A judge denied Minnesota's ambitious request — a day after Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were arrested. But, in Texas, a judge orders 5-year-old Liam Ramos and his dad released.
January has really been a slog! I’m glad of the details about the Menendez ruling you explained. It doesn’t seem as awful as just the headline would indicate. All this jockeying! But then, it’s heartwarming to know that Liam and his dad are going home! Thank you for writing this explanation so that non-lawyers can know what’s going on.
Adding a note to Chris' description of the Lemon/Fort indictments, they are signed by DC political appointees, and by Dan Rosen, the US Attorney for Minnesota. Rosen's background is 30 years in commercial litigation; apparently he has no experience in criminal prosecution or defense.
Thank you very much for the article - would really like to know how the Minnesota plaintiff argument could’ve been strengthened. What were the holes?
Are there other cases being brought?
Really perplexed that the idea of the whole quota system cannot be challenged in court or that the majority of the people who have been taken away and detained do not have criminal records.
What arguments could be brought to illustrate more clearly the barbaric handling of these masked thugs? How can any of this be lawful, their blocking streets, raiding houses without warrants, entering schools and businesses and shopping places, their constant use of violence, the lack of due process? They’re taking people who have no criminal record, taking them even from the courts that are giving them due process.
Certainly not a lawyer, but I am greatly disturbed by :
“Menendez: “ Based on the record before the Court, a factfinder could reasonably credit that Plaintiffs’ sanctuary policies require a greater presence of federal agents to achieve the federal government’s immigration enforcement objectives than in a jurisdiction that actively assists ICE”
That is a troubling, troubling statement, what ‘record’, what ‘factfinder’? What facts are they trying to find? Those to prove the position of the feds claiming there are so many criminals and lawlessness in Minneapolis, in Minnesota? The ‘federal government‘s immigration enforcement objectives’ are themselves an abomination, there is evidence of their abomination every day!
As a lay person. I cannot understand - this sounds like blatant, ignoring of what these ‘objectives’ really are.
How is it possible that she states
“arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear”?
Is that a hint to make things clearer?
Or is this judge wrapping herself in a legal bubble or something worse?
Once again, we see a federal court - the real guardrails these days - following the law whereas the DoJ, as per Chief Judge Patrick Schlitz, glibly doesn’t.
Judge Biery's written decision has to be one of the all-time greats among district court decisions. I love the subtlety of his reference to John 11:35. Without saying more, he issues a crushing indictment of the Trump administration's disastrous policy and invokes the power of one of the most important lines in the gospels: Jesus wept.
Journalism isn’t “under attack” any more than democracy was “under attack” on January 6. That framing is lazy and dishonest. What’s happening here is conduct enforcement, not viewpoint suppression. Owen Shroyer got 60 days from the Biden DOJ for trespassing outside the Capitol. Don Lemon entered a restricted space inside a church. Same offense class, worse facts. Equal justice means equal outcomes. If the Trump DOJ is serious about neutrality, Lemon should get exactly what Shroyer got: 60 days. The only real debate is whether there should be enhancements, not immunity-by-press-badge. Journalism does not confer a license to trespass. Laws still apply.
A church is "restricted space"? Now *that* is some lazy framing. And if not dishonest, certainly disingenuous. It's an evangelical branch of Christianity church, is it not? Aren't they supposed to be seeking converts? Doors are open to all. Is it members only? (That would probably interfere with tax exempt status). Did all attendees have to present an ID to enter? No? Why would Lemon or Fort be any different?
It's not "lazy framing." It's natural law, the fundament of common law and the constitution:
1 Corinthians 3:17: “If anybody should destroy the temple of God, God will destroy that person, because God’s temple is holy; and you are that temple.”
I'm confused, from what you said, I thought you were going to cite some binding law that applied here? If we're citing the Bible, I think we can find some pretty useful guidance regarding treatment of the stranger in another country.
I think I'm going to remember that quote. The next time some transphobe wants to deny needed health care to a trans person, I will tell them that they are destroying the temple of God.
As for its use here, I recall the line from "Pilgrims Progress" that says "The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose."
January has really been a slog! I’m glad of the details about the Menendez ruling you explained. It doesn’t seem as awful as just the headline would indicate. All this jockeying! But then, it’s heartwarming to know that Liam and his dad are going home! Thank you for writing this explanation so that non-lawyers can know what’s going on.
Adding a note to Chris' description of the Lemon/Fort indictments, they are signed by DC political appointees, and by Dan Rosen, the US Attorney for Minnesota. Rosen's background is 30 years in commercial litigation; apparently he has no experience in criminal prosecution or defense.
Rosen's office is seriously understaffed on both the criminal and civil sides. "The office is supposed to have 50 criminal prosecutors on staff, but at the moment, there are only “about 17 prosecutors” left, ...." https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2026/01/28/minnesota-ice-law-enforcement-crisis-column-00750137
Thank you on Menendez, Chris
Thank you very much for the article - would really like to know how the Minnesota plaintiff argument could’ve been strengthened. What were the holes?
Are there other cases being brought?
Really perplexed that the idea of the whole quota system cannot be challenged in court or that the majority of the people who have been taken away and detained do not have criminal records.
What arguments could be brought to illustrate more clearly the barbaric handling of these masked thugs? How can any of this be lawful, their blocking streets, raiding houses without warrants, entering schools and businesses and shopping places, their constant use of violence, the lack of due process? They’re taking people who have no criminal record, taking them even from the courts that are giving them due process.
Certainly not a lawyer, but I am greatly disturbed by :
“Menendez: “ Based on the record before the Court, a factfinder could reasonably credit that Plaintiffs’ sanctuary policies require a greater presence of federal agents to achieve the federal government’s immigration enforcement objectives than in a jurisdiction that actively assists ICE”
That is a troubling, troubling statement, what ‘record’, what ‘factfinder’? What facts are they trying to find? Those to prove the position of the feds claiming there are so many criminals and lawlessness in Minneapolis, in Minnesota? The ‘federal government‘s immigration enforcement objectives’ are themselves an abomination, there is evidence of their abomination every day!
As a lay person. I cannot understand - this sounds like blatant, ignoring of what these ‘objectives’ really are.
How is it possible that she states
“arguments as to motivation and the relative merits of each side’s competing positions are unclear”?
Is that a hint to make things clearer?
Or is this judge wrapping herself in a legal bubble or something worse?
Thank you for all your work. I’m curious about possible legal consequences of Bondi making extreme allegations and comments in writing.
Well, it was discussed at the Monday arguments — https://www.lawdork.com/p/challenging-the-unprecedented-operation — and it definitely mattered to Menendez, but it wasn’t enough to control the outcome.
Deplorable conclusions reached by the federal judge! 🤬
Once again, we see a federal court - the real guardrails these days - following the law whereas the DoJ, as per Chief Judge Patrick Schlitz, glibly doesn’t.
Re Lemon et. Al.: Ham sandwich. Inept prosecution will fail. They know it. This is harassment of the highest order.
Judge Biery's written decision has to be one of the all-time greats among district court decisions. I love the subtlety of his reference to John 11:35. Without saying more, he issues a crushing indictment of the Trump administration's disastrous policy and invokes the power of one of the most important lines in the gospels: Jesus wept.
Journalism isn’t “under attack” any more than democracy was “under attack” on January 6. That framing is lazy and dishonest. What’s happening here is conduct enforcement, not viewpoint suppression. Owen Shroyer got 60 days from the Biden DOJ for trespassing outside the Capitol. Don Lemon entered a restricted space inside a church. Same offense class, worse facts. Equal justice means equal outcomes. If the Trump DOJ is serious about neutrality, Lemon should get exactly what Shroyer got: 60 days. The only real debate is whether there should be enhancements, not immunity-by-press-badge. Journalism does not confer a license to trespass. Laws still apply.
https://flgulfnews.com/no-sanctuary-for-don-lemon/
A church is "restricted space"? Now *that* is some lazy framing. And if not dishonest, certainly disingenuous. It's an evangelical branch of Christianity church, is it not? Aren't they supposed to be seeking converts? Doors are open to all. Is it members only? (That would probably interfere with tax exempt status). Did all attendees have to present an ID to enter? No? Why would Lemon or Fort be any different?
Logic still applies, here.
It's not "lazy framing." It's natural law, the fundament of common law and the constitution:
1 Corinthians 3:17: “If anybody should destroy the temple of God, God will destroy that person, because God’s temple is holy; and you are that temple.”
Once you start quoting the Bible as fact, you've lost your case.
I'm confused, from what you said, I thought you were going to cite some binding law that applied here? If we're citing the Bible, I think we can find some pretty useful guidance regarding treatment of the stranger in another country.
I think I'm going to remember that quote. The next time some transphobe wants to deny needed health care to a trans person, I will tell them that they are destroying the temple of God.
As for its use here, I recall the line from "Pilgrims Progress" that says "The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose."
Sunny days in Legoland …