Post

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'?"

Judge: "You're asking me to believe that the surge has nothing to do with coercing the Plaintiffs into changing their policies."

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?

Judge: I don't believe you, so I'm going to hold you in contempt until one of your colleagues arrives to answer my question.

just like all the republicans they never see anything

“I haven’t seen that post, your honor” is some top-flight lawyering lol

In legal terms, this is the classic Sergeant Schultz defense.

You can’t just like “quote people verbatim” that’s totally out of pocket

Mayers: There’s no cognizable theory as to when Operation Metro Surge became a 10th Amendment violation in the first place.

Your Honor, we created an environment so chaotic, that we can’t possibly know when started doing bad things

Judge: Would 10K federal agents in the Twin Cities cross the line? Are there no limits?

JUDGE: “It concerns me that Attorney General Bondi’s letter cites three things that are the subject of pending litigation before this court,” referring to the District of Minnesota. "Is the executive trying to achieve a goal through force that it can't achieve through the Courts?"