Here comes another federal court order.
I’m posting this and similar orders so that readers can see these primary documents themselves.
U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon in Portland issued a 22-page order on Tuesday at least temporarily haltlmh the use of tear gas, pepper balls, and related weapons in the absence of “an imminent threat of physical harm to a law enforcement officer or other person.”
Simon found that ICE agents had engaged in “persistent, excessive, and targeted violence” against peaceful demonstrators, journalists, and observers that violated their constitutional rights, including attacks on peaceful protestors during a demonstration over the weekend.
His order begins with a summary statement.
In a well-functioning constitutional democratic republic, free speech, courageous newsgathering, and nonviolent protest are all permitted, respected, and even celebrated. In an authoritarian regime, that is not the case. Our nation is now at a crossroads. We have been here
before and have previously returned to the right path, notwithstanding an occasional detour. In helping our nation find its constitutional compass, an impartial and independent judiciary operating under the rule of law has a responsibility that it may not shirk. For that reason, and as more fully explained below, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order.
Later, he discussed the importance of the First Amendment rights at issue.
The public interest in protecting First Amendment rights cannot be overemphasized. Freedom of speech, including through political protest, is “one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.” As the Ninth Circuit has recognized, “robust political discourse within a traditional public forum is the lifeblood of a democracy.” Protest particularly serves this core democratic function “when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” Indeed, the First Amendment tolerates societal “trouble” caused by protest because “our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom—this kind of openness—that is the basis of our national strength.” [legal citations omitted]
Simon’s temporary restraining order consists of three prohibitions:
a. No Enjoined Person may direct or use chemical or projectile munitions, including but not limited to kinetic impact projectiles, pepper ball or paintball guns, pepper or oleoresin capsicum spray, tear gas or other chemical irritants, soft nose rounds, 40mm or 37mm launchers, less lethal shotguns, and flashbang, Stinger, or rubber ball grenades, unless the specific target of such a weapon or device poses an imminent threat of physical harm to a law enforcement officer or other person.
b. No Enjoined Person may fire any munitions or use any weapons (including those described above) at the head, neck, or torso of any person, unless the officer is legally justified in using deadly force against that person.
c. No Enjoined Person may target any individual with a less lethal munition, if doing so would endanger any other individual who does not pose an imminent threat of physical harm to a law enforcement officer or other person. For purposes of illustration only, no Enjoined Person may use chemical or projectile munitions in response to trespassing, refusal to move, or refusal to obey a dispersal order.
The temporary restraining order applies until a scheduled hearing in his court in two weeks.
The full order appears below.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bravo!
Ian, I don’t get the sense that you would be satisfied even if they demonstrate full compliance with the judge’s orders. Is that a fair assessment?
After reading the judge’s order–including the recitation of evidence considered–why in the world would that be your response? It makes no sense.
Because my question isn’t about the contents of the order. It’s about your reaction to any future compliance. Based on your commentary, it’s reasonable to ask whether compliance would ever be sufficient in your view.
No, it is not reasonable at all “based on (my) commentary.” Not at all.
Let me be clear. I believe the whole ICE program depends on the pervasive illegal and unconstitutional actions it has become infamous for. If this and other similar lawsuits are successful, ICE will be ineffective, but bringing it into compliance with the constitution is necessary.
A separate matter is the policy of ethnic cleansing being pursued by this federal administration under the guise of immigration enforcement.
If you meant to ask whether I believe we must address the second question even if ICE policies are brought into line with constitutional requirements, then yes–I will not be “satisfied” if ICE is defanged but directed toward the same unconscionable goal of an artificially white America. But that is a somewhat separable battle.
Is your question implying that we shouldn’t quibble about ICE’s unconstitutional actions if we also disagree with its underlying premise?
Ian, I think we may be talking past each other. My question was not about whether you agree with ICE policy or its broader goals. It was about whether demonstrated compliance with a court’s order would change your assessment of its conduct going forward.
If your position is that compliance would not affect your view because the underlying policy itself is the concern, then that answers the question. If not, then I think it is fair to clarify what would constitute meaningful compliance in your view.
Priceless!
If there is no immediate threat ICE will create or invent one.
Even if they do, the court order limits their response to the person(s) who is “an imminent threat.” Tear gas, for example, would appear to be prohibited.
“No Enjoined Person may target any individual with a less lethal munition, if doing so would endanger any other individual who does not pose an imminent threat of physical harm to a law enforcement officer or other person.”
It’s sad when people die.
I think they may be lobbing tear gas as a theatrical prop for video sensationalism: OMG! Tear gas! clouds of smoke! People running! MAYHEM! RIOTING!
Pauly want a cracker?
posting here in the unlikely chance Paul Kaye (aka Pauly Llama) is still checking Ian’s post for new comments.
one of the defining features of our American government is that all people are created equal and have rights.
there seems to be a propaganda bubble around people who are arguing on behalf of the armed forces that are terrorizing peaceful communities with lawless people snatching, family separations, assaults, detentions, deportations and murders. the facts regarding the unlawful behaviors are readily available, and not just from the links Ian posts.
Trump campaigned on mass deportations, and i am convinced his supporters do not believe all people have rights.
today’s news of Trump’s social media post (now deleted after backlash), is just more evidence of Trump’s racism, which has spawned state terror directed at immigrant communities that voted against him.
I agree that all people have rights and should be treated humanely (I’m for Judicial vs. administrative warrants). I also believe a nation has the right to enforce its immigration laws, and those ideas are not mutually exclusive… Reducing millions of voters to racism avoids engaging with why people actually supported those policies. For context, my own family is biracial. My wife is filipino (Hawaii born), and her family, originally rice farmers, came to the United States legally from the PI. Her mother and father came for school, went on to medical school, and became a general Surgeon here in Hawai?i (starting at Kaiser Hospital Waikiki). Her mother worked as a registered nurse at Queen’s. Their story is one of patience, legal immigration, and building a life through hard work, which is part of why I see this issue the way I do (and they do).
Paul, I could take your view more seriously you actually read through some of the court decisions which have made factual findings wildly at odds with your perception of what’s happening out there in the world.
This exchange started when you posed a question to me in a comment, while acknowledging: “Because my question isn’t about the contents of the order.”
Feel free to chime back in when you’re prepared to grapple with the situation being described in these detailed court opinions and orders.