Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) – The Federal Court of Appeal decided to protect the temporary decision of a sub -court that prevented the Trump administration from making discrimination in Southern California in Southern California.
The three referee panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeal held a hearing on Monday afternoon and the federal government from the court Temporary Restriction Order On July 12, he argued that he had prevented the implementation of the immigration law, published by Judge Maame E. Frimpong.
Immigration advocacy groups filed a lawsuit Last month, President Donald Trump is accused of systematically targeting brown -skinned people in Southern California during the illegal immigration pressure of the administration. The case included three immigrants and two US citizens as plaintiffs.
In order, Frimpong said that the tactics of Federal immigration practice violated the constitution that “evidence is mountain”. He wrote that the government could not talk to Spanish or English accents such as visible race or ethnic origin, and that it cannot be used as the only basis of reasonable suspicion to detain someone in a place like a drawing courtyard or car wash, or someone’s profession.
The Los Angeles region became a war area with the Trump administration on the aggressive migration strategy that encouraged protests. Distribution of national guards And for a few weeks, maritime. Federal agents gathered immigrants Without legal status, home warehouses in the USA, car wash, bus stops, and farmsMany people who have been living in the country for decades.
Brian Gavidia, the resident of Los Angeles, which was shown in a video taken by a friend on June 13, said, “I was born here in the United States!” He is captured while shouting!
The American Civil Freedom Union lawyer Mohammad Tajsar told the court, “We want to get us to get us in front of a fence, hit a fence in front of a fence, and want to get his phone and identity from him,” he said.
Considering that the Federal Government was opened shortly after the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week, he argued that there was not enough time to collect and present evidence in the case.
“It is a very serious thing to say that more than one federal state institution is a policy of violating the constitution, Jac said lawyer Jacob Roth.
He also argued that the sub -court’s decision was very wide, and that immigrant defenders did not provide enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping without reasonable suspicion.
Four races, languages, languages, existence and four factors listed in the temporary restriction order should not prohibit the government from using them. He also argued that the order was uncertain of exactly what can be allowed according to the law.
“Legally, I think it is appropriate to use factors for reasonable doubt, Roth Roth said
Judges have sharply questioned the government arguments.
Jennifer Sung, Jencif, said, “Nobody suggested that you can never think of these factors,” he said.
However, he said that these factors only constitute a “wide profile ve and did not satisfy the reasonable doubt standard to stop one.
Biden appointed Sung, in an area like Los Angeles, where the Latins form half of the population, said that these factors can not önleşi those who have undocumented status and those who document legal status ”.
He also asked: “What is the harm of not to do anything you claim to have already done?”
