The Counterattack Begins

New York recently passed a law, that allows illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. That’s flat wrong but they’re not alone. But they went further, they forbade DHS access to DMV records. That had repercussions. From Rachel Bovard in American Greatness.

But on Wednesday, DHS issued its first-ever clap back.

In response to New York’s law, DHS will strip New Yorkers out of the federal “trusted traveler” programs which have served to expedite the state’s cross border trade and travel with Canada for over a decade. Instead, New Yorkers and their businesses will have to do it all the old-fashioned way: with passports, long lines, and repeated customs inspections.

There is good reason for DHS to take this step. “We need to do our job,” acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf told Fox News.

It’s About More Than Licenses for Illegals

And it’s true. Though New York state may have intended only to block DHS enforcement against undocumented aliens, refusing to share DMV data cuts off a much broader swath of DHS’s ability to police for basic safety.

Due to the state’s new law, customs officers will no longer be able to see who owns the car they are inspecting or pulling over, ascertain whether or not that person is a citizen, or even be informed of any outstanding criminal warrants. This not only puts the officer at risk, but it also hamstrings his ability to identify and arrest violent criminals or help their victims.

Yep, and if you think it through, probably ¾ or more of American contacts with law enforcement are triggered by access to DMV records.

And so DHS strikes back and all those liberal New Yorkers can pay the price at American Ports of Entry. Hard to feel sorry for them since they wanted to signal their virtue. I’ll bet money it will also have an impact on their ability to obtain a security clearance. Throwing sand in the gearbox appears to have repercussions.

Paul Goldberg writing in News Thud tells us that isn’t all, either.

AOC and Ilhan Omar will not be happy. Barr is filing lawsuits, issuing subpoenas and warning Dems running these programs he is looking into filing criminal charges against them if they continue to defy the law.

“When we are talking about sanctuary cities, we are talking about policies that are designed to allow criminal aliens to escape,” Attorney General William P. Barr said in a speech to the National Sheriff’s Association.

“Their express purpose is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for other crimes. This is neither lawful nor sensible.”

Mr. Barr also warned sanctuaries that he’s ordered his department to review the law and see i9f criminal charges are possible

“This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States,” he said.

“The department is filing a complaint against the State of New Jersey seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against its laws that forbid state and local law enforcement from sharing vital information about criminal aliens with DHS,” Barr said.

“We are filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against King County, Washington, for the policy … that forbids DHS from deporting aliens from the United States using King County International Airport,” Barr continued.

“Further, we are reviewing the practices, policies, and laws of other jurisdictions across the country.  This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States,” Barr added, before saying the DOJ would start issuing “federal subpoenas to access information about criminal aliens in the custody of uncooperative jurisdictions.”

Time and past time. But better late than never. Why it’s almost like he believes in the rule of law or something.  Now, Mr. Attorney General, this is all well and good (It really is!) but when should we expect indictments in the jihad against the President?

Department of Homeland Security v. New York: A Win for Commonsense

In what may come to be the most important decision out of Washington this week, the Supreme Court ruled that the DHS may enforce the ‘Public Charge’ rule to go into effect. That’s all well and good, but the important part is that Justice Gorsuch really blasted the practice of nationwide injunctions in his concurring opinion. Tyler O’Neil has more at PJ Media.

“Today the Court (rightly) grants a stay, allowing the government to pursue (for now) its policy everywhere save Illinois. But, in light of all that’s come before, it would be delusional to think that one stay today suffices to remedy the problem. The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case,” Gorsuch wrote. […]

“Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place. But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III,” he explained.

“It has become increasingly apparent that this Court must, at some point, confront these important objections to this increasingly widespread practice. As the brief and furious history of the regulation before us illustrates, the routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions,” he wrote.

These nationwide injunctions create confusion and “tend to force judges into making rushed, high-stakes, low-information decisions.”

“The rise of nationwide injunctions may just be a sign of our impatient times. But good judicial decisions are usually tempered by older virtues,” the Supreme Court justice insisted.

“There are currently more than 1,000 active and senior district court judges, sitting across 94 judicial districts, and subject to review in 12 regional courts of appeal. Because plaintiffs generally are not bound by adverse decisions in cases to which they were not a party, there is a nearly boundless opportunity to shop for a friendly forum to secure a win nationwide,” Gorsuch explained.

Worse, it is possible that plaintiffs can win “conflicting nationwide injunctions.”

“If a single successful challenge is enough to stay the challenged rule across the country, the government’s hope of implementing any new policy could face the long odds of a straight sweep, parlaying a 94- to-0 win in the district courts into a 12-to-0 victory in the courts of appeal. A single loss and the policy goes on ice— possibly for good, or just as possibly for some indeterminate period of time until another court jumps in to grant a stay,” he noted. “And all that can repeat, ad infinitum, until either one side gives up or this Court grants certiorari.”

And that is the crux of the problem. The executive can not exercise its governance because some US district court judge in some sh*thole district who is beholden to the other party issues a stay to whatever policy it is (and this could easily go either way) and then enjoins it on the entire country.

It’s a method to destroy the rule of law and transfer sovereignty to unelected judges. It is, I think, not only a tyrannical practice but prima facie a case of the judicial wildly overstepping its bounds. One way or another, it must be curtailed, and soon.

Justice Gorsuch is proving to be a stalwart conservative/originalist member of the court, I think.

%d bloggers like this: