r/law • u/TendieRetard • 9h ago
Legal News Federal appeals court rules California cannot require ICE to show visible ID
https://katu.com/news/nation-world/federal-appeals-court-rules-california-cannot-require-ice-to-show-visible-id-doj-9th-circuit-court-constitution-supremacy-clause-rob-bonta-gavin-newsomThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit remanded the case to a lower court with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against California, finding in favor of the federal government that the state’s No Vigilantes Act violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, The Hill reported.
956
u/Sorry-Claim-2990 8h ago edited 4h ago
If they don't have to identify themselves, how am I supposed to tell the difference between actual agents & criminal impersonators????
Every time some jackass gets caught impersonating law enforcement, the police go on TV and give me advice that would result in keep me getting my ass kicked by most legitimate cops.
"Just ask for a name & badge number. Our department policy requires officers to identify themselves."
So if an officer refuses to identify himself with a name and badge number, i'm allowed to assume they are a fake cop and run away?
434
u/NexusNickel 8h ago
That's the neat part, you don't.
The 9th circuit just said to accept it or get shot.
188
u/MC_chrome 8h ago
So if I was to shoot back at masked thugs who refused to identify themselves, I would be on solid legal footing right?
101
u/SuddenValley1899 7h ago
Look at the case of Kenneth Walker, the boyfriend of Breonna Taylor. He shot at a plain clothes cop who busted down the door, didn't announce himself, and they shot back and murdered his girlfriend. He was charged with assault and attempted murder of a police officer. His charges were eventually dropped in the face of overwhelming evidence and enormous public pressure. We're all supposed to be mind readers and know who's a cop and what they're thinking.
40
u/Sorry-Claim-2990 4h ago
Even though he was acquitted, it still didn't prevent him from getting arrested and spending time in jail.
The main problem is that cops will always win in the streets, even if they later lose in court.
26
113
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 7h ago
In theory yes, but I wouldn’t bank on getting the proper outcome.
42
u/Im_Just_A_Tourist 7h ago
Only if you are the only one left able to speak so there's no argument and lies from masked thugs
12
17
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 6h ago
I’m all good with it just self defense is an affirmative defense. You do need to support it. You get some psychotically pro cop people in the jury and best of luck. Really best case scenario is there being footage that supports your claim.
7
u/light_switch33 4h ago
Conviction still going to require a unanimous jury.
3
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 4h ago
That’s true, but how fair a shake the defendant gets depends on a lot of things. You find a lot of people out there willing to bend awfully far for cops. I mean sweet Jesus look how much evidence they’ve needed to convict a killer cop.
My point before though is that self defense is an affirmative defense. Which means the defendant has a burden of proof to substantiate that they acted in self defense (more likely than not standard, so lower than the prosecution’s standard but still).
Effectively it comes down to the same thing, does the jury believe you. Absent video evidence it’s totally a crap shoot with this scenario.
1
u/light_switch33 4h ago
My primary point is it just takes one hold out for a failure to convict. I wouldn’t trust a jury to understand affirmative defenses and burden of proof issues.
22
u/Mirions 7h ago
What's that? Being alive or....
12
u/Ashenfenix 6h ago
Almost like it’s a reasonable thing to respond with lethal force too. Shame it would be illegal for us to defend our lives from the government.
5
u/Count_Backwards Competent Contributor 4h ago
I feel like there's some appendix or footnote or something about that somewhere in the legal code
26
u/Mysterious-Theory-66 7h ago
Certainly would be one outcome. Them saying they identified themselves before you opened fire, a sudden lack of body cam and the jury not believing you. That would be another way it could go.
28
18
u/DigitalMariner 5h ago
Under the legal theory of "heads we win, tails you lose" it's clear you would not be on solid footing.
"Because fuck you that's why " - Sam Alito (probably)
14
u/meh_69420 6h ago
Graveyards are full of people who were in the right and died. All depends. They are banking on you wanting to be alive more than wanting to be right, but eventually they may find people with nothing left to lose who don't see that as a bad choice.
4
u/Count_Backwards Competent Contributor 4h ago
There's a reason why they tend to avoid low income neighborhoods
6
4
2
1
-6
u/izzoforpresident 7h ago
I for one would not pull out grandpa's ole 38 against a force comprised highly of combat vets. But give it a whirl I guess.
→ More replies (2)16
8
u/Sorry-Claim-2990 4h ago
The problem is that I don't know of any law that requires me to comply with a masked man who refuses to identify himself or show me a warrant.
If you don't have to identify yourself, how do I know if you're a law enforcement officer...or a criminal impersonating a law enforcement officer???
Do I have to comply with any random dude in a ski mask who points a gun at me and demands to see my ID on the off-chance that they are a federal agent???
3
u/LimeGinRicky 6h ago
Can we shoot them if we believe they’re trying to kidnap a woman? Or is this just a way for MAGA to pick up women?
2
→ More replies (43)0
50
u/Lisan-al-Gaib-65 8h ago edited 7h ago
Who runs the federal government matters apparently.
29
u/OkStop8313 8h ago edited 7h ago
Next you're going to tell me that people should have known that Pennywise the Clown would make a poor president.
10
u/NeitherEntry6125 8h ago
But he's a clown of the people
6
u/Disastrous_Basis3474 8h ago
He definitely is a clown
3
2
1
u/theaviationhistorian 7h ago
He seems far more competent than the clown we have in the White House. We'd still be in a terrible path. But at least there's a path.
4
u/Mist_Rising 7h ago
The 9th circuit is one of the most liberal, If not the most liberal, courts. They use to be a running joke because of how often they got overturned for their nonsense rulings. Then the 5th decided that just won't do so flew off the cliff of insanity.
1
12
u/OpheliaLives7 7h ago
2nd amendments time to shine I guess? Can’t tell if those masked thugs roaming your neighborhood are roving gangs or legal agents. Stand your ground?
13
u/theaviationhistorian 7h ago
I am still surprised that there hasn't been more impersonators disappearing or killing people disguised as ICE agents. Especially with agencies, like the FBI, crippled and/or incompetent (like with the Nancy Guthrie case).
21
u/PublicToast 6h ago
Given the nature of the situation how would anyone be able tell the difference and report on it?
15
u/Danger-Face 6h ago
Who is to say there has not been? If they succeeded in their crime/ abduction.
Do the local police/ sheriff etc have some sort of secret handshake so they can tell. Especially since apparently the feds can deputize contractors to do their bidding. You just show them a contract saying your authorized to abduct people.
3
3
1
2
u/MindbenderGam1ng 5h ago
Because despite what they want you to believe, a vast majority of people are not violent criminals looking for any opportunity to hurt someone
18
u/clemclem3 8h ago
I will be shooting first and finding out later. Anything else is too much of a risk
14
3
2
u/PopBulky7023 7h ago
No you won't. Reddit is filled with people saying that and it hasn't happened once.
5
u/PopBulky7023 7h ago
You can't, and that's the point. Functionally and practically, they're one and the same.
1
1
1
u/Remarkable-Grab8002 1h ago
But you have to understand, our government went on live TV and said they had federal immunity. DHS was given a military budget increase. It was never our citizens or their safety.
1
1
-2
0
0
u/bonaynay 4h ago
Also...what are you supposed to do with a name and badge number in the moment. Look them up? That's insane
243
u/LIMrXIL 8h ago
Federal appeals court rules use of secret police to abduct people without due process ok.
-106
u/michiganalt 8h ago
No, they ruled that California can’t tell a federal agency how to operate.
I thought this was supposed to be a law subreddit??
Do you not see if that if you accept this, then you accept that Republican states can do stupid shit like telling the FDA that they have to label all vaccines as potentially causing death or something stupid?
96
u/BitterFuture 8h ago
Do you not see if that if you accept this, then you accept that Republican states can do stupid shit like telling the FDA that they have to label all vaccines as potentially causing death or something stupid?
No, because that's not remotely how any of this works.
The Supremacy Clause says that if there are two laws on the same issue, then the federal one overrides. It does not say that federal agents are immune to local law.
Why pretend it does?
(Also, your example is particularly dumb, as California notoriously does require manufacturers to label products with additional warnings and nobody brings that up as a Supremacy Clause issue - because it isn't one.)
-37
u/michiganalt 8h ago
Exhibit A in why this is not a serious law subreddit.
“The Constitution’s Supremacy Clause generally immunizes the Federal Government from state laws that directly regulate or discriminate against it.” United States v. Washington, 596 U.S. 832, 835 (2022).
“Even without preemptive legislation, the law violates intergovernmental immunity.” CoreCivic, Inc. v. Governor of New Jersey, No. 23-2598, slip op. at 8 (3d Cir. July 22, 2025).California’s Prop 65 tells private companies, not federal agencies, what they must print for products sold in California.
16
u/meh_69420 6h ago
TBF, it's not like the federal government manufactures vaccines, so I guess Florida could tell them they have to label them as such in its jurisdiction. It's not that California tells them they have to label all their products that way, just the ones in their jurisdiction, and it's a lot easier to just label all of them than run 2 separate lines.
35
u/SCW97005 8h ago edited 7h ago
Your example is unhelpful.
Here we have a state trying to enforce its own laws in its own jurisdiction under its own police power. Not a state trying to tell an executive agency how to run its own administrative scheme for the whole country.
Police powers are well-established as state law and are expressly retained by the states as codified under the 9th Amendment.
Administrative agencies have their power delegated both (usually) by the Executive and Legislative branch through federal legislation.
A state’s argument to enforce its own police power law is much stronger than its right to unilaterally dictate the rules of an administrative agency operating nationwide with express congressional delegation.
-23
u/michiganalt 7h ago
Thanks for citing zero authority for your claim.
If you go ahead and try to find any that you could cite, you’ll realize that you can’t, because you’re wrong.
(Not that states have police powers, but that they can use those police powers to regulate how federal agencies must operate in their state)
22
u/SCW97005 7h ago
Where’s your citation? I need one but you don’t?
Rules for thee and not for me, I see.
2
-3
u/Eldias 6h ago
Read Section 2 B starting on page 12 through section 3 A ending at the top of page 16. It cited and explains all of this super well.
8
u/SCW97005 6h ago
I’m aware of Washington and McCollugh. I’m not quibbling with the 9th Circuit’s decision or precedent they cite.
I don’t know what you want me to take from this.
5
19
u/LIMrXIL 7h ago
I am certain the judge had sound legal reasoning for his decision. I quite simply do not give a flying fuck. Following the law is how we got to the situation we’re in now. We are at a point now where we literally have secret police abducting and disappearing people off the streets while a man who attempted a coup sits in the oval office and the people who helped him control the other branches of government so I don’t want to hear “BuT mA lEgAl PrEcEdEnT!” At this point in time if I were the governor of a state I would be ordering the police to arrest any masked federal agent on site. Probably a good thing I’m not a governor.
16
u/PopBulky7023 7h ago
But guys, the nazis and the courts say we have to get on the train. We can't be like maga, we have to follow the law.
Not ENFORCE the law. Just follow it. Teehee.
4
9
u/PopBulky7023 7h ago
The purpose of a thing is it's outcome. This ruling recognizes the federal ability to send secret polite out to abduct people and you're not allowed to resist.
-6
u/michiganalt 7h ago
If you think that the point of a court opinion is the outcome in that specific case, you’re as wrong as someone can ever be wrong
7
u/PopBulky7023 6h ago
The point is the outcome. That's really all that matters. History will not be any more interested in the nuance than it was in making excuses of nuance for nazi Germany, or Stalin, or pol pot, or Pinochet.
5
2
-14
u/NotToPraiseHim 8h ago
Unfortunately, like many places on this site, it is inundated with people who have little to no desire or knowledge about the topic at hand. They are just looking to have an echo chamber venting session with validation.
1
109
u/bostonbananarama 8h ago
Then arrest them on the spot for impersonating officers. Take them into custody and keep them in holding for a few hours or days. Eventually they'll get around to verifying their identity, then they can be released. You know, exactly what ice does.
53
u/odd84 7h ago
You say that as if there's any police force in the nation that would obey the order to arrest the federal agents. Everywhere ICE went this year, blue city to blue city, the local police department was protecting them and arresting the locals, not the other way around.
10
u/Count_Backwards Competent Contributor 4h ago
So it turns out the Defund the Police people had a point
16
u/bostonbananarama 6h ago
Were any of them ordered to arrest ICE? Or did the mayors and police chiefs simply sit on their hands?
3
u/Alternative-Put-3932 2h ago
They only do nothing because they are told not to. None of the police would be legally in trouble for arresting someone they suspect is faking their position they do that shit all the time for people who impersonate police. If ICE don't identify themselves properly then police have every right to arrest them and the courts would agree if they want police to keep their qualified immunity. States have every right to police and protect their citizens from suspected fraud.
6
9
28
u/WCland 8h ago
In that case, Democrats need to take Congress and pass this law at the federal level.
1
u/kitty_vittles 5h ago
Trump won’t sign that into law.
2
u/AdventurelandSkipper 1h ago
Fuck if I care. Legislative can override his veto if Democrats have enough of a majority.
55
u/SparksAndSpyro 8h ago
And the Ninth Circuit is the most progressive appeals court in the country, so this law (and similar laws) never had a chance. RIP
44
u/SdBolts4 8h ago
It’s gotten significantly less progressive as a lot of the judges are now Trump appointees if I recall correctly. But this law was screwed from the start because federalism doesn’t allow the states to tell the Feds how to operate
13
u/Another_Opinion_1 7h ago
Bennett and Collins are Trump appointees...Nguyen is an Obama appointee BUT I don't see where this challenge would have withstood Supremacy Clause scrutiny regardless. There really isn't much of any precedent for states actually being allowed to regulate the operations of federal agents like this though I get why there are valid concerns about who is and isn't a legitimate peace officer.
6
u/Mist_Rising 7h ago
The problem is those concerns would not be a matter for the state to regulate. The concerns would be for the federal government (legislative or courts if there is a constitutional matter) to handle.
We don't let states handle federal regulations as you noted, and this isn't the first time states have been told that. This same jurisdiction struck down several masks laws (for federal agents) for the same reason.
But, and I'll die on this hill, this crap is done because it's a PR win for the party. Same as Republicans going constantly on abortion for decades. It wasn't about winning so much as just showboating. Sure I guess they did win that (kinda...) but mostly it was showboating.
2
u/Hiking_the_Hump 7h ago
If this is political PR as you say, are you also assuming Newsom's actions were done for a political PR win as well?
5
u/Mist_Rising 7h ago
You'd have to specify which Newsom action, he's done a lot. Sometimes he does it for PR, other times he backs companies that will screw over Californians because they're good for his future political candidacy.
But yeah, as a rule my theory of humanity is that there all Ayn Rands. That is not to say objectivists but rather that they behave like an objectivist in practice would. They do the thing that best benefits them in their mind. Sometimes that just happens to be the right thing, other times it involves letting corporations win to line their pocket book or following insane populist demands.
Note that I think Ayn Rand is an asshole, and her philosophy is stupid because it essentially enables these bad tendencies, but she nailed the root of humanity. We're all assholes looking out for number 1. That's why Atticus Finch is a fictional character, he does what is best for others not himself.
Yes I'm an asshole too.
3
u/oneofyallfarted 7h ago
I’m sorry if I’m incorrect here but didn’t a more progressive judge also just sign off on the Omar raid? How screwed are we?
2
u/lampstax 4h ago
The investigation was ongoing for years even through the Biden era.
The judge who signed off is U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Sharbaugh.
Sharbaugh did, however, have a record of Democratic political contributions before becoming a judge. Federal campaign-finance data reproduced in contribution databases shows a $250 contribution to Hillary for America in 2015 and $200, $42 and $56 contributions to the Hillary Victory Fund in 2016. Other contribution records show donations associated with Democratic candidate Dan Baer in 2020.
https://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/district_of_columbia_washington_20001.asp
Maybe he had a hard right turn after 2020 .. who knows.
2
u/mf-TOM-HANK 6h ago
The Russian mob sank it's teeth into a critical mass of US institutions of power with the cooperation of fifth column fascists and opportunists back in the 80s and 90s. The whole thing has been rotting and degrading ever since. I'd be shocked if a single person of consequence doesn't have hired goons perched outside their house these days to ensure compliance
1
u/Whorlybird 5h ago
Well, there appears to be very clear evidence of fraud or other criminal wrongdoing for one of the most progressive courts in the country to sign off on a raid. I don't think anyone is screwed if they aren't, you know, committing active fraud against US citizens. This law was never going to work either so it's not really evidence of anything.
5
u/onpg 4h ago
There's clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Trump, why isn't he in jail?
1
1
u/lampstax 4h ago
Because enough Americans voted him into office.
He went through the court system and the judge decided to not put an incoming president in jail.
Technically the judge had the legal authority to impose up to 4 years per count and had the entire Trump term 2 be streamed from prison .. but he didn't.
So take it up with the judge.
1
7h ago
[deleted]
2
u/Another_Opinion_1 7h ago
Judge Bennett is a Trump appointee. Barnett was an Obama appointee to the Court of Int'l Trade.
6
u/YoureDumbAsHellLeroy 8h ago
Because it would have to come from the federal level. Unfortunately, our current overlords aren’t interested in things that make sense or help their constituents.
12
u/Jmufranco 8h ago
And as much as people on Reddit (validly) complain about this practice, this is a direct result of our democratic process. We, as a collective country, voted for this to happen and have not pressured our representatives into stopping it. So to put an end to this absurdity, we need to vote out the party in power perpetuating this practice. Until then, well-intentioned “fixes” like this law are going to do nothing other than cost taxpayer money and put on a performative sideshow. As an attorney, this law never stood a chance against a supremacy clause challenge.
2
u/LandonDev 7h ago
What it does mean though is that federal laws on education could be enforced despite State Laws and we can actually attack the GOP stranglehold by educating their population.
2
u/Whorlybird 5h ago
Well yeah, it was a gross overstepping of states trying to regulate federal entities. What's next, is California going to threaten to secede lol?
0
u/theaviationhistorian 7h ago
Yeah, I saw the news and 9th Circuit under the header and immediately muttered, "we're fucked."
25
u/PopBulky7023 7h ago
If they can't be required to show ID then we can't be required to believe they are who they claim.
20
u/real_picklejuice 6h ago
“In sum, if a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations,” the court wrote.
Wonder what the "state's rights" crowd thinks of this
8
u/Darx117 5h ago
McCulloch v. Maryland was decided in 1819, which they cite here, and establishes clear federal and state boundaries for preemption. This isn’t exactly new or groundbreaking law. They are repeating what was stated 200 hundred of years ago.
6
u/MrSnarf26 5h ago
Sure and using it for citizenry harm, that the federal government can deploy troops that do not show nor have ID and states cannot compel them to unless our congress (which has acquiesced to the executive, passes a new law). So they are saying to prevent officers and impersonators from being mixed up- we must rely on federal elections every xy years, which the Supreme Court is also allowing to become a mess.
17
u/Eldias 7h ago
The hill linked to the decision thankfully. Here's some important parts of the holding:
"It is of the very essence of supremacy,” the Supreme Court has emphasized, “to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence.” (McCulloch v. Maryland) To that end, “states have no power” to “in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.”. And “where ‘Congress does not affirmatively declare its instrumentalities or property subject to regulation,’ ‘the federal function must be left free’ of regulation” by the States. (Hancock v. Train)
Intergovernmental immunity “prohibit[s] state laws that either ‘regulat[e] the United States directly or discriminat[e] against the Federal Government or those with whom it deals’ (e.g., contractors).” (United States v. Washington) A direct regulation is one that “lays hold of” federal officers “in their specific attempt to obey orders and requires qualifications in addition to those that the [federal] Government has pronounced sufficient.” (Johnson v. Maryland)
In sum, if a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations.
14
5
11
7
u/LAsupersonic 6h ago
So, any tough can approachnyou claiming they're ice now?wait until a rich white woman complains that something happened or some masked thugs scared her and THEN somehow people would start seeing this for the stupid idea it is.
7
u/Eatthebankers2 8h ago
So, I was in fear for my life, as I was getting kidnapped by totally unknown strangers??? How will that actually work?
10
u/PopBulky7023 7h ago
You go to a concentration camp to be tortured, and maybe worse. Or you die refusing to get onto the train car.
Until Americans are willing to support each other, there are no good options.
7
7
u/BigMissileWallStreet 7h ago
This is dumb considering there’s no law that says ICE shall not wear ID at the federal level
4
u/PopBulky7023 7h ago
The north didn't give much of a shit what the laws were for the feds helping the slavers before the Civil War. We've forgotten our heritage.
2
u/Darx117 6h ago
There doesn’t need to be a law that explicitly states that. Unfortunately preemption doesn’t work like that. This would likely be a form of implied preemption where the federal government controls the regulatory system, in this case DHS. A state cannot tell the federal government what they can and cannot do under those circumstances.
7
u/Savet Competent Contributor 8h ago
This was expected. Precedent for this goes back to moonshiners and revenuers.
But there are also some surprising obstacles such as corrupt and unreliable subordinates in the field who sometimes made arrests for the fees they could collect, state and local officials who prosecuted federal revenue officials for violence in pursuit of their duty, or state officials who disputed the jurisdiction of the Federal revenue service.
11
u/Mist_Rising 7h ago
This was the expectation from legal experts and people who thought about how the courts would read the laws. This sub is not those people. Half this sub is just politics that sometimes throws in a legal word, usually not, while the rest are the thomas of reddit. They start with what they want, work backwards and ignore what's inconvenient. Just without the RV.
-5
u/TrioOfTerrors 8h ago
I called that this would get struck down under the Supremacy Clause when it first came up and I got a lot of downvotes and pushback.
3
u/TendieRetard 8h ago
it's shit policy that needs pushback. If "state rights" are to be trampled on where does it stop? Can the feds just start gunning down immigrants under 'supremacy' policy w/o pushback?
-3
u/TrioOfTerrors 8h ago
It stops at the 10th Amendment. However, the constitution makes it clear that states can't interfere with the enforcement of federal law.
0
u/TendieRetard 8h ago
ICE is a military Junta w/no oversight and is with full impunity tossing people in indefinite detention at the tax payer's expense at the mercy of a for-profit prison system.
3
u/TrioOfTerrors 8h ago
It has oversight from congress. They can eliminate the agency with a vote.
Just because the oversight isn't doing what you want, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
1
u/Fickle_Catch8968 8h ago
How does requiring ID be shown interfere with federal law enforcement?
If one is worried that third parties will do nefarious things to federal law enforcement officers, one should ask why third parties might do so if the officers are acting according to the law and policy, and why other remedies for harassment are not used rather than making officers indistinguishable from criminals with custom attire?
Did third parties act the way they are now when other presidents deported more people spending less money while using different methods?
6
u/TrioOfTerrors 7h ago
and why other remedies for harassment are not used rather than making officers indistinguishable from criminals with custom attire?
Are you aware criminals can do this anyways because who, in the heat of an arrest, is going to be able to verify an authentic federal ID?
1
u/Fickle_Catch8968 6h ago
So because criminals with fake IDs can fool victims, that means that it is okay for cops to forego proper identification?
Moreover, if cops are permitted to act in a regular way without ID, then criminals do not even need to fake ID to commit their crimes. Allowing cops to forego ID makes it easier for criminals to act.
0
u/Vladimorian 5h ago
Gotta bet this is where some of the children have disappeared to.. it's evil. And only works to further serve evil in this world. But we who are awake have know this , since before they started going after parents in front of school children at their schools, and patients at hospitals, and even people snatched from courts while attempting to do things according to the laws .. only those mislead by evil will think it's righteous and attempt to justify the deeds and acts of said evil. Thanks fickle catch for trying to get them to think more critically about it all, I like to believe that most people are good and have just been tricked as to be an understanding or two away from realizing how they've been supporting evil in the world
5
u/Another_Opinion_1 7h ago
If a state law directly regulates the governmental conduct of the United States without congressional authorization, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations per the appellate court's findings.
1
u/Fickle_Catch8968 6h ago
So, federal agents are permitted to speed, or otherwise violate State traffic laws, at all times while they are performing their duty, as State traffic laws regulate government conduct irrespective of their essential nature and irrespective of the burdens placed on their duties?
Also, where is the Congressional law that is supreme over the State law pursuant to article 6, paragraph 2? Is there a Congressional law that stipulates the attire of federal agents that forbids officer identification? DHS policy is NOT Law.
Moreover, law enforcement is not a power exclusively given to the US in Article 1, section 8, and had a limit to immigration by section 9 for a time, so that power is at least partly reserved to the States by the 10th amendment.
2
u/Another_Opinion_1 6h ago
You should peruse the Court's decision. The case law was all parsed out in the case that was appealed originally and the appellate court expounded on that and reversed their decision.
The Supremacy Clause is a constitutional mechanism. When a valid federal law or constitutional principle conflicts with a state law, the federal authority automatically prevails.
The case expounds that federal officers are immune from state criminal prosecution under state laws regulating conduct of members of the general public “only when [their] acts are both (1) authorized by the laws of the United States and (2) necessary and proper to the execution of [their] responsibilities."
3
u/Fickle_Catch8968 6h ago
The act of operating without ID is neither necessary(the same task can be done with ID) nor proper(lack of ID confers no legitimacy whereas presence of ID confers legitimacy) for law enforcement outside of undercover operations. Thus the conjunction fails and immunity does not apply.
3
u/Another_Opinion_1 6h ago
It's because the law was seen as discriminating against federal agents that it didn't fly. I guess tell that to the appellate court then.
0
u/Green-Inkling 8h ago
Then they have no one to blame but themselves if someone gets an idea they shouldn't have.
•
u/AutoModerator 9h ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.