ICE is making a lot of inappropriate arrests in state courts. here and elsewhere. But only because our elected and appointed officials let them. They have no right to be in a state courthouse. The state controls who can be there. It has the absolute right to do so, under the 10th amendment, so long as that doesn’t interfere with the basic rights of the people, such as freedom of speech of a public trial (and the right to a public trial is something the defendant always has a right to waive when it suits his/her interests). Regardless of the public’s general right to be there, the courts can always restrict otherwise lawful activities permitted in their courthouses. For example, most ban cameras and cell phones without prior permission.
So why not ban ICE? They have no legal right to be there. They are there only at sufferance of the state government. If they want to stand on a public sidewalk and arrest people, that’s their right. But the courthouse and its grounds can and should be restricted to legitimate court business only. Contact your legislators and ask them to prohibit ICE raids on our courthouses.
Leave a Reply
5 Comments on "ICE Has No Right to be in State Courthouses. Keep Them Out."
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Interesting question. I’m not sure I agree with the argument, though.
But you also have the supremacy clause of the US Constitution along with the federal government being specifically charged with enforcing immigration and naturalization, so while I sympathize on the merits it’s not open and shut constitutionally.
Yes it is. Feds can make whatever laws they want. This doesn’t stop them from doing that. It does stop them from using state property and resources to do it. Without a warrant, which ICE never has, they need the property owner’s consent or they’re not there legally.
That’s an interesting, and probably valid, argument. I’d never thought of a state having the right to demand a warrant for its property the way a private owner would.
It seems like the argument is that, lacking a distinct legal right means there exists, or should be made to exist, a distinct legal bar…. a slightly more contorted iteration on the absolutist power dynamic “everything not forbidden is compulsory.”
I don’t think it works that way.
On the issue of search warrants, the state does not ‘own’ the land. It is public property. We own it. The state can regulate use of it for public safety and other such concerns but cannot demand a warrant for access to it.
I don’t like what the ICE is doing. It’s probably ‘wrong’ in a moral/ethical sense. So don’t read this as a defense of their position. It may even be wrong in a legal sense, but without being a lawyer I wonder if the issues are less tangent to 10th amendment grounds and more having to do with habeus and due process? Those are tricky, and even more so with non-citizens…