[huitzitziltzin]

This feels like a “break glass in case of emergency” kind of moment. Sure there are no details yet, but I’m trying to imagine details which would make me think “that arrest makes sense.” If I were in Milwaukee I’d be in the streets.

[rgreeko42]

The copper that connects the alarm lever to the alarm system was sold for scrap 25 years ago

[guywithahat]

Generally speaking, if you lie to cops or other federal agents you can be arrested on a number of grounds, including obstruction of justice, interfering with an arrest, or concealment.

The dumb part about this is the judge sends people to jail ever year for doing exactly this. She knew what he was doing was illegal, she just didn't care.

[dekhn]

Depends- if the judge directed agents from their subjects for a lawful reason, then no, there is no cause for arrest.

[soulofmischief]

None of this is happening in a vacuum. Our federal government is completely compromised by a violent, oligarchical ruling class, and so are many state and local governments. Elected and unelected officials are breaking law and convention left and right.

Generalities help no one here but the oppressors.

[intermerda]

Yeah Schindler should have been arrested too. Too bad a law breaker has been so celebrated in history.

[MisterBastahrd]

If that immigrant is there, then they're going to have to show up to the court proceedings. The time to intercept said person is directly after the hearing takes place, but these morons have no problem interrupting a hearing to take someone into custody. This is about the executive trying to walk all over the judicial branch.

[sixothree]

He was literally in the courthouse. It's not like he went out the back entrance.

edit: maybe he did go out of the back entrance? But the video I have seen of his arrest definitely looks like it was the inside of a courthouse.

[mindslight]

Correct. By the article's details, it does not seem that the judge lied to the agents but rather told them some inconvenient step they had to perform per the Court's jurisdiction. Trump's Schutzstaffel can put on their big boy pants and make grownup decisions like whether they all need to run in one direction like Keystone Cops, or whether maybe someone should remain following their target. In the best case it sounds like they were idiots who didn't like the repercussions of their own actions. In the likely case, they deliberately did the stupid thing so they'd have a pretext to attack the judge and push us even further into strongman authoritarianism.

[MyOutfitIsVague]

The J6 pardons make it exceptionally clear that they aren't interested in enforcing any laws. It's abuse of the legal system for their benefit.

[kashunstva]

> They are enforcing the law, finally.

That is far from clear. The facts are emerging slowly; so the sequence described below may ultimately be inaccurate… but, ICE agents interrupted a court hearing. The judge presiding over the hearing asked the agents to leave. When they returned, the subject whom the ICE officers were seeking had already left. Is there a law that compels a judge (or anyone, for that matter) to remand someone sought by ICE to their custody? I genuinely don’t know, but were I put in a similar situation I would not hand anyone over to ICE custody given their terrible human rights history. Laws be damned; they and the administration whom they represent are moral failures.

[xpe]

I think the claim underneath the comment above is that immigration laws have been not been enforced or unevenly been enforced. On principle, advocating for a consistent application of the law seems sensible. This goes along with advocating for the rule of law.

Let's talk about justice, too. Many people believe true justice transcends any particular instantiation of the law at any particular point in time. If so, advocating for the consistent application of all laws can only be truly just if the laws are just.

Look at present circumstances. Reporting has shown that Trump is doing extraordinary rendition: removing people without due process. And not bringing them home after admitting the mistake. Once this reality is factored in, where is the justice in consistently applying a law in order to extrajudicially render a person?

Clearly, the Trump administration has a double standard regarding the rule of law and the role of the judiciary.

Note: this comment surely needs another draft, but I'm running out of time. I welcome all criticism.

P.S. At the risk of surfacing even more complexity, even if a system were to consistently apply one set of criteria, such as ICE's authority to arrest, it is likely that other criteria apply; namely, allocating personnel in a way that best carries out their overall mission. It is my (educated) guess that practical concerns (such as resource limitations) is one of the reasons courts give administrative agencies considerable flexibility in what laws they enforce.

[jibal]

What law are they enforcing?