Reply to Chicago--ICE teargassing local police?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Chicago--ICE teargassing local police?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Bovino was just orded to report into court DAILY because he and his agents were consistently breaking court orders.

DHS has zero credibility.  They continue to lie and flout the law and I'm glad that this judge is paying attention.

Chicago does not back down without a fight.  [/quote]

Another ridiculous, out of control judge.  She is about to get slapped down hard.[/quote]

Yep. And she did get slapped down.

[twitter]https://x.com/jonathanturley/status/2030603419543621930?s=46&t=R0sFrGNc8GH_7llJGM-81g[/twitter]

To summarize:

Last year, Ellis entered orders not just prohibiting ALL law enforcement officers in northern Illinois from using certain tools to fend off ICE demonstrators but also forced DHS chief Greg Bovino to essentially check in with her on a daily basis.

In a 2-1 panel decision yesterday (h/t Jonathan Turley), the court minced no words. The same appellate court had already stepped in last year and put a hold on her injunction and its terms.

Judges Brennan (chief judge) and Scudder lambasted Ellis for violating court rules; refusing to consider Article III standing; expanding the area in question (Broadview ICE facility) in the complaint; and ignoring requests by the plaintiffs' dismissal motion in a way that "risks spawning serious legal consequences if it is not vacated."

"This case involved extraordinary circumstances. Working on a highly compressed timeline, the district court granted an overbroad, constitutionally suspect injunction."

The panel also took aim at Ellis' egregious demands of Greg Bovino:

"It puts the court in the position of an inquisitor rather than that of a neutral adjudicator of the parties’ adversarial presentations. Second, it sets the court up as a supervisor of Chief Bovino’s activities, intruding into personnel management decisions of the Executive Branch.  These two problems are related and lead us to  conclude that the order infringes on the separation of powers."

More from the 7th Circuit as to the plaintiffs' move to dismiss the case pending appeal since most ICE activity had halted by then:

"At first, the district court followed the Rule 23 procedures.  It conducted the necessary hearing and provided four weeks  for any objectors to make their concerns known. No members of the certified class objected to the plaintiffs’ proposal to dis miss the case with prejudice.1 And the government did not  oppose the motion to dismiss.  At the final hearing, the district court dismissed the case.  In doing so, the court deviated from Rule 23 and the plaintiffs’  motion. It sua sponte de-certified the class. Then the court dismissed the case without prejudice—even though plaintiffs had  asked for dismissal with prejudice."

In other words--Ellis violated federal rules and on her own (sua sponte) in decertifying the class of plaintiffs in an apparent backdoor move to keep the case alive, hence "without prejudice."

Back to Ellis' original injunction:

"The court’s injunction also impermissibly infringes on  separation of powers principles. It effectively established the  district court as the supervisor of all Executive Branch activity  in the city of Chicago—a role another federal court of appeals  has found problematic." (The 8th Circuit.)

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics