885
This needed a fucking ruling?!
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
885 points (99.7% liked)
politics
26151 readers
3317 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It does, unfortunately.
"If any of you local or state law enforcement decide to grow a spine: the state courts have your back."
Reminder: Federal judges can deputize as many citizens as they need to enforce a ruling and there are about 80k well trained, freshly fired park rangers that may want to assist with that.
Hell deputize every citizen (including membets of local PDs) to police ice- and effectively youve taken away their sovereign and qualified immunities.
And started a universal basic income!
Arrest ICE. They regularly use false or no plates on their vehicles - it would be a slam-dunk case, since the police can just read the plates to see if they are real. Once arrested, the masks go off and the criminal histories will be open for all to see. In this fashion, Blue States can delegitimize federal traffickers, and further prosecute the Trump Regime in the courts of public opinion and state law.
Trump is gonna be pissed if he ever understands this.
I’m sure the racist pigs will get right on arresting the racist pigs
Turf wars are a thing with law enforcement agencies.
Not even just agencies. I used to live in a small town whose PD was in a feud with the PD of the next town over. It was hilarious (in a sad way) how they would keep busting each other for DUI in each other's towns.
Honestly, government agencies holding each other accountable by jealously guarding their own powers and independence to operate is how a government of checks and balances SHOULD operate.
It's when those proverbial small town cops start teaming up and refusing to hold each other accountable that the public needs to start worrying. For the US, that point is about 25-30 years ago though.
“no one who wears the badge of public safety should be able to abuse their power or break the law.”
Lololol
load more comments
(2 replies)
unlawful actions
Uhhh... those are called crimes.
I'm sorry, were ICE agents just entirely above the law before this ruling???
Still are.
Sure, the ruling says they CAN be arrested for doing illegal things. But are they going to be? Cop sees ICE beating down a brown person. Is the cop going to run over and arrest them?
Or will they assist ICE?
Depends on the city, and their leadership. Some cities have already directed their police specifically not to assist ICE. Not a huge jump from there to "treat them like a regular civilian".
I'm just hoping they wake tf up and move on to "treat them like a hostile faction."
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I'm sorry, were ICE agents just entirely above the law before this ruling???
Police, by default, are thanks to Qualified Immunity. It takes a judge and a shit ton of evidence to waive that inherent protection. Even for situations where the officers were violating constitutional and statutory rights, and even someone with a severe mental handicap would know clearly that those actions were illegal.
Qualified Immunity is such bullshit.
No, technically they’re not. Cops could always be arrested for unlawful actions. And “qualified immunity” includes the word “qualified”.
This is Just like the the literal/figurative debacle: for some reason people are good with redefining a word as it’s opposite. literal now means figurative. “Qualified” now means “complete”
This is a start because it declares federal agents are the same, but as long as qualified immunity means complete immunity it’s only limited help in restoring law
Uhhh… those are called crimes.
Sort of. In most places, they will be the same, but in legal terms for law enforcement, "unlawful" really means that it isn't permitted by the law. The action might not be criminal, as in there is a law forbidding it. Again, in most places that means the actions are illegal, because of laws that criminalize the violation of a person's civil rights, but that's not always the case.
load more comments
(5 replies)
The day a non-right-wing judge or politician orders the arrest of a right-wing federal agent or paramilitary is the day everyone learns the left has no law enforcement power.
There is a good reason the Canadian Liberals used financial instruments when dealing with the convoy protests and didn't just order the RCMP or police to stert arresting people.
Bruh the police literally did show up in the end and it was a whole fuckin’ thing. It was livestreamed even, you can find video of it. Now, there was a problem with absolute fucking moron leading the Ottawa Police at the time but he was removed shortly afterward.
I’m not saying we gotta start trusting police, but they’ll take most any excuse to go handcuff someone and exert power. They’re kinky like that.
We need militias to conduct citizen's arrests on these anti-constitution traitors.
We need militias to arrest the anti-constitition traitors who are sending them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why the fuck was that ever in question?
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.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Well I'd certainly hope so.
Could, but very unlikely they actually will.
Not many cops are going to go around arresting ICE agents for such things I don't imagine.
This is likely part of why they prioritize hiding their faces and other identifying information. Watch them struggling to arrest someone and they will let go of someone just to pull their masks back up. They are breaking a lot of laws, but if a court can't identify them, they can't be charged. Secret police above the law are a key part of a dictatorship.
I doubt any police are going to risk arresting them in the field anyway. Even if they could make the arrest without it dangerously escalating, Pam Bondi would gleefully call it treason or insurrection, and bring in an army.
They can't breathe with those masks. They would be so happy if we removed them for them.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Cops are explicitly motivated to keep other cops out of jail simply because it could happen to them too.
Citizen arrests are going to get messy.
Start collecting evidence
Arrest them on sight because they're imminently dangerous, organize the widely available evidence and bring charges after they've been secured in a cell
Cool. Let's start seeing some arrests of these motherfuckers.
If the cops perform the job as is typical, they'll just yell "he's got a gun" and shoot them.
You know, if it's ICE on the receiving end instead of a random black guy I'm pretty happy with that improvement.
Whatever..no one was sent to jail for Kent State murders.
view more: next ›