That is not true. State laws cannot interfere with the work of federal law enforcement, but can require certain behaviours.
Eg. States set speed limits. A federal LEO can break these when required for their duties (eg. chasing a suspect), but only when required (eg. if they are late for a meeting, they still have to obey traffic laws).
Body cameras do not seem to directly interfere with an LEO’s duty, unless “avoiding accountability” is literally their duty.
As usual most journalists are garbage LLM rewriters of other text by some source journalists who have also only heard it from someone else. You can tell because they cannot link the case or anything.
It must be related to this recent case
It is further ORDERED that all Federal Agents who are conducting immigration enforcement operations in the Northern District of Illinois, excepting those who do not wear a uniform or other distinguishing clothing or equipment in the regular performance of their official duties or are engaged in undercover operations in the regular performance of their official duties, that are currently equipped and trained with body-worn cameras (“BWCs”) shall activate them when engaged in enforcement activity unless exempted by CBP, ICE, or DHS policy.
a. The definitions of “body worn cameras” shall be as defined in DHS Policy Statement: Body Worn Camera: Audio/video/digital recording equipment combined into a single unit and typically worn on clothing or otherwise secured to a person, e.g., affixed to the outside of the carrier/tactical vest facing forward. DHS Policy Statement 045-07
A good journalist would have found out these things and then shared them and an exceptional one would have told us if there are subsequent policies of the DHS that have changed the BWC procedure. And they could perhaps explain why the DHS cannot simply change the policy instead of fighting in court.
Oh dear NO. The poor wittle federal agents surely cannot handle hearing (reading) such AGGRESSIVE language as the word "must" as they drag human beings from their homes as citizens protest.
What an absolute travesty and dereliction of duty!
They aren’t police. They’re federal agents. Where in the law, specifically, are they required to wear body cameras? What’s the legal argument, apart from the judge arbitrarily deciding this, for them to wear body cameras?
Judges can order all sorts of things they deem are reasonably necessary to enforce their rulings or the law. Injunctive relief can take a huge variety of things so long as it's narrow and directly applicable to the case before them.
You'd be hard pressed to find "wear bodycameras" to be an out of scope form of relief for a case about police brutality, dishonesty in court, and lack of accountability.
You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.
> You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.
So just to be clear you’re both advocating for judges to act outside the law when they issue orders, and are simultaneously claiming this isn’t judicial activism?
There should be an internet law for “Just to be clear you’re saying… <inject OP’s own bad faith interpretation>”
No, I’m saying that you fundamentally misunderstand the role of courts, judges, and judicial orders.
The law says “follow the law as written.” Judicial orders necessarily encompass a much, much broader set of types of relief that give courts more levers to compel people to follow the law and to ensure that they actually do it.
This is just how courts work and it always has been. This literally predates the United States by hundreds of years.
Assuming there’s some good faith curiosity behind the curtain here, the concept you want to look up is “equity jurisdiction.”
Again, what law is there that is applicable to federal agents and requires body cameras? Be specific. A federal judge doesn’t make laws. They interpret and apply existing laws.
They're federal agents, not presidential mercenaries. When you work for the federal government, you must obey checks-and-balances even if you don't agree with the politics. We have a whole Watergate scandal to prove it.
Washington D.C. is an at-will employment state. If they feel violated because their job requires a bodycam, they can take their vast litany of talents to any private enterprise that's willing to pay for their retinue. Nobody should go to jail because they don't want to wear a bodycam, after all.
A judge needs to remain calm and neutral. Behaving like an angry child means they aren’t fit for the job. And also, their earlier order didn’t include that. Which is why she literally edited the formal written order now.
The judge is angry here because the US government indicated it agreed to these conditions during the oral hearing on the order, and is now arguing that it doesn't need to abide by what it orally agreed to because it's not in the written order.
Other episodes like that, not to mention the pattern of the US government outright fabricating stuff in its legal writings, make it clear that the Trump administration is openly contemptuous of the court's authority, and the DoJ by extension has that its primary policy now. The government's lawyers are finally being treated with the respect normally accorded to those contemptuous of the court's authority.
Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances.
I find that bringing all the details in the light is a great way to root out corruption. And it's quite telling of your attack of anti-corruption technology and orders. Tells me what I need to know about you.
> Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances.
No true Scotsman
> Tells me what I need to know about you.
Ad hominem
-
But leaving these logical fallacies aside, I bet you can’t make any coherent argument about “fascism” because there is no clear definition for this word - other than simply labeling anything right of socialist as “fascist”. This gaslighting no longer works, and is why Trump was able to win again.
The check and balance you’re looking for is in the law already - if one side wants body cams for federal agents they can win Congressional seats and pass a law around it. If they want to change administrative policy they can win a presidential election.
But letting people violently attack federal agents and then trying to hamper operations in the court is just lawfare and judicial activism at best, and directly enabling terrorists at worst.
Police and politicians often says that if I am doing nothing wrong, I should not be afraid of being watched. But when police is watched, it is suddenly a big problem...
The SAFE-T act of 2021 requires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFE-T_Act "all law enforcement agencies to use body cameras by 2025". This is alongside research that indicates it is beneficial and cost-effective https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20533586-cl_bwc-stud...
The judge's insistence may come from other times that a judge's order has been ignored https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-admin-ignores-judges-order-b...
The act you’re referring to is Illinois statute and doesn’t apply to federal agents.
Except a state law does and cannot force federal law enforcement to do anything, no matter how good of an idea body cameras may be.
That is not true. State laws cannot interfere with the work of federal law enforcement, but can require certain behaviours.
Eg. States set speed limits. A federal LEO can break these when required for their duties (eg. chasing a suspect), but only when required (eg. if they are late for a meeting, they still have to obey traffic laws).
Body cameras do not seem to directly interfere with an LEO’s duty, unless “avoiding accountability” is literally their duty.
But is a federal judge ruling on federal agents, and in the case of the national guard seems to be under control of the state? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12406
I wasn't addressing the ruling by the judge, only the poster commenting on a state law, suggesting it's applicability here.
As usual most journalists are garbage LLM rewriters of other text by some source journalists who have also only heard it from someone else. You can tell because they cannot link the case or anything.
It must be related to this recent case
It is further ORDERED that all Federal Agents who are conducting immigration enforcement operations in the Northern District of Illinois, excepting those who do not wear a uniform or other distinguishing clothing or equipment in the regular performance of their official duties or are engaged in undercover operations in the regular performance of their official duties, that are currently equipped and trained with body-worn cameras (“BWCs”) shall activate them when engaged in enforcement activity unless exempted by CBP, ICE, or DHS policy.
a. The definitions of “body worn cameras” shall be as defined in DHS Policy Statement: Body Worn Camera: Audio/video/digital recording equipment combined into a single unit and typically worn on clothing or otherwise secured to a person, e.g., affixed to the outside of the carrier/tactical vest facing forward. DHS Policy Statement 045-07
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71559589/66/chicago-hea...
And here’s the policy statement https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/23_0522_opa_...
A good journalist would have found out these things and then shared them and an exceptional one would have told us if there are subsequent policies of the DHS that have changed the BWC procedure. And they could perhaps explain why the DHS cannot simply change the policy instead of fighting in court.
[flagged]
Oh dear NO. The poor wittle federal agents surely cannot handle hearing (reading) such AGGRESSIVE language as the word "must" as they drag human beings from their homes as citizens protest.
What an absolute travesty and dereliction of duty!
Requiring police to wear and use body cameras is judicial activism to achieve...?
They aren’t police. They’re federal agents. Where in the law, specifically, are they required to wear body cameras? What’s the legal argument, apart from the judge arbitrarily deciding this, for them to wear body cameras?
Judges can order all sorts of things they deem are reasonably necessary to enforce their rulings or the law. Injunctive relief can take a huge variety of things so long as it's narrow and directly applicable to the case before them.
You'd be hard pressed to find "wear bodycameras" to be an out of scope form of relief for a case about police brutality, dishonesty in court, and lack of accountability.
You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.
> You clearly haven't spent much time around courtrooms if you think judges can only create orders that are "follow the law as already written." It's an obviously silly idea when you actually write it out.
So just to be clear you’re both advocating for judges to act outside the law when they issue orders, and are simultaneously claiming this isn’t judicial activism?
There should be an internet law for “Just to be clear you’re saying… <inject OP’s own bad faith interpretation>”
No, I’m saying that you fundamentally misunderstand the role of courts, judges, and judicial orders.
The law says “follow the law as written.” Judicial orders necessarily encompass a much, much broader set of types of relief that give courts more levers to compel people to follow the law and to ensure that they actually do it.
This is just how courts work and it always has been. This literally predates the United States by hundreds of years.
Assuming there’s some good faith curiosity behind the curtain here, the concept you want to look up is “equity jurisdiction.”
> They’re federal agents
It's a federal judge. If those agents don't want to listen, then they don't deserve the honor of serving America's people.
Again, what law is there that is applicable to federal agents and requires body cameras? Be specific. A federal judge doesn’t make laws. They interpret and apply existing laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_law
They're federal agents, not presidential mercenaries. When you work for the federal government, you must obey checks-and-balances even if you don't agree with the politics. We have a whole Watergate scandal to prove it.
Washington D.C. is an at-will employment state. If they feel violated because their job requires a bodycam, they can take their vast litany of talents to any private enterprise that's willing to pay for their retinue. Nobody should go to jail because they don't want to wear a bodycam, after all.
Ofc the tone is aggressive. You want a judge to just say 'oh well' when their orders are not followed?
A judge needs to remain calm and neutral. Behaving like an angry child means they aren’t fit for the job. And also, their earlier order didn’t include that. Which is why she literally edited the formal written order now.
> A judge needs to remain calm and neutral. Behaving like an angry child means they aren’t fit for the job.
If you applied that standard, the entire current administration would be gone.
Agree.
The judge is angry here because the US government indicated it agreed to these conditions during the oral hearing on the order, and is now arguing that it doesn't need to abide by what it orally agreed to because it's not in the written order.
Other episodes like that, not to mention the pattern of the US government outright fabricating stuff in its legal writings, make it clear that the Trump administration is openly contemptuous of the court's authority, and the DoJ by extension has that its primary policy now. The government's lawyers are finally being treated with the respect normally accorded to those contemptuous of the court's authority.
Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances.
I find that bringing all the details in the light is a great way to root out corruption. And it's quite telling of your attack of anti-corruption technology and orders. Tells me what I need to know about you.
> Only MAGA sycophants and fascist adjacents would not want appropriate checks and balances.
No true Scotsman
> Tells me what I need to know about you.
Ad hominem
-
But leaving these logical fallacies aside, I bet you can’t make any coherent argument about “fascism” because there is no clear definition for this word - other than simply labeling anything right of socialist as “fascist”. This gaslighting no longer works, and is why Trump was able to win again.
The check and balance you’re looking for is in the law already - if one side wants body cams for federal agents they can win Congressional seats and pass a law around it. If they want to change administrative policy they can win a presidential election.
But letting people violently attack federal agents and then trying to hamper operations in the court is just lawfare and judicial activism at best, and directly enabling terrorists at worst.
Police and politicians often says that if I am doing nothing wrong, I should not be afraid of being watched. But when police is watched, it is suddenly a big problem...
It's harmless and enforces accountability.
[dead]
[flagged]