Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 11/19/2025 5:15:45 PM PST by kiryandil
A federal judge on Monday dismissed the Trump administration’s challenge to a New York law that blocks immigration arrests for people traveling to and from state courthouses.
U.S. District Judge Mae D’Agostino rejected the administration’s claims that New York’s restrictions create unconstitutional obstacles to immigration enforcement and are preempted by federal law.
“To hold to the contrary would improperly elevate the concerns of the federal sovereign over that of a State and deprive New York of its essential ability to protect its sovereign interests in the face of undue federal interference,” D’Agostino wrote in her 41-page opinion.
New York passed the Protect our Courts Act in 2020 after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) ramped up courthouse arrests during Trump’s first term, a shift from ICE’s previous policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Federal law Trumps state law.
Federal stooges trump Trump - or so the kings and queens of the federal courts think...
Appointed by: Barack Obama
yeah, that will get tossed on appeal.
Well, that judge’s decision qualifies for a hearty BFD. Just arrest them before they get inside the courthouse. It’s no different than the way we handled the policy that banned immigration enforcement in churches or schools.
Funny, when Bidet was in there Texas was told it was strictly a Federal issue.
When is this crap gonna stop??!!
I think she just declared the Supremacy Clause unconstitutional as it interferes with State’s Rights.
Are there NO judges who will uphold the Constitution?
Found in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made in accordance with it, and treaties are the supreme law of the land. This means that if a state law conflicts with a federal law, the federal law takes precedence. The clause is foundational to federalism and the doctrine of preemption, which allows Congress to override state laws either expressly or by implication when they conflict.
What if the judge defies the ruling?
When something is done about it.
Does she understand what the Supremacy Clause means?
“The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808,...”
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Federal Courthouse Gun-Free Zone
All guns strictly prohibited!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.