Here is the full 126 pager -- USDC Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's opinion is very cogent, indeed -- and a bit:
. . . .In a “Notice” that DHS published in the Federal Register on July 23, 2019 (more than two and half years after President Donald Trump issued an executive order that demanded that DHS expand its established expedited removal practices), the agency instantly authorized line immigration enforcement agents to apply expedited removal to non citizens encountered anywhere in the United States for up to two years after the non-citizen arrived in the United States, effective immediately. See id. This abrupt change in the official policies that govern DHS’s deportation practices is the subject of the legal claims that have been presented to the Court in this case. . . .
Plaintiffs are also likely to succeed on the merits of their contention that the July 23rd Notice is arbitrary and capricious, and therefore unlawful, because DHS failed to address significant flaws in the expedited removal system, nor does it appear that the agency considered the potential impact of the expansion of that system on settled undocumented non-citizens and their communities. Unlike private citizens, government officials are required by law to engage in reasoned decision making that takes into account all of the facts and circumstances that are relevant to their consequential policy determinations. Based on the record presented here, the Court finds it likely that, with respect to the July 23rd Notice, DHS failed to do so. . . .
The Court also concludes that a preliminary injunction is warranted while this lawsuit is pending, because Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have members who are subject to the expanded expedited removal policy, and that those members, and others, might suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction. The record also supports a finding that the fear caused by DHS’s current threat to commence enforcement of its expanded expedited removal policy may be presently harming Plaintiffs’ members and others in immigrant communities. . . .
Onward, to a brighter tomorrow.
नमस्ते
2 comments:
Intimidation? https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-demands-to-meet-whistleblower-warns-of-big-consequences/ar-AAI1Qgy?li=BBnb7Kz
It is clear that the Republicans do not stand for the law.
This has to stop.
I agree 100 percent, erstwhile Anon. The whistle-blower has asked for, and received, federal witness protection -- due to the threats from the White House. Astonishing.
In yet another [insane] overnight tweet rage, the illicit occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania said that these impeachment investigations, if pursued, would "cause a civil war type fracture in this Nation. . . ."
Ahem.
18 USC 18 USC § 2383 -- it's a felony to threaten civil war;
18 USC § 1512 -- it's a felony to threaten witnesses; and
18 USC § 875-876 -- it's a felony to threaten a member of Congress.
But truly. . . he IS a stable genius.
Namaste. . . .
Post a Comment