Exclusive By: Kanwal Abidi
WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security landed a major legal victory Monday morning when the Supreme Court issued a stay in the case of Perdomo v. Noem. The ruling allows DHS to continue carrying out immigration operations in the Los Angeles area.
“This is a win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “DHS law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members, and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor.”
The court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Trump Administration. With its decision, the court stayed a ruling by federal judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong in July blocking DHS from conducting immigration sweeps in Southern California.
To the mainstream media’s chagrin, there are no “indiscriminate stops” being made. The Supreme Court simply applied longstanding precedent regarding what qualifies as “reasonable suspicion” under the Fourth Amendment. What makes someone a target of ICE is if they are illegally in the U.S. DHS enforces federal immigration law without fear, favor, or prejudice.
In his opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s discussed the federal government’s duty to enforce immigration laws on the books and the fact that the Judicial Branch does NOT make those laws:
- “The fact remains that, under the laws passed by Congress and the President, [illegal aliens] are acting illegally by remaining in the United States – at least unless Congress and the President choose some other legislative approach to legalize some or all of those individuals now illegally present in the country. And by illegally immigrating into and remaining in the country, they are not only violating the immigration laws, but also jumping in front of those noncitizens who follow the rules and wait in line to immigrate into the United States through the legal immigration process.”
- “[I]t is also important to stress the proper role of the Judiciary. The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities. It should come as no surprise that some Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict. Article III judges may have views on which policy approach is better or fairer. But judges are not appointed to make those policy calls.”
