"Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence in the major racial profiling case that was decided on the Supreme Court's shadow docket last week, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, is wrong on the facts. It's also wrong on the law, and he writes like a man who knows that he's never going to be stopped by law enforcement for the color of his skin or the quality of his English."
"Dahlia Lithwick: Justice Kavanaugh, in his concurrence of oneAnd just to reiterate, we have factual findings in this case. This is what a civil rights lawyer does-constructs a meticulous record in order to say, "Judge, this is happening." The judge says it's happening, the 9th Circuit says it's happening, but Brett Kavanaugh has some feelings. And his feelings are clear in his breezy characterization of what an encounter with a roving ICE patrol looks like."
Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo minimizes recorded factual findings and endorses expanded immigration enforcement authority. A civil rights record and the Ninth Circuit found evidence of roving ICE patrols engaging in stops and inquiries consistent with racial profiling. Kavanaugh's reasoning treats reasonable suspicion as permitting brief stops solely to inquire about immigration status, increasing the risk of invasive enforcement against lawful residents and citizens. The concurrence normalizes a prerogative-state approach that targets vulnerable outsiders and could sweep millions of lawful residents and U.S. citizens into Immigration and Customs Enforcement's expanding enforcement dragnet.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]