Trump administration seeks to lift limits on SoCal immigration raids

On Monday, the Trump administration asked a Federal Court to allow immigration representatives to continue free raids in Southern California, and tried to overthrow the order of a federal judge in Los Angeles, which prohibits “wick patrols” in seven districts.

The lawyers of the Ministry of Justice wrote on Monday in a movement that requested an emergency stay. “How long these damages, precautionary measure decision will unite for a long time.”

After a week of aggressive sweeping by masked and heavy armed federal agents for weeks, on Friday night, the US Regional Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong after a temporary restriction order given by Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Bernardino, San Bernardino, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura and San Luis ended in Obispo districts.

The Coalition of Civil Rights Groups and Private Lawyers filed a lawsuit against the federal government and has been sweeping three immigrants and two US citizens in chaotic arrests that have led to widespread protests since June 6.

Mohammad Tajsar, a lawyer in the Aclu of Southern California, said, “You should tell you everything you should know that the federal government is in a hurry for an order that tells the Constitution.” “We can’t wait to defend the order of temporary restriction and to ensure that the communities in Southern California are safe from the violence of the federal government.”

Despite the allegations of Trump administration, Frimpong, race, ethnicity, language, accent, place or employment as an excuse for migration to practice, the government decided by the fourth change protected by unreasonable searches and seizures. The judge has found that prevention of the detainees from meeting with lawyers violated the necessary process guaranteed by the fifth change.

“The federal government believes that this court – in front of a evidence presented in this case – believes that it believes, and none of them do not happen,” he wrote.

The Secretary of the Department of Internal Security Kristi Noem, while responding to the decision of the decision during a news conference on Saturday, referred to Frimpong misrepresenting: “He’s a fool.”

Noem, “We have the right to go to the streets and continue the law and do what we will do. So none of our operations will change,” he said. “We will object and win.”

The judge ordered the Ministry of Internal Security to open a portion of the detention facility in Los Angeles city center to lawyers and legal aid groups.

“The Regional Court is a significant victory for immigrants, although the regional court is an important victory for immigrants,” said Professor Ming HSU Chen at San Francisco. “This real world of insecurity in the world weakens communities and weakens democratic values in places like LA.”

The Trump administration immediately did not object to the 5th amendment section of the decision. Instead, he attacked the claim of 4th amendment and heard by the judges of the Supreme Court, while he immediately sought a accommodation for immigration agents in Southern California to relieve the status quo.

“A regional judge’s federal immigration sanctions alone ‘operations’ operations ‘restructuring’ can not be defended,” he said. “This judicial inheritance cannot be allowed to stop.”

However, some experts say this is not possible.

“Their argument [is] The sky falls, ”said Carl Tobias of Richmond University.“ They have very extreme discussions and this 9th circuit does not help their case. ”

The appeal increases a violent and spread legal war on the promised mass deportation of Trump and the tools used to achieve it.

In June, the President filed a lawsuit against California, after using the union to suppress anti -ice protests, and gained a temporary restriction order to issue the head of the command.

Before the overthrow in mid -June, the appeal panel quickly blocked this decision and left thousands of troops in the hands of Trump.

However, the Trump appointment, who wrote the June 19 decision, was also made in the claim that the government’s actions in the case were ılmış cannot be reviewed ”.

“Some things they say are unusual, usually the arguments we don’t hear in court,” Chen said. “Instead of framing this as an excessive access to the manager, they say that the efforts to limit the executive power of the judiciary are judicial excessive access.”

Last week, another 9th circuit judge challenged the June decision and filed a petition to rehearse the court with a larger “most banc” panel – a move that could push the case to the Court of Cassation.

“Before [courts] He was so politicized, many judges would often postpone the first judges who first heard the objections, because they trusted their colleagues, Tob Tobias said. It makes it difficult to increase the politicization of most of the appeal courts and somehow reduced, and the efforts of ninth judges to predict how to vote in this case. ”

In the meantime, California is evidence to support the claim of maritime and national guard forces participating in immigration and forcing soldiers to force civil laws.

Experts, compared to these questions, the legal problems in LA appeals are simple, he said.

“What makes this case different is that it is based on the facts, ER “The Court of Appeal is much more difficult for a court court to overthrow the real finding.”