Post

A hearing is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m. CT (10 a.m. ET) on the state of Minnesota's request to halt the ICE surge in the Twin Cities. I'm covering the proceedings remotely. From the state's memo: buff.ly/ub2bHso

From lawyers for the state and the Twin Cities. "We need the Court to act to stop this Surge before yet another resident dies because of Operation Metro Surge." storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

"All rise." Judge Katherine M Menendez presiding. The lawyers enter their appearances.

Judge Menendez notes that the proceedings will delve into the legal questions more than the evidentiary record.

The state asks the judge to deliver relief TODAY. Pam Bondi sent a "ransom note" to the state, the lawyer says.

Lindsey Middlecamp argues for the state: “Another person has been shot dead in broad daylight by DHS agents.”

Middlecamp: The ICE surge shouldn't last “another month, another week, or another single day.”

Middlecamp: "Can we keep our people safe if people won't report crimes in their own community?"

Middlecamp reports a threat to public health from "prenatal care foregone." She reports "one preventable amputation" disclosed by doctor who was "courageous" enough to step forward. The reluctance to speak on the record is "profoundly high" in a climate of "retribution," she says.

Middlecamp says school attendance fell below 50%. Events are cancelled in a way likened to the COVID pandemic, she says.

Middlecamp describes how a whistleblower disclosed the background of the "warrantless entries" seen in the Twin Cities area. “That’s not a mistake. That’s by design.”

Middlecamp describes the "indiscriminate use" of chemical spray leading to the need for "emergency aid" for a "6-month-old."

Middlecamp: "It is this overall atmosphere that we submit to the court has a very clear causal line."

Her colleague Brian Scott Carter answers judge's questions on the legal arguments.

Judge Menendez asks Carter's best argument. She says the first one feels "nebulous."

Menendez summarizes the first argument this way: An excessive use of federal law enforcement is causing the state and cities to expend so many resources that it violates the 10th Amendment by essentially commandeering.

When the judge asks for a citation for that principle, Carter responds that unprecedented nature of the government amassing "what is essentially an army" to "essentially stir the pot with conduct that is pervasive and includes illegal violent conduct."

I don’t like the Judge’s line of questioning.

This is good, but please Judge, don't make us wait for relief because unprecedented damage is being done.

She asked Carter to provide a mechanism. It sounds like he didn't have one. Not in the form of case law, anyhow.

But, that's his point. The situation has never occurred before, so how the hell do you cite any precedence??

She questions whether that allows her to craft a remedy.

Carter: "The lawlessness we’ve seen, your honor, is jaw-dropping."

Judge: You understand that the federal government has a lot of power in this area, so I'm asking you what legal principle you wants me to apply.