No. They said he can activate the NG but they can only protect federal buildings which is why everywhere they’re deployed they’re just circling around a handful of buildings.
Paywall, if you want to support the times provide the relevant text and we can talk about it though what is available before the block specifically says it isn’t final quick means its lawfulness is indeterminate.
It means the racial profiling got a rubber stamp, and “we will figure out the legality later.”
No one is saying they determined it was legal. They simply hand waved the issue in the short term.
Think of it like this. If cops started arresting people for saying “I don’t like cheese” and the cases got to the Supreme Court, and they said “nah it’s all good keep doing it until we hear arguments on it” that would be akin to what happened here.
I’m sorry that just isn’t how the legal system in this country works.
Even if the court said “come on stop it guys” it would have no legal force until it’s clearly established which is generally after finality ie. all appeals are exhausted or expired.
I’m sorry, what? Are you confused as to how things get to the Supreme Court? It’s here because of an appeal.
Lower courts said “yeah no, this shit is illegal, stop it” and the Supreme Court said “well we are going to look at this, so you can keep doing things the way you were until we do.”
The Supreme Court could also have said “well, we are going to look at this, so you have to stop until we do.”
Using your logic, they shouldn’t be doing it because a lower court ruled it illegal.
Didnt the supreme court literally green light this?
well a court did but IDK if I’d call them supreme, they human like us, hint hint nudge nudge
No. They said he can activate the NG but they can only protect federal buildings which is why everywhere they’re deployed they’re just circling around a handful of buildings.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/us/politics/supreme-court-immigration-racial-profiling.html
Paywall, if you want to support the times provide the relevant text and we can talk about it though what is available before the block specifically says it isn’t final quick means its lawfulness is indeterminate.
It means the racial profiling got a rubber stamp, and “we will figure out the legality later.”
No one is saying they determined it was legal. They simply hand waved the issue in the short term.
Think of it like this. If cops started arresting people for saying “I don’t like cheese” and the cases got to the Supreme Court, and they said “nah it’s all good keep doing it until we hear arguments on it” that would be akin to what happened here.
That answer is no.
I’m sorry, did they say “no you have to stop” or did they say “yeah you can keep going” because only one of those happened.
I’m sorry that just isn’t how the legal system in this country works.
Even if the court said “come on stop it guys” it would have no legal force until it’s clearly established which is generally after finality ie. all appeals are exhausted or expired.
I’m sorry, what? Are you confused as to how things get to the Supreme Court? It’s here because of an appeal.
Lower courts said “yeah no, this shit is illegal, stop it” and the Supreme Court said “well we are going to look at this, so you can keep doing things the way you were until we do.”
The Supreme Court could also have said “well, we are going to look at this, so you have to stop until we do.”
Using your logic, they shouldn’t be doing it because a lower court ruled it illegal.