Reposted by Michael Ellery
RAMPELL: “.. I initially assumed this must have had some boring technical explanation—until I talked to the experts and learned just how truly insane the story is.”
@crampell.bsky.social
www.thebulwark.com/p/europe-gol...
![Excerpt from ruling:
“Bluntly put, why the Court ruled as it did remains unclear-and without reasoning,
this order cannot even be considered as persuasive. Second, Justice Kavanaugh's conclusion that the plaintiffs lacked standing in Perdomo rested on the claims asserted in that case specifically, plaintiffs there sought to enjoin defendants from targeting individuals for immigration stops based on certain factors, such as race or ethnicity, their accent, and the type of work they did. Id. Justice Kavanaugh reasoned that plaintiffs in Perdomo likely lacked standing under Lyons, as defendants may "stop suspected illegal immigrants based on a variety of factors," and thus "plaintiffs ha[d] no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop them in the future" based "only on [prohibited] factors." Id. at *3 (emphases in original). In contrast, this case concerns an entirely different context, namely, civil immigration arrests rather than immigration stops, which were at issue in Perdomo, and a different type of challenge. Specifically, plaintiffs are not arguing which factors defendants may consider in their application of a legal standard, but rather contend that defendants have abandoned the proper legal standard entirely. See Pls.' Reply at 8. Thus, Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in Perdomo, to the extent it has persuasive, let alone controlling, authority, is inapposite.”](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:jech7rem6vijss4euf4fijao/bafkreidy2tm2mkrt4kkxcnhlmc6uess22cabrg7b5juyauqoolvoqd7teu)
