
to
abide
by
the
Constitution’s
guarantees
of
process
and
access
to
counsel
should
be
“fairly
simple
and
non-controversial.”
Nevertheless,
the
Trump
administration
already
noticed
its
appeal
to
the
Ninth
Circuit
(even
though
TROs
are
not
immediately
appealable).
LA
Raiders
On
the
campaign
trail,
Donald
Trump
promised
to
be
the
deporter-in-chief.
But
in
fact,
his
deportations
got
off
to
a
slow
start,
with
fewer
than
1,000
immigrants
arrested
a
day
for
months.
This
infuriated
Stephen
Miller,
the
president’s
xenophobia
czar.
“Why
aren’t
you
at
Home
Depot?
Why
aren’t
you
at
7-Eleven?”
he
screamed
at
ICE
agents
in
May,
according
to
the
Washington
Examiner.
On
May
28,
Miller
and
DHS
Secretary
Kristi
Noem
tripled
ICE’s
quota
to
3,000
daily
arrests.
“Under
President
Trump’s
leadership,
we
are
looking
to
set
a
goal
of
a
minimum
of
3,000
arrests
for
ICE
every
day,
and
President
Trump
is
going
to
keep
pushing
to
get
that
number
up
higher
each
and
every
single
day,
so
we
can
get
all
of
the
Biden
illegals
that
were
flooded
into
our
country
for
four
years
out
of
our
country,”
Miller
boasted
to
Sean
Hannity.
A
week
later,
Trump
dispatched
ICE
to
Los
Angeles,
promising
“the
largest
Mass
Deportation
Operation
in
History.”
Since
then,
heavily
armed
ICE
agents
and
federal
officers
have
conducted
military-style
raids
on
farms
and
farmers’
markets,
car
washes,
bus
stops,
swap
meets,
churches,
and
public
parks.
The
agents,
typically
decked
out
in
body
armor
and
wearing
masks
without
any
visible
badges
or
insignia,
don’t
have
arrest
warrants,
and
routinely
refuse
to
identify
themselves.
ICE
goons
demand
proof
of
citizenship
from
anyone
who
“looks
Hispanic,”
and
they’ve
even
detained
many
citizens
who
failed
to
carry
around
their
passports.
Indeed,
the
entire
premise
of
Stephen
Miller’s
“7-Eleven”
exhortation
was
that
ICE
agents
should
go
where
immigrants
seek
work
and
racially
profile
their
way
to
meet
the
required
body
count.
But
tripling
arrests
to
meet
an
arbitrary
quota
doesn’t
magically
create
the
infrastructure
to
detain
them
in
accordance
with
the
Constitution.
Immigrants
are
being
held
in
a
temporary
processing
facility
in
the
basement
of
a
federal
building
known
as
B-18.
B-18
is
not
a
detention
facility:
It
has
no
beds,
showers,
or
medical
facilities.
Detainees
are
packed
into
“small,
windowless
rooms”
that
are
“so
cramped
that
detainees
cannot
sit,
let
alone
lie
down,
for
hours
at
a
time.”
They’ve
been
denied
food,
fresh
water,
and
medical
supplies.
That’s
torture.
Worse,
the
administration
has
also
denied
detainees
held
at
B-18
—
many
of
whom
are
citizens
and
have
broken
no
laws
—
the
right
to
counsel.
On
at
least
one
occasion,
ICE
closed
the
building
to
visitors
and
pepper-sprayed
lawyers
and
family
members
who
tried
to
get
in
to
see
detainees
being
held
there.
As
Judge
Frimpong
described
it,
“On
the
rare
occasions
when
attorneys
and
family
members
were
allowed
access
to
their
clients
or
loved
ones,
they
were
made
to
wait
hours
at
a
time
to
see
them,
and
the
resulting
visits
were
limited
to
a
mere
five
to
ten
minutes.”
Since
the
raids
began
on
June
6,
2025,
over
1,500
people
have
been
arrested
in
the
Los
Angeles
metro
area.
Hundreds
are
currently
being
held
in
that
basement.
The
best
defense
is
a
good
offense
None
of
this
is
remotely
legal,
and
the
government
hasn’t
even
attempted
to
argue
that
it
is.
DOJ
lawyers
more
or
less
conceded
in
open
court
that
it’s
unlawful
to
arrest
people
without
cause
based
solely
on
their
race
and
occupation
and
then
deny
them
access
to
counsel.
Instead,
the
government
raised
various
procedural
arguments,
complaining
that
the
plaintiffs
waited
over
a
month
to
file
their
complaint
and
“elected
not
to
file
a
new
case”
but
instead
joined
an
existing
habeas
case.
It
takes
a
particular
kind
of
chutzpah
to
deny
detainees
meaningful
access
to
a
lawyer
and
then
complain
that
they
took
too
long
to
file
their
complaint.
Judge
Frimpong
was
deeply
unimpressed:
The
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
expeditiously
in
this
case.
…
Considering
the
totality
of
the
circumstances-in
particular,
the
alleged
ongoing
denial
of
access
to
counsel
that
continued
at
least
until
the
filing
of
the
instant
TRO…
the
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
swiftly
to
file
the
first
amended
complaint
and
the
instant
TROs.
The
administration
also
argued
that
the
court
lacks
jurisdiction
to
hear
plaintiffs’
claims
because
of
8
U.S.C.
§
1252,
which
limits
how
detainees
may
challenge
final
orders
of
removal
issued
by
an
immigration
judge.
But
that
argument
flatly
contradicts
long-standing
Supreme
Court
precedent
as
well
as
common
sense.
Since
many
of
the
plaintiffs
in
this
case
are
US
citizens
who
have
been
unlawfully
arrested
and
detained,
they
don’t
have
immigration
proceedings
or
orders
of
removal,
final
or
otherwise.
As
Judge
Frimpong
concluded,
it
simply
“cannot
be”
the
case
that
citizens
have
no
venue
to
raise
constitutional
claims
“and
none
of
the
authority
cited
by
Defendants
says
it
is.”
The
only
other
argument
made
by
the
government
in
its
defense
was
to
“attempt
to
minimize
the
impact”
of
the
raids
by
“characteriz[ing]
them
as
limited
to
a
short
period
of
time
justified
by
nearby
civil
unrest.”
Knock
that
shit
off
Judge
Frimpong’s
TRO
has
two
components:
First,
it
mandates
that
anyone
warehoused
at
B-18
shall
have
meaningful
access
to
counsel.
The
government
must
open
B-18
for
legal
visitation
“seven
days
per
week,
for
a
minimum
of
eight
hours
per
day
on
business
days
(Monday
through
Friday),
and
a
minimum
of
four
hours
per
day
on
weekends
and
holidays.”
Detainees
must
also
be
permitted
“access
to
confidential
telephone
calls
with
attorneys,
legal
representatives,
and
legal
assistants
at
no
charge
to
the
detainee,”
and
those
calls
“shall
not
be
screened,
recorded,
or
otherwise
monitored.”
Second,
the
order
requires
ICE
to
quit
arresting
people
for
the
“crime”
of
being
Hispanic
and
standing
outside
a
convenience
store.
“As
required
by
the
Fourth
Amendment
of
the
United
States
Constitution,
Defendants
are
enjoined
from
conducting
detentive
stops
in
this
District
unless
the
agent
or
officer
has
reasonable
suspicion
that
the
person
to
be
stopped
is
within
the
United
States
in
violation
of
U.S.
immigration
law,”
she
wrote.
And
reasonable
suspicion
cannot
be
some
form
of
“he
fit
the
profile.”
Defendants
may
not
rely
solely
on
the
factors
below,
alone
or
in
combination,
to
form
reasonable
suspicion
for
a
detentive
stop,
except
as
permitted
by
law;
Apparent
race
or
ethnicity;
Speaking
Spanish
or
speaking
English
with
an
accent;
Presence
at
a
particular
location
(e.g.,
bus
stop,
car
wash,
tow
yard,
day
laborer
pick-up
site,
agricultural
site,
etc.);
or
The
type
of
work
one
does.
As
a
remedial
measure,
the
judge
also
required
ICE
to
document
the
grounds
for
stops
occurring
in
the
district
and
retrain
officers
to
understand
the
difference
between
reasonable
suspicion
and
racial
profiling.
“The
Court
does
not
find
prejudice
to
Defendants,”
she
concluded.
“Complying
with
the
law
does
not
impose
harm,”
and
“requiring
law
enforcement
to
comply
with
the
Constitution
does
not
prevent
law
enforcement
from
enforcing
the
law.”
Bragging
about
your
crimes
The
right-wing
reaction
to
Judge
Frimpong’s
order
has
been
predictably
disingenuous.
The
most
common
take
is
to
pretend
that
a
ban
on
racial
profiling
is
actually
a
ban
on
making
arrests
at
7-
Eleven
and
Home
Depot.
“This
is
the
equivalent
of
a
judge
making
the
ruling
that
the
DEA
can’t
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA,”
babbled
whichever
central
casting
rando
is
sitting
on
the
white
couch
at
Fox
and
Friends
this
week.
“It
makes
no
sense.
They
are
carrying
out
federal
immigration
law.”
Except
that
the
DEA
can’t
just
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA!
Cops
need
reasonable
suspicion
to
arrest
and
search
people,
and
looking
like
a
drug
user
in
a
place
where
people
use
drugs
won’t
cut
it.
That
same
morning,
America’s
Nazi
uncle
Tom
Homan
beamed
in
to
lawsplain
to
Judge
Frimpong
that
ICE
is
100
percent
doing
racial
profiling.
Homan:
“People
need
to
understand
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them
…
based
on
their
physical
appearance.”
Look,
people
need
to
understand,
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them.
They
just
need
totality
of
the
circumstances,
right?
They
just
go
through
the
observation,
get
our
typical
facts
based
on
the
location,
the
occupation,
their
physical
appearance,
their
actions.
A
uniformed
border
patrol
officer
walks
up
to
them
at
for
instance
a
Home
Depot
and
they
got
all
these
other
articulable
facts,
plus
the
person
walks
away
or
runs
away.
But
Homan
is
not
a
lawyer,
and
so
perhaps
on
Saturday
one
of
the
attorneys
at
DHS
sat
him
down
and
explained
that
he’d
just
admitted
that
ICE
agents
routinely
violate
the
Constitution.
By
Sunday,
he
was
back
on
air
with
CNN’s
Dana
Bash
explaining
that
adding
up
a
bunch
of
illegal
factors
magically
makes
it
legal
to
racially
profile
someone:
As
I
said
in
that
interview,
it’s
articulable
facts,
with
an
S.
So
appearance
can
be
just
one.
For
instance,
if
someone
has
an
MS-13
tattoo
on
their
face,
that
may
be
one
factor
to
add
to
other
factors
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
I
want
to
be
clear
about
that
again,
because
my
words
were
taken
out
of
context.
Physical
description
cannot
be
the
sole
reason
to
detain
and
question
somebody.
That
can’t
be
the
sole
reason
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
It’s
a
myriad
of
factors.
And
I
could
sit
here
for
the
next
half-hour
and
give
you
all
the
factors.
So
weird
that
they
send
this
guy
on
TV
but
never
to
court!
This
argument
will
likely
go
nowhere
with
the
Ninth
Circuit.
But
the
Supreme
Court
appears
willing
to
burn
down
generations-worth
of
civil
rights
law
to
avoid
saying
“no”
to
Trump.
So
…
¯(ツ)/¯
HARARE
–
A
truck
driver
vanished
with
a
truckload
of
ammonium
nitrate
fertilizer
which
was
due
to
be
delivered
to
the
Battlefields
farm
of
deputy
chief
cabinet
secretary
and
presidency
spokesman
George
Charamba,
a
court
heard
on
Monday.
Prosecutors
revealed
this
as
Sithabisile
Mpofu,
49,
was
charged
with
theft
of
trust
property
at
the
Mbare
Magistrates
Court.
Mpofu,
of
Simbi
Park
in
Redcliff,
was
allegedly
contacted
by
Charamba’s
personal
assistant
Tsitsi
Chirwa
to
source
a
truck
to
transport
26
tonnes
of
fertilizer
worth
$17,160
from
J
&
J
in
Mt
Hampden,
Harare,
to
the
farm
near
Kwekwe.
The
court
heard
that
Mpofu
in
turn
hired
truck
driver
Stewart
Sanikwa
who
picked
up
the
fertilizer
on
July
11.
Arrangements
had
been
made
that
Gift
Nyamutowa,
an
employee
of
the
president’s
office,
would
accompany
the
truck
to
Battlefields
but
he
was
late
arriving.
“The
truck
driver,
who
is
still
at
large,
took
advantage
of
the
absence
of
complainant
(Nyamutowa)
and
drove
the
truck
from
the
loading
point
without
escort
and
disappeared
with
the
load,”
the
National
Prosecuting
Authority
said.
Nyamutowa
later
drove
to
the
farm
but
discovered
that
the
fertilizer
had
not
reached
its
destination
and
a
police
report
was
made.
Prosecutors
accuse
Mpofu
of
also
supplying
false
registration
details
of
the
truck
used
to
carry
the
fertilizer.
The
Supreme
Court
is
perfectly
willing
to
let
the
Trump
administration
break
the
law,
but
trial
judges
are
not.
And
so
on
Friday,
yet
another
federal
district
court
judge
issued
an
injunction
attempting
to
rein
in
ICE’s
goon
squads.
In
a
case
captioned
Perdomo
v.
Noem,
Judge
Maami
Ewusi-Mensah
Frimpong
of
the
Central
District
of
California
issued
a
temporary
restraining
order
barring
the
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
from
snatching
up
every
non-white
person
they
can
get
their
hands
on
and
locking
them
in
a
basement
without
access
to
food,
water,
medicine,
or
counsel.
Specifically,
she
ordered
DHS
to
stop
dispatching
“roving
patrols”
of
ICE
agents
to
arrest
people
without
cause
and
to
give
detainees
access
to
their
lawyers.
As
Judge
Frimpong
noted,
requiring
the
government
to
abide
by
the
Constitution’s
guarantees
of
process
and
access
to
counsel
should
be
“fairly
simple
and
non-controversial.”
Nevertheless,
the
Trump
administration
already
noticed
its
appeal
to
the
Ninth
Circuit
(even
though
TROs
are
not
immediately
appealable).
LA
Raiders
On
the
campaign
trail,
Donald
Trump
promised
to
be
the
deporter-in-chief.
But
in
fact,
his
deportations
got
off
to
a
slow
start,
with
fewer
than
1,000
immigrants
arrested
a
day
for
months.
This
infuriated
Stephen
Miller,
the
president’s
xenophobia
czar.
“Why
aren’t
you
at
Home
Depot?
Why
aren’t
you
at
7-Eleven?”
he
screamed
at
ICE
agents
in
May,
according
to
the
Washington
Examiner.
On
May
28,
Miller
and
DHS
Secretary
Kristi
Noem
tripled
ICE’s
quota
to
3,000
daily
arrests.
“Under
President
Trump’s
leadership,
we
are
looking
to
set
a
goal
of
a
minimum
of
3,000
arrests
for
ICE
every
day,
and
President
Trump
is
going
to
keep
pushing
to
get
that
number
up
higher
each
and
every
single
day,
so
we
can
get
all
of
the
Biden
illegals
that
were
flooded
into
our
country
for
four
years
out
of
our
country,”
Miller
boasted
to
Sean
Hannity.
A
week
later,
Trump
dispatched
ICE
to
Los
Angeles,
promising
“the
largest
Mass
Deportation
Operation
in
History.”
Since
then,
heavily
armed
ICE
agents
and
federal
officers
have
conducted
military-style
raids
on
farms
and
farmers’
markets,
car
washes,
bus
stops,
swap
meets,
churches,
and
public
parks.
The
agents,
typically
decked
out
in
body
armor
and
wearing
masks
without
any
visible
badges
or
insignia,
don’t
have
arrest
warrants,
and
routinely
refuse
to
identify
themselves.
ICE
goons
demand
proof
of
citizenship
from
anyone
who
“looks
Hispanic,”
and
they’ve
even
detained
many
citizens
who
failed
to
carry
around
their
passports.
Indeed,
the
entire
premise
of
Stephen
Miller’s
“7-Eleven”
exhortation
was
that
ICE
agents
should
go
where
immigrants
seek
work
and
racially
profile
their
way
to
meet
the
required
body
count.
But
tripling
arrests
to
meet
an
arbitrary
quota
doesn’t
magically
create
the
infrastructure
to
detain
them
in
accordance
with
the
Constitution.
Immigrants
are
being
held
in
a
temporary
processing
facility
in
the
basement
of
a
federal
building
known
as
B-18.
B-18
is
not
a
detention
facility:
It
has
no
beds,
showers,
or
medical
facilities.
Detainees
are
packed
into
“small,
windowless
rooms”
that
are
“so
cramped
that
detainees
cannot
sit,
let
alone
lie
down,
for
hours
at
a
time.”
They’ve
been
denied
food,
fresh
water,
and
medical
supplies.
That’s
torture.
Worse,
the
administration
has
also
denied
detainees
held
at
B-18
—
many
of
whom
are
citizens
and
have
broken
no
laws
—
the
right
to
counsel.
On
at
least
one
occasion,
ICE
closed
the
building
to
visitors
and
pepper-sprayed
lawyers
and
family
members
who
tried
to
get
in
to
see
detainees
being
held
there.
As
Judge
Frimpong
described
it,
“On
the
rare
occasions
when
attorneys
and
family
members
were
allowed
access
to
their
clients
or
loved
ones,
they
were
made
to
wait
hours
at
a
time
to
see
them,
and
the
resulting
visits
were
limited
to
a
mere
five
to
ten
minutes.”
Since
the
raids
began
on
June
6,
2025,
over
1,500
people
have
been
arrested
in
the
Los
Angeles
metro
area.
Hundreds
are
currently
being
held
in
that
basement.
The
best
defense
is
a
good
offense
None
of
this
is
remotely
legal,
and
the
government
hasn’t
even
attempted
to
argue
that
it
is.
DOJ
lawyers
more
or
less
conceded
in
open
court
that
it’s
unlawful
to
arrest
people
without
cause
based
solely
on
their
race
and
occupation
and
then
deny
them
access
to
counsel.
Instead,
the
government
raised
various
procedural
arguments,
complaining
that
the
plaintiffs
waited
over
a
month
to
file
their
complaint
and
“elected
not
to
file
a
new
case”
but
instead
joined
an
existing
habeas
case.
It
takes
a
particular
kind
of
chutzpah
to
deny
detainees
meaningful
access
to
a
lawyer
and
then
complain
that
they
took
too
long
to
file
their
complaint.
Judge
Frimpong
was
deeply
unimpressed:
The
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
expeditiously
in
this
case.
…
Considering
the
totality
of
the
circumstances-in
particular,
the
alleged
ongoing
denial
of
access
to
counsel
that
continued
at
least
until
the
filing
of
the
instant
TRO…
the
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
swiftly
to
file
the
first
amended
complaint
and
the
instant
TROs.
The
administration
also
argued
that
the
court
lacks
jurisdiction
to
hear
plaintiffs’
claims
because
of
8
U.S.C.
§
1252,
which
limits
how
detainees
may
challenge
final
orders
of
removal
issued
by
an
immigration
judge.
But
that
argument
flatly
contradicts
long-standing
Supreme
Court
precedent
as
well
as
common
sense.
Since
many
of
the
plaintiffs
in
this
case
are
US
citizens
who
have
been
unlawfully
arrested
and
detained,
they
don’t
have
immigration
proceedings
or
orders
of
removal,
final
or
otherwise.
As
Judge
Frimpong
concluded,
it
simply
“cannot
be”
the
case
that
citizens
have
no
venue
to
raise
constitutional
claims
“and
none
of
the
authority
cited
by
Defendants
says
it
is.”
The
only
other
argument
made
by
the
government
in
its
defense
was
to
“attempt
to
minimize
the
impact”
of
the
raids
by
“characteriz[ing]
them
as
limited
to
a
short
period
of
time
justified
by
nearby
civil
unrest.”
Knock
that
shit
off
Judge
Frimpong’s
TRO
has
two
components:
First,
it
mandates
that
anyone
warehoused
at
B-18
shall
have
meaningful
access
to
counsel.
The
government
must
open
B-18
for
legal
visitation
“seven
days
per
week,
for
a
minimum
of
eight
hours
per
day
on
business
days
(Monday
through
Friday),
and
a
minimum
of
four
hours
per
day
on
weekends
and
holidays.”
Detainees
must
also
be
permitted
“access
to
confidential
telephone
calls
with
attorneys,
legal
representatives,
and
legal
assistants
at
no
charge
to
the
detainee,”
and
those
calls
“shall
not
be
screened,
recorded,
or
otherwise
monitored.”
Second,
the
order
requires
ICE
to
quit
arresting
people
for
the
“crime”
of
being
Hispanic
and
standing
outside
a
convenience
store.
“As
required
by
the
Fourth
Amendment
of
the
United
States
Constitution,
Defendants
are
enjoined
from
conducting
detentive
stops
in
this
District
unless
the
agent
or
officer
has
reasonable
suspicion
that
the
person
to
be
stopped
is
within
the
United
States
in
violation
of
U.S.
immigration
law,”
she
wrote.
And
reasonable
suspicion
cannot
be
some
form
of
“he
fit
the
profile.”
Defendants
may
not
rely
solely
on
the
factors
below,
alone
or
in
combination,
to
form
reasonable
suspicion
for
a
detentive
stop,
except
as
permitted
by
law;
Apparent
race
or
ethnicity;
Speaking
Spanish
or
speaking
English
with
an
accent;
Presence
at
a
particular
location
(e.g.,
bus
stop,
car
wash,
tow
yard,
day
laborer
pick-up
site,
agricultural
site,
etc.);
or
The
type
of
work
one
does.
As
a
remedial
measure,
the
judge
also
required
ICE
to
document
the
grounds
for
stops
occurring
in
the
district
and
retrain
officers
to
understand
the
difference
between
reasonable
suspicion
and
racial
profiling.
“The
Court
does
not
find
prejudice
to
Defendants,”
she
concluded.
“Complying
with
the
law
does
not
impose
harm,”
and
“requiring
law
enforcement
to
comply
with
the
Constitution
does
not
prevent
law
enforcement
from
enforcing
the
law.”
Bragging
about
your
crimes
The
right-wing
reaction
to
Judge
Frimpong’s
order
has
been
predictably
disingenuous.
The
most
common
take
is
to
pretend
that
a
ban
on
racial
profiling
is
actually
a
ban
on
making
arrests
at
7-
Eleven
and
Home
Depot.
“This
is
the
equivalent
of
a
judge
making
the
ruling
that
the
DEA
can’t
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA,”
babbled
whichever
central
casting
rando
is
sitting
on
the
white
couch
at
Fox
and
Friends
this
week.
“It
makes
no
sense.
They
are
carrying
out
federal
immigration
law.”
Except
that
the
DEA
can’t
just
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA!
Cops
need
reasonable
suspicion
to
arrest
and
search
people,
and
looking
like
a
drug
user
in
a
place
where
people
use
drugs
won’t
cut
it.
That
same
morning,
America’s
Nazi
uncle
Tom
Homan
beamed
in
to
lawsplain
to
Judge
Frimpong
that
ICE
is
100
percent
doing
racial
profiling.
Homan:
“People
need
to
understand
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them
…
based
on
their
physical
appearance.”
Look,
people
need
to
understand,
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them.
They
just
need
totality
of
the
circumstances,
right?
They
just
go
through
the
observation,
get
our
typical
facts
based
on
the
location,
the
occupation,
their
physical
appearance,
their
actions.
A
uniformed
border
patrol
officer
walks
up
to
them
at
for
instance
a
Home
Depot
and
they
got
all
these
other
articulable
facts,
plus
the
person
walks
away
or
runs
away.
But
Homan
is
not
a
lawyer,
and
so
perhaps
on
Saturday
one
of
the
attorneys
at
DHS
sat
him
down
and
explained
that
he’d
just
admitted
that
ICE
agents
routinely
violate
the
Constitution.
By
Sunday,
he
was
back
on
air
with
CNN’s
Dana
Bash
explaining
that
adding
up
a
bunch
of
illegal
factors
magically
makes
it
legal
to
racially
profile
someone:
As
I
said
in
that
interview,
it’s
articulable
facts,
with
an
S.
So
appearance
can
be
just
one.
For
instance,
if
someone
has
an
MS-13
tattoo
on
their
face,
that
may
be
one
factor
to
add
to
other
factors
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
I
want
to
be
clear
about
that
again,
because
my
words
were
taken
out
of
context.
Physical
description
cannot
be
the
sole
reason
to
detain
and
question
somebody.
That
can’t
be
the
sole
reason
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
It’s
a
myriad
of
factors.
And
I
could
sit
here
for
the
next
half-hour
and
give
you
all
the
factors.
So
weird
that
they
send
this
guy
on
TV
but
never
to
court!
This
argument
will
likely
go
nowhere
with
the
Ninth
Circuit.
But
the
Supreme
Court
appears
willing
to
burn
down
generations-worth
of
civil
rights
law
to
avoid
saying
“no”
to
Trump.
So
…
¯(ツ)/¯
The
Supreme
Court
is
perfectly
willing
to
let
the
Trump
administration
break
the
law,
but
trial
judges
are
not.
And
so
on
Friday,
yet
another
federal
district
court
judge
issued
an
injunction
attempting
to
rein
in
ICE’s
goon
squads.
In
a
case
captioned
Perdomo
v.
Noem,
Judge
Maami
Ewusi-Mensah
Frimpong
of
the
Central
District
of
California
issued
a
temporary
restraining
order
barring
the
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
from
snatching
up
every
non-white
person
they
can
get
their
hands
on
and
locking
them
in
a
basement
without
access
to
food,
water,
medicine,
or
counsel.
Specifically,
she
ordered
DHS
to
stop
dispatching
“roving
patrols”
of
ICE
agents
to
arrest
people
without
cause
and
to
give
detainees
access
to
their
lawyers.
As
Judge
Frimpong
noted,
requiring
the
government
to
abide
by
the
Constitution’s
guarantees
of
process
and
access
to
counsel
should
be
“fairly
simple
and
non-controversial.”
Nevertheless,
the
Trump
administration
already
noticed
its
appeal
to
the
Ninth
Circuit
(even
though
TROs
are
not
immediately
appealable).
LA
Raiders
On
the
campaign
trail,
Donald
Trump
promised
to
be
the
deporter-in-chief.
But
in
fact,
his
deportations
got
off
to
a
slow
start,
with
fewer
than
1,000
immigrants
arrested
a
day
for
months.
This
infuriated
Stephen
Miller,
the
president’s
xenophobia
czar.
“Why
aren’t
you
at
Home
Depot?
Why
aren’t
you
at
7-Eleven?”
he
screamed
at
ICE
agents
in
May,
according
to
the
Washington
Examiner.
On
May
28,
Miller
and
DHS
Secretary
Kristi
Noem
tripled
ICE’s
quota
to
3,000
daily
arrests.
“Under
President
Trump’s
leadership,
we
are
looking
to
set
a
goal
of
a
minimum
of
3,000
arrests
for
ICE
every
day,
and
President
Trump
is
going
to
keep
pushing
to
get
that
number
up
higher
each
and
every
single
day,
so
we
can
get
all
of
the
Biden
illegals
that
were
flooded
into
our
country
for
four
years
out
of
our
country,”
Miller
boasted
to
Sean
Hannity.
A
week
later,
Trump
dispatched
ICE
to
Los
Angeles,
promising
“the
largest
Mass
Deportation
Operation
in
History.”
Since
then,
heavily
armed
ICE
agents
and
federal
officers
have
conducted
military-style
raids
on
farms
and
farmers’
markets,
car
washes,
bus
stops,
swap
meets,
churches,
and
public
parks.
The
agents,
typically
decked
out
in
body
armor
and
wearing
masks
without
any
visible
badges
or
insignia,
don’t
have
arrest
warrants,
and
routinely
refuse
to
identify
themselves.
ICE
goons
demand
proof
of
citizenship
from
anyone
who
“looks
Hispanic,”
and
they’ve
even
detained
many
citizens
who
failed
to
carry
around
their
passports.
Indeed,
the
entire
premise
of
Stephen
Miller’s
“7-Eleven”
exhortation
was
that
ICE
agents
should
go
where
immigrants
seek
work
and
racially
profile
their
way
to
meet
the
required
body
count.
But
tripling
arrests
to
meet
an
arbitrary
quota
doesn’t
magically
create
the
infrastructure
to
detain
them
in
accordance
with
the
Constitution.
Immigrants
are
being
held
in
a
temporary
processing
facility
in
the
basement
of
a
federal
building
known
as
B-18.
B-18
is
not
a
detention
facility:
It
has
no
beds,
showers,
or
medical
facilities.
Detainees
are
packed
into
“small,
windowless
rooms”
that
are
“so
cramped
that
detainees
cannot
sit,
let
alone
lie
down,
for
hours
at
a
time.”
They’ve
been
denied
food,
fresh
water,
and
medical
supplies.
That’s
torture.
Worse,
the
administration
has
also
denied
detainees
held
at
B-18
—
many
of
whom
are
citizens
and
have
broken
no
laws
—
the
right
to
counsel.
On
at
least
one
occasion,
ICE
closed
the
building
to
visitors
and
pepper-sprayed
lawyers
and
family
members
who
tried
to
get
in
to
see
detainees
being
held
there.
As
Judge
Frimpong
described
it,
“On
the
rare
occasions
when
attorneys
and
family
members
were
allowed
access
to
their
clients
or
loved
ones,
they
were
made
to
wait
hours
at
a
time
to
see
them,
and
the
resulting
visits
were
limited
to
a
mere
five
to
ten
minutes.”
Since
the
raids
began
on
June
6,
2025,
over
1,500
people
have
been
arrested
in
the
Los
Angeles
metro
area.
Hundreds
are
currently
being
held
in
that
basement.
The
best
defense
is
a
good
offense
None
of
this
is
remotely
legal,
and
the
government
hasn’t
even
attempted
to
argue
that
it
is.
DOJ
lawyers
more
or
less
conceded
in
open
court
that
it’s
unlawful
to
arrest
people
without
cause
based
solely
on
their
race
and
occupation
and
then
deny
them
access
to
counsel.
Instead,
the
government
raised
various
procedural
arguments,
complaining
that
the
plaintiffs
waited
over
a
month
to
file
their
complaint
and
“elected
not
to
file
a
new
case”
but
instead
joined
an
existing
habeas
case.
It
takes
a
particular
kind
of
chutzpah
to
deny
detainees
meaningful
access
to
a
lawyer
and
then
complain
that
they
took
too
long
to
file
their
complaint.
Judge
Frimpong
was
deeply
unimpressed:
The
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
expeditiously
in
this
case.
…
Considering
the
totality
of
the
circumstances-in
particular,
the
alleged
ongoing
denial
of
access
to
counsel
that
continued
at
least
until
the
filing
of
the
instant
TRO…
the
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
swiftly
to
file
the
first
amended
complaint
and
the
instant
TROs.
The
administration
also
argued
that
the
court
lacks
jurisdiction
to
hear
plaintiffs’
claims
because
of
8
U.S.C.
§
1252,
which
limits
how
detainees
may
challenge
final
orders
of
removal
issued
by
an
immigration
judge.
But
that
argument
flatly
contradicts
long-standing
Supreme
Court
precedent
as
well
as
common
sense.
Since
many
of
the
plaintiffs
in
this
case
are
US
citizens
who
have
been
unlawfully
arrested
and
detained,
they
don’t
have
immigration
proceedings
or
orders
of
removal,
final
or
otherwise.
As
Judge
Frimpong
concluded,
it
simply
“cannot
be”
the
case
that
citizens
have
no
venue
to
raise
constitutional
claims
“and
none
of
the
authority
cited
by
Defendants
says
it
is.”
The
only
other
argument
made
by
the
government
in
its
defense
was
to
“attempt
to
minimize
the
impact”
of
the
raids
by
“characteriz[ing]
them
as
limited
to
a
short
period
of
time
justified
by
nearby
civil
unrest.”
Knock
that
shit
off
Judge
Frimpong’s
TRO
has
two
components:
First,
it
mandates
that
anyone
warehoused
at
B-18
shall
have
meaningful
access
to
counsel.
The
government
must
open
B-18
for
legal
visitation
“seven
days
per
week,
for
a
minimum
of
eight
hours
per
day
on
business
days
(Monday
through
Friday),
and
a
minimum
of
four
hours
per
day
on
weekends
and
holidays.”
Detainees
must
also
be
permitted
“access
to
confidential
telephone
calls
with
attorneys,
legal
representatives,
and
legal
assistants
at
no
charge
to
the
detainee,”
and
those
calls
“shall
not
be
screened,
recorded,
or
otherwise
monitored.”
Second,
the
order
requires
ICE
to
quit
arresting
people
for
the
“crime”
of
being
Hispanic
and
standing
outside
a
convenience
store.
“As
required
by
the
Fourth
Amendment
of
the
United
States
Constitution,
Defendants
are
enjoined
from
conducting
detentive
stops
in
this
District
unless
the
agent
or
officer
has
reasonable
suspicion
that
the
person
to
be
stopped
is
within
the
United
States
in
violation
of
U.S.
immigration
law,”
she
wrote.
And
reasonable
suspicion
cannot
be
some
form
of
“he
fit
the
profile.”
Defendants
may
not
rely
solely
on
the
factors
below,
alone
or
in
combination,
to
form
reasonable
suspicion
for
a
detentive
stop,
except
as
permitted
by
law;
Apparent
race
or
ethnicity;
Speaking
Spanish
or
speaking
English
with
an
accent;
Presence
at
a
particular
location
(e.g.,
bus
stop,
car
wash,
tow
yard,
day
laborer
pick-up
site,
agricultural
site,
etc.);
or
The
type
of
work
one
does.
As
a
remedial
measure,
the
judge
also
required
ICE
to
document
the
grounds
for
stops
occurring
in
the
district
and
retrain
officers
to
understand
the
difference
between
reasonable
suspicion
and
racial
profiling.
“The
Court
does
not
find
prejudice
to
Defendants,”
she
concluded.
“Complying
with
the
law
does
not
impose
harm,”
and
“requiring
law
enforcement
to
comply
with
the
Constitution
does
not
prevent
law
enforcement
from
enforcing
the
law.”
Bragging
about
your
crimes
The
right-wing
reaction
to
Judge
Frimpong’s
order
has
been
predictably
disingenuous.
The
most
common
take
is
to
pretend
that
a
ban
on
racial
profiling
is
actually
a
ban
on
making
arrests
at
7-
Eleven
and
Home
Depot.
“This
is
the
equivalent
of
a
judge
making
the
ruling
that
the
DEA
can’t
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA,”
babbled
whichever
central
casting
rando
is
sitting
on
the
white
couch
at
Fox
and
Friends
this
week.
“It
makes
no
sense.
They
are
carrying
out
federal
immigration
law.”
Except
that
the
DEA
can’t
just
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA!
Cops
need
reasonable
suspicion
to
arrest
and
search
people,
and
looking
like
a
drug
user
in
a
place
where
people
use
drugs
won’t
cut
it.
That
same
morning,
America’s
Nazi
uncle
Tom
Homan
beamed
in
to
lawsplain
to
Judge
Frimpong
that
ICE
is
100
percent
doing
racial
profiling.
Homan:
“People
need
to
understand
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them
…
based
on
their
physical
appearance.”
Look,
people
need
to
understand,
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them.
They
just
need
totality
of
the
circumstances,
right?
They
just
go
through
the
observation,
get
our
typical
facts
based
on
the
location,
the
occupation,
their
physical
appearance,
their
actions.
A
uniformed
border
patrol
officer
walks
up
to
them
at
for
instance
a
Home
Depot
and
they
got
all
these
other
articulable
facts,
plus
the
person
walks
away
or
runs
away.
But
Homan
is
not
a
lawyer,
and
so
perhaps
on
Saturday
one
of
the
attorneys
at
DHS
sat
him
down
and
explained
that
he’d
just
admitted
that
ICE
agents
routinely
violate
the
Constitution.
By
Sunday,
he
was
back
on
air
with
CNN’s
Dana
Bash
explaining
that
adding
up
a
bunch
of
illegal
factors
magically
makes
it
legal
to
racially
profile
someone:
As
I
said
in
that
interview,
it’s
articulable
facts,
with
an
S.
So
appearance
can
be
just
one.
For
instance,
if
someone
has
an
MS-13
tattoo
on
their
face,
that
may
be
one
factor
to
add
to
other
factors
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
I
want
to
be
clear
about
that
again,
because
my
words
were
taken
out
of
context.
Physical
description
cannot
be
the
sole
reason
to
detain
and
question
somebody.
That
can’t
be
the
sole
reason
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
It’s
a
myriad
of
factors.
And
I
could
sit
here
for
the
next
half-hour
and
give
you
all
the
factors.
So
weird
that
they
send
this
guy
on
TV
but
never
to
court!
This
argument
will
likely
go
nowhere
with
the
Ninth
Circuit.
But
the
Supreme
Court
appears
willing
to
burn
down
generations-worth
of
civil
rights
law
to
avoid
saying
“no”
to
Trump.
So
…
¯(ツ)/¯
Hospital
M&A
activity
has
been
sluggish
so
far
this
year,
according
to
a
report
released
Thursday
by
Kaufman
Hall.
There
were
only
five
hospital
M&A
transactions
during
the
first
quarter
of
2025
—
compared
to
the
first
quarters
of
2024
and
2023,
which
had
20
and
15
deals,
respectively.
This
slump
is
due
mainly
to
the
Trump
administration’s
flurry
of
new
policies
and
the
resulting
widespread
economic
uncertainty.
Hospitals
were
putting
off
strategic
decisions
amid
the
ambiguity,
but
things
picked
up
a
bit
in
the
second
quarter,
with
eight
M&A
deals
announced.
The
average
seller
size
across
these
eight
deals
was
relatively
low
at
$175
million
—
in
comparison
to
the
second
quarter
of
last
year,
when
the
average
seller
size
was
$984
million.
The
report
noted
that
about
half
of
the
M&A
transactions
in
the
second
quarter
of
2025
were
divestitures
of
smaller
facilities.
Kaufman
Hall
also
pointed
out
that
there
were
zero
mega
mergers
—
M&A
deals
in
which
the
annual
revenue
of
the
smaller
party
exceeds
$1
billion
—
during
the
first
half
of
the
year.
Overall,
the
small
size
of
the
sellers
and
the
low
deal
volume
led
to
a
modest
$1.4
billion
in
total
transacted
revenue
for
the
second
quarter.
For
the
second
quarter
of
2024,
this
figure
was
$10.8
billion.
Since
the
M&A
slowdown
that
occurred
in
the
first
half
of
this
year
was
largely
caused
by
economic
uncertainty
and
pending
healthcare
policy
changes,
deals
may
increase
during
the
second
half
of
2025.
The
passage
of
the
One
Big
Beautiful
Bill
Act,
which
includes
roughly
$1
trillion
in
healthcare
cuts,
has
provided
some
clarity.
With
Medicaid
spending
set
to
fall
by
$665
billion
and
coverage
to
shrink
by
8.7
million
people,
hospitals
now
face
clearer
—
though
harsher
—
financial
realities.
“This
may
lead
to
an
interesting
dichotomy
in
health
system
M&A
activity,
with
the
acceleration
of
organizations
looking
for
partners
in
response
to
new
financial
challenges,
but
a
careful
and
measured
approach
being
taken
by
well-positioned
health
systems,”
the
report
read.
Rural
hospitals,
which
are
typically
heavily
dependent
on
Medicaid,
are
particularly
vulnerable.
Margins
for
small
rural
hospitals
have
dropped
12.3%
year-over-year,
and
closures
continue
to
mount.
Nearly
100
rural
hospitals
have
been
forced
to
shutter
over
the
past
decade.
These
circumstances
could
lead
to
greater
uptake
of
the
Rural
Emergency
Hospital
(REH)
model.
This
model,
which
CMS
launched
in
2023,
allows
hospitals
to
shed
inpatient
services
to
focus
on
emergency
and
outpatient
care.
In
exchange,
REHs
receive
enhanced
Medicare
reimbursement
rates,
as
well
as
a
monthly
facility
payment
to
help
sustain
access
to
essential
care.
The
report
noted
that
this
model
is
slowly
gaining
traction.
Only
41
hospitals
have
undergone
the
conversation,
but
several
recent
announcements
suggest
growing
interest
in
the
model
as
a
way
to
maintain
rural
access.
One
of
these
announcements
is
from
North
Carolina-based
ECU
Health,
which
has
proposed
the
reopening
of
one
of
its
closed
hospitals
as
a
REH.
Tennessee-based
Jellico
Regional
Hospital
and
Georgia-based
Randolph
County
Hospital
have
also
recently
announced
plans
to
reopen
shuttered
facilities
and
transition
them
to
REH
status.
As
for
larger,
more
well-resourced
health
systems,
there
is
an
increasing
focus
on
outpatient
care.
Health
systems
like
Ascension
and
Cleveland
Clinic
are
investing
heavily
in
ambulatory
surgery
centers,
which
indicates
a
broader
trend
of
pivoting
from
inpatient
care
to
lower-cost,
outpatient
services,
the
report
pointed
out.
Ascension
is
doing
this
through
its
acquisition
of
Amsurg,
and
Cleveland
Clinic
forged
a
partnership
with
Regent
Surgical.
Traditional
hospital-to-hospital
M&A
is
expected
to
recover
slowly
—
but
general
partnership
activity,
especially
in
outpatient
care
and
rural
access
models,
will
likely
intensify
as
the
industry
adapts
to
new
fiscal
and
care
delivery
realities.
*
More
states
adopt
NextGen
bar
exam
instead
of
more
rational
alternative
of
not
having
a
bar
exam.
[Law.com]
*
Dershowitz
says
he
knows
who’s
on
the
Epstein
list
that
Bondi
says
doesn’t
exist
but
can’t
go
into
details
because
of
confidentiality
obligations.
[Newsweek]
*
Bondi
fires
ethics
chief.
Was
he
the
one
saying
she
couldn’t
release
doctored
Epstein
footage?
[Bloomberg
Law
News]
*
SEC
gives
up
on
liquidity
rule
suit
as
part
of
new
“make
America
susceptible
to
depressions
again”
strategy.
[Law360]
*
DOJ
claims
it
can
deport
people
to
third
countries
on
six
hour
notice.
[Reuters]
*
Texas
law
school
deans
fighting
to
keep
ABA
accreditation
after
state
supreme
court
hinted
at
taking
it
away
to
appease
Trump
grievances.
[Inside
Higher
Ed]
*
Chinese
hackers
tried
to
infiltrate
Wiley
Rein.
[CNN]
The
Supreme
Court
is
perfectly
willing
to
let
the
Trump
administration
break
the
law,
but
trial
judges
are
not.
And
so
on
Friday,
yet
another
federal
district
court
judge
issued
an
injunction
attempting
to
rein
in
ICE’s
goon
squads.
In
a
case
captioned
Perdomo
v.
Noem,
Judge
Maami
Ewusi-Mensah
Frimpong
of
the
Central
District
of
California
issued
a
temporary
restraining
order
barring
the
the
Department
of
Homeland
Security
from
snatching
up
every
non-white
person
they
can
get
their
hands
on
and
locking
them
in
a
basement
without
access
to
food,
water,
medicine,
or
counsel.
Specifically,
she
ordered
DHS
to
stop
dispatching
“roving
patrols”
of
ICE
agents
to
arrest
people
without
cause
and
to
give
detainees
access
to
their
lawyers.
As
Judge
Frimpong
noted,
requiring
the
government
to
abide
by
the
Constitution’s
guarantees
of
process
and
access
to
counsel
should
be
“fairly
simple
and
non-controversial.”
Nevertheless,
the
Trump
administration
already
noticed
its
appeal
to
the
Ninth
Circuit
(even
though
TROs
are
not
immediately
appealable).
LA
Raiders
On
the
campaign
trail,
Donald
Trump
promised
to
be
the
deporter-in-chief.
But
in
fact,
his
deportations
got
off
to
a
slow
start,
with
fewer
than
1,000
immigrants
arrested
a
day
for
months.
This
infuriated
Stephen
Miller,
the
president’s
xenophobia
czar.
“Why
aren’t
you
at
Home
Depot?
Why
aren’t
you
at
7-Eleven?”
he
screamed
at
ICE
agents
in
May,
according
to
the
Washington
Examiner.
On
May
28,
Miller
and
DHS
Secretary
Kristi
Noem
tripled
ICE’s
quota
to
3,000
daily
arrests.
“Under
President
Trump’s
leadership,
we
are
looking
to
set
a
goal
of
a
minimum
of
3,000
arrests
for
ICE
every
day,
and
President
Trump
is
going
to
keep
pushing
to
get
that
number
up
higher
each
and
every
single
day,
so
we
can
get
all
of
the
Biden
illegals
that
were
flooded
into
our
country
for
four
years
out
of
our
country,”
Miller
boasted
to
Sean
Hannity.
A
week
later,
Trump
dispatched
ICE
to
Los
Angeles,
promising
“the
largest
Mass
Deportation
Operation
in
History.”
Since
then,
heavily
armed
ICE
agents
and
federal
officers
have
conducted
military-style
raids
on
farms
and
farmers’
markets,
car
washes,
bus
stops,
swap
meets,
churches,
and
public
parks.
The
agents,
typically
decked
out
in
body
armor
and
wearing
masks
without
any
visible
badges
or
insignia,
don’t
have
arrest
warrants,
and
routinely
refuse
to
identify
themselves.
ICE
goons
demand
proof
of
citizenship
from
anyone
who
“looks
Hispanic,”
and
they’ve
even
detained
many
citizens
who
failed
to
carry
around
their
passports.
Indeed,
the
entire
premise
of
Stephen
Miller’s
“7-Eleven”
exhortation
was
that
ICE
agents
should
go
where
immigrants
seek
work
and
racially
profile
their
way
to
meet
the
required
body
count.
But
tripling
arrests
to
meet
an
arbitrary
quota
doesn’t
magically
create
the
infrastructure
to
detain
them
in
accordance
with
the
Constitution.
Immigrants
are
being
held
in
a
temporary
processing
facility
in
the
basement
of
a
federal
building
known
as
B-18.
B-18
is
not
a
detention
facility:
It
has
no
beds,
showers,
or
medical
facilities.
Detainees
are
packed
into
“small,
windowless
rooms”
that
are
“so
cramped
that
detainees
cannot
sit,
let
alone
lie
down,
for
hours
at
a
time.”
They’ve
been
denied
food,
fresh
water,
and
medical
supplies.
That’s
torture.
Worse,
the
administration
has
also
denied
detainees
held
at
B-18
—
many
of
whom
are
citizens
and
have
broken
no
laws
—
the
right
to
counsel.
On
at
least
one
occasion,
ICE
closed
the
building
to
visitors
and
pepper-sprayed
lawyers
and
family
members
who
tried
to
get
in
to
see
detainees
being
held
there.
As
Judge
Frimpong
described
it,
“On
the
rare
occasions
when
attorneys
and
family
members
were
allowed
access
to
their
clients
or
loved
ones,
they
were
made
to
wait
hours
at
a
time
to
see
them,
and
the
resulting
visits
were
limited
to
a
mere
five
to
ten
minutes.”
Since
the
raids
began
on
June
6,
2025,
over
1,500
people
have
been
arrested
in
the
Los
Angeles
metro
area.
Hundreds
are
currently
being
held
in
that
basement.
The
best
defense
is
a
good
offense
None
of
this
is
remotely
legal,
and
the
government
hasn’t
even
attempted
to
argue
that
it
is.
DOJ
lawyers
more
or
less
conceded
in
open
court
that
it’s
unlawful
to
arrest
people
without
cause
based
solely
on
their
race
and
occupation
and
then
deny
them
access
to
counsel.
Instead,
the
government
raised
various
procedural
arguments,
complaining
that
the
plaintiffs
waited
over
a
month
to
file
their
complaint
and
“elected
not
to
file
a
new
case”
but
instead
joined
an
existing
habeas
case.
It
takes
a
particular
kind
of
chutzpah
to
deny
detainees
meaningful
access
to
a
lawyer
and
then
complain
that
they
took
too
long
to
file
their
complaint.
Judge
Frimpong
was
deeply
unimpressed:
The
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
expeditiously
in
this
case.
…
Considering
the
totality
of
the
circumstances-in
particular,
the
alleged
ongoing
denial
of
access
to
counsel
that
continued
at
least
until
the
filing
of
the
instant
TRO…
the
Court
finds
that
Plaintiffs
acted
swiftly
to
file
the
first
amended
complaint
and
the
instant
TROs.
The
administration
also
argued
that
the
court
lacks
jurisdiction
to
hear
plaintiffs’
claims
because
of
8
U.S.C.
§
1252,
which
limits
how
detainees
may
challenge
final
orders
of
removal
issued
by
an
immigration
judge.
But
that
argument
flatly
contradicts
long-standing
Supreme
Court
precedent
as
well
as
common
sense.
Since
many
of
the
plaintiffs
in
this
case
are
US
citizens
who
have
been
unlawfully
arrested
and
detained,
they
don’t
have
immigration
proceedings
or
orders
of
removal,
final
or
otherwise.
As
Judge
Frimpong
concluded,
it
simply
“cannot
be”
the
case
that
citizens
have
no
venue
to
raise
constitutional
claims
“and
none
of
the
authority
cited
by
Defendants
says
it
is.”
The
only
other
argument
made
by
the
government
in
its
defense
was
to
“attempt
to
minimize
the
impact”
of
the
raids
by
“characteriz[ing]
them
as
limited
to
a
short
period
of
time
justified
by
nearby
civil
unrest.”
Knock
that
shit
off
Judge
Frimpong’s
TRO
has
two
components:
First,
it
mandates
that
anyone
warehoused
at
B-18
shall
have
meaningful
access
to
counsel.
The
government
must
open
B-18
for
legal
visitation
“seven
days
per
week,
for
a
minimum
of
eight
hours
per
day
on
business
days
(Monday
through
Friday),
and
a
minimum
of
four
hours
per
day
on
weekends
and
holidays.”
Detainees
must
also
be
permitted
“access
to
confidential
telephone
calls
with
attorneys,
legal
representatives,
and
legal
assistants
at
no
charge
to
the
detainee,”
and
those
calls
“shall
not
be
screened,
recorded,
or
otherwise
monitored.”
Second,
the
order
requires
ICE
to
quit
arresting
people
for
the
“crime”
of
being
Hispanic
and
standing
outside
a
convenience
store.
“As
required
by
the
Fourth
Amendment
of
the
United
States
Constitution,
Defendants
are
enjoined
from
conducting
detentive
stops
in
this
District
unless
the
agent
or
officer
has
reasonable
suspicion
that
the
person
to
be
stopped
is
within
the
United
States
in
violation
of
U.S.
immigration
law,”
she
wrote.
And
reasonable
suspicion
cannot
be
some
form
of
“he
fit
the
profile.”
Defendants
may
not
rely
solely
on
the
factors
below,
alone
or
in
combination,
to
form
reasonable
suspicion
for
a
detentive
stop,
except
as
permitted
by
law;
Apparent
race
or
ethnicity;
Speaking
Spanish
or
speaking
English
with
an
accent;
Presence
at
a
particular
location
(e.g.,
bus
stop,
car
wash,
tow
yard,
day
laborer
pick-up
site,
agricultural
site,
etc.);
or
The
type
of
work
one
does.
As
a
remedial
measure,
the
judge
also
required
ICE
to
document
the
grounds
for
stops
occurring
in
the
district
and
retrain
officers
to
understand
the
difference
between
reasonable
suspicion
and
racial
profiling.
“The
Court
does
not
find
prejudice
to
Defendants,”
she
concluded.
“Complying
with
the
law
does
not
impose
harm,”
and
“requiring
law
enforcement
to
comply
with
the
Constitution
does
not
prevent
law
enforcement
from
enforcing
the
law.”
Bragging
about
your
crimes
The
right-wing
reaction
to
Judge
Frimpong’s
order
has
been
predictably
disingenuous.
The
most
common
take
is
to
pretend
that
a
ban
on
racial
profiling
is
actually
a
ban
on
making
arrests
at
7-
Eleven
and
Home
Depot.
“This
is
the
equivalent
of
a
judge
making
the
ruling
that
the
DEA
can’t
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA,”
babbled
whichever
central
casting
rando
is
sitting
on
the
white
couch
at
Fox
and
Friends
this
week.
“It
makes
no
sense.
They
are
carrying
out
federal
immigration
law.”
Except
that
the
DEA
can’t
just
go
search
individuals
for
drugs
and
narcotics
on
Skid
Row
in
LA!
Cops
need
reasonable
suspicion
to
arrest
and
search
people,
and
looking
like
a
drug
user
in
a
place
where
people
use
drugs
won’t
cut
it.
That
same
morning,
America’s
Nazi
uncle
Tom
Homan
beamed
in
to
lawsplain
to
Judge
Frimpong
that
ICE
is
100
percent
doing
racial
profiling.
Homan:
“People
need
to
understand
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them
…
based
on
their
physical
appearance.”
Look,
people
need
to
understand,
ICE
officers
and
Border
Patrol
don’t
need
probable
cause
to
walk
up
to
somebody,
briefly
detain
them,
and
question
them.
They
just
need
totality
of
the
circumstances,
right?
They
just
go
through
the
observation,
get
our
typical
facts
based
on
the
location,
the
occupation,
their
physical
appearance,
their
actions.
A
uniformed
border
patrol
officer
walks
up
to
them
at
for
instance
a
Home
Depot
and
they
got
all
these
other
articulable
facts,
plus
the
person
walks
away
or
runs
away.
But
Homan
is
not
a
lawyer,
and
so
perhaps
on
Saturday
one
of
the
attorneys
at
DHS
sat
him
down
and
explained
that
he’d
just
admitted
that
ICE
agents
routinely
violate
the
Constitution.
By
Sunday,
he
was
back
on
air
with
CNN’s
Dana
Bash
explaining
that
adding
up
a
bunch
of
illegal
factors
magically
makes
it
legal
to
racially
profile
someone:
As
I
said
in
that
interview,
it’s
articulable
facts,
with
an
S.
So
appearance
can
be
just
one.
For
instance,
if
someone
has
an
MS-13
tattoo
on
their
face,
that
may
be
one
factor
to
add
to
other
factors
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
I
want
to
be
clear
about
that
again,
because
my
words
were
taken
out
of
context.
Physical
description
cannot
be
the
sole
reason
to
detain
and
question
somebody.
That
can’t
be
the
sole
reason
to
raise
reasonable
suspicion.
It’s
a
myriad
of
factors.
And
I
could
sit
here
for
the
next
half-hour
and
give
you
all
the
factors.
So
weird
that
they
send
this
guy
on
TV
but
never
to
court!
This
argument
will
likely
go
nowhere
with
the
Ninth
Circuit.
But
the
Supreme
Court
appears
willing
to
burn
down
generations-worth
of
civil
rights
law
to
avoid
saying
“no”
to
Trump.
So
…
¯(ツ)/¯
