this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
887 points (99.7% liked)

politics

26151 readers
2883 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The decision issued October 7 by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings extends court oversight of the agency until February 2, 2026, and warns that officers who disregard the order could face contempt or criminal referral.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 29 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Because police officers have qualified immunity.

This ruling only means something if SCOTUS upholds the arrest and conviction. It's an improvement, don't get me wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

[–] FatCrab@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago

This ruling is important because it finally brings to the floor that it is not at a valid presumption that local cops cannot enforce the law on federal agents. In the last year, the narrative that "herpaderp supremacy clause means states and cities can't do anything to enforce law on someone claiming to be a fed" has so normalized a totally unproven and unsupported extension of the supremacy clause that it's become hard to even bring this up in municipal conversations.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Qualified immunity does not and never has protected anyone in law enforcement from arrest or prosecution for committing a crime. It protects law enforcement personnel from being sued over damages they cause during the course of their duties, provided that the execution of said duties did not violate anyone's constitutional rights.

[–] finitebanjo@piefed.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

ICE are not police and SCOTUS are not state or local authorities. If ICE can be categorized as police then they should be required to get real warrants from local judges and attorneys, but they don't.

They don't even get warrants before taking action, period. They generate warrants after the fact.