Supremely Corrupt

The latest travesty from the corrupt anti-American fascist-enablers that make up the majority of our Supreme Court attempts to make the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution null and void. And it's merely the next link the lengthening chain of indefensible rulings from John Roberts and his Gang of Supervillains.

In the ruling favoring the government's position in Noem v. Vazquez Perdomo—unsigned, a product of the so-called "shadow docket" but with a concurrence written by Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh—suspends the ruling of a lower court that declared actions taken in California by the Department of Homeland Security ran afoul of the public's Constitutional rights. Basically, it says that Constitutional protections from unreasonable searches and seizures are optional, that law enforcement may decide what's reasonable and what isn't and courts and judges can go fly a kite.

In his concurrence, Kavanaugh cites language from The Immigration and Nationality Act that says anyone may be detained and questioned given “a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts,” then goes on to describe DHS actions interrogating/snatching people "based on the following factors or combination of factors: (i) presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does; (iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; and (iv) apparent race or ethnicity"—the basis for the lower courts injunction—as perfectly fine.

"In my view," Kavanaugh writes,  "the Government has made a sufficient showing to obtain a stay pending appeal," contending that "the Government has demonstrated a fair prospect of reversal of the District Court’s injunction." How, you ask? By claiming those suing Kristi Noem and DHS have no standing. Those people have already been hassled by DHS, and they want injunctive relief against future harassment? Ridiculous, says Kavanaugh. "Plaintiffs have no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop them [specifically] in the future based on the prohibited factors—and certainly no good basis for believing that any stop of the plaintiffs is imminent." This is another example of the Roberts Court's claim that courts cannot protect the public at large, they can only protect the specific individuals who bring lawsuits and only in very narrow contexts.

Plus, I'd contend that the plaintiffs here have pretty firm basis that they are at risk. Their circumstances, i.e. existing while brown and Spanish-speaking, haven't changed since they were originally harassed so their continues to be equal risk.

Justice I Like Beer goes on to claim that DHS uses "their experience" and "a variety of factors" in deciding who to stop/question/harass/abduct, therefore the court cannot claim said decisions are "unreasonable." He continues, "Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances," then describes ethnic profiling and the supposition that undocumented immigrants often work certain jobs, "and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English" as valid reasons for DHS to do their thing. In other words, yeah, bigotry is fine.

And pay no attention to the fact that this entire justification is the inverse of the standing argument: Courts may only protect the specific individuals bringing suit for their specific individual claim and cannot paint with any broader brush than that, but DHS and law enforcement can paint with as broad a brush as they damn well want to. Double-standards are the way of the Roberts Court, after all.

It's a blatantly unconstitutional opinion. The Fourth Amendment doesn't allow for the kind of wiggle room or double standards Kavanaugh wants to employ. It says, in its entirety, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Then, as a cherry on top, Kavanaugh shows his absolute ignorance/willful blindness to reality with this gem: "Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter." Really, Brett? Ask Kilmar Abrego about that. Ask any number of people here legally but still being held in immigration detention centers or the Florida concentration camp if they were "free to go" following a "brief encounter" with DHS.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the dissent, yet another blistering rebuke of the majority's abuse of their position. Noting that it used to be near-unheard of for SCOTUS to stay a district court's ruling without prompting, Sotomayor wrote that this ruling "is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job."

Sotomayor goes on to detail the abuses of DHS in this matter and their terroristic tactics, reiterates the veracity of the plaintiff's case, cites the thoroughness of the District Court's decision that Kavanaugh rejects, and for good measure gives a primer on THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, since the majority of this court wants to pretend it doesn't exist. Kavanaugh's championing of profiling holds no water; the majority opinion's justifications "in no way reflect the kind of individualized inquiry the Fourth Amendment demands," writes Sotomayor, and she is 100% correct, citing numerous case precedents to back her up (including one that Kavanaugh attempted to twist into support for his concurrence). She also eviscerates Kavanaugh's lack-of-standing argument as well as points out what should be obvious to anyone taking this seriously, let alone, oh I don't know, A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, that the government's case rests on its claim that the District Court's injunction against detaining/harassing people based on Kavanaugh-approved ethnic profiling “chills [its] enforcement efforts” and “deters officers from stopping suspects even when they have reasonable suspicion on other grounds.” If they have other grounds, then they are not violating the injunction. They're fighting the injunction because they want the freedom use these unconstitutional grounds.

Unwilling to let Kavanaugh's willful ignorance of reality skate by, Sotomayor also writes, "Immigration agents are not conducting 'brief stops for questioning,' as the concurrence would like to believe. They are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions. Nor are undocumented immigrants the only ones harmed by the Government’s conduct. United States citizens are also being seized, taken from their jobs, and prevented from working to support themselves and their families. The concurrence relegates the interests of U.S. citizens and individuals with legal status to a single sentence, positing that the Government will free these individuals as soon as they show they are legally in the United States. That blinks reality."

She concludes: "Because this [ruling] is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent."

The whole dissent is suitably righteous and damning. Sotomayor serves to remind us what the Supreme Court of the United States is supposed to be, how the Constitution is supposed to be the Court's foundation, and maybe provides the slimmest bit of hope that when this reign of autocratic terror finally comes to an end that sanity will return to America.