Post

Carter turns to the voter roll demand, which they lost in the courts. Per Carter, the government responds: "We don't care. We're going to put violence and chaos in the streets and we're going to force it with illegal conduct." "If THAT doesn't violate the 10th Amendment...."

Carter floats a hypothetical of an anti-gun admin deploying 3,000-4,000 masked federal agents engaging in pervasive, illegal conduct. Under the crime-fighting banner, the gov't says: "If you just legislate, get rid of your carry statute, we'll go away." "It's the same thing."

To support my journalism, and learn when my story goes up, please consider becoming an All Rise News subscriber. I'll be reporting live from Nashville this week for the evidentiary hearing in Kilmar Abrego Garcia's motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution. www.allrisenews.com/subscribe

Carter: "It is personal animosity. It is retribution. Literally, the President of the United States" said in the middle of this "chaos": "Minnesota, you day of retribution is here." "That's CRAZY. How can that NOT violate the 10th Amendment?"

Carter: "If this is not stopped right here, right now, I don't think that anybody seriously looking at this problem can have much faith in how our Republic is going to go in the future."

Carter: "We just had a leaked memo that rather shockingly suggests that ICE agents can conduct warrantless entries" into people's home. Judge: "I'm not being flip here... but where's the lawsuit on that?"

Judge Menendez says she can't be the "global keeper" of all claims against the ICE surge in Minnesota.

Judge: You're asking me for a TRO. What does it say? I'm not being flip here. What exactly do you think these 10th Amendment claims let me order? Carter: The easiest thing would be to end this Operation Metro Surge.

Carter: This Operation Metro Surge is an illegal means to an illegal end. So just end it.

Judge: "I can detail the number of agents. I can pick and choose about who to arrest[...] I can tell them to take off masks and wear bodycams. I can do all that?!"

Note: The 8th Circuit paused this judge's modest order blocking the federal agents' violation of protesters' rights. Minnesota's requested relief is MUCH more sweeping.

Judge Menendez asks what if she denies a TRO now and develops the record more before the preliminary injunction question. Carter responds that the state needs relief now. 10-15 minute recess

Analysis: Judge Menendez appears skeptical of her power to order immediate relief in this unprecedented situation. But her comments about developing an evidentiary record COULD suggest receptiveness to the state's anti-commandeering args down the line.

Specifically, the argument that the federal government seeks to strong-arm policy aims via the surge.

"All rise." We're back.

Judge Menendez questions Brantley Mayers, who's arguing for the Justice Dept.

Judge: The goal of the surge is not to get [the state and cities] to change their policies? Mayers: No, your honor, the goal is to enforce federal laws.

The judge presses DOJ about Bondi's letter making three demands: How are those not demonstrating that the purpose of the surge is to effect those changes?

Judge reads a quote: "If you want less officers on the street, let us in the jail." "Doesn't that say there will be less officers in the street if you change the policy?" She says that Bondi's letter "strongly suggests" the surge is contingent on the policies.

Judge: "What am I supposed to do with the reality that a substantial amount of the activity has nothing to do with 'let us into your jails'?"

The judge asks: "What if AG Bondi signed her letter, 'If you changed your policies, the surge ends today?" Would that arise to an anti-commandeering issue?

Q: Do you think it's true that the motivation matters? Mayers effectively answers that it doesn't.

Judge: "Let's say that Attorney General Bondi said, 'We are here until you change your policies.'" Doesn't that change the anti-commandeering considerations?