ICE agents can be arrested over unlawful actions, Chicago judge rules
www.newsweek.com
A federal judge says ICE broke the law with warrantless arrests—and officers who do it again could face charges.

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.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      17·
      1 month ago

      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

    • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      302·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 month 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.

      • FatCrab@slrpnk.net
        5·
        1 month 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.

      • finitebanjo@piefed.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 month 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.

  • mhague@lemmy.world
    3·
    1 month ago

    What does it mean for cops to arrest paramilitary?

    It sounds like it will be many contests: who can shout louder and bring more guns to bear? Who gets confused first, who gets shot first?

    It’s a bunch of barely trained cops who can hardly handle policing armed citizens and now they’re gonna handle ICE? They’ll need to be careful and deliberate.

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    121·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      6·
      1 month ago

      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.

        • bear@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          11·
          1 month ago

          You would probably get beaten or tortured, and then charged with assaulting a federal officer. That’s one to 20 years in federal prison.

          Also threats against law enforcement, such as making terroristic threats or harassment, especially if it endangers the agent or their family. Potentialy harassment, conspiracy if someone identifies the officer, and obstruction of justice.

          Basically dictatorship consequences.

          • reddifuge@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 month ago

            You Americans always default to face down ass up whenever there is the slightest danger.

            You can only arrest people that want to be arrested.

    • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      25·
      1 month ago

      If the cops perform the job as is typical, they’ll just yell “he’s got a gun” and shoot them.

      • BingBong@sh.itjust.works
        28·
        1 month ago

        You know, if it’s ICE on the receiving end instead of a random black guy I’m pretty happy with that improvement.

        • Sunflier@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          711·
          1 month ago

          Well, if a cop didn’t have qualified immunity, then the assault and kidnapping required to effectuate an arrest would make arrests impossible. I mean, an arrest is an assault. Cops physically restran the person with handcuffs. It is a kidnapping because cops are taking taking the arrestee against their will.

          • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
            18·
            1 month ago

            The issue isn’t qualified immunity in general, it’s the courts unwillingness to actually enforce its disqualification when there is clear evidence, even evidence cited in other trials in some cases.

          • neatchee@piefed.socialEnglish
            1·
            1 month ago

            The problem isn’t the concept of qualified immunity, it’s the implementation and application.

          • finitebanjo@piefed.worldEnglish
            8·
            1 month ago

            I don’t really agree with the scope of qualified immunity, but I agree with you that they need to be able to restrain and arrest people. I also agree that the FBI have at times in the past been the ones who investigate cops, sometimes very successfully, but I also want there to be serious reforms that hold cops more accountable given how unreliable federal agencies are every time leadership changes.

            A cop should never get leniency for murdering an unarmed civilian, such as DeValkenaere serving a commuted 6 year sentence, for example. I think if anything we need to hold them to even higher standards than ordinary citizens, to deter anybody who isn’t passionate about putting their lives on the line to protect and serve.

            Sorry for just popping in to drop a whole page of moral philosophy, like that. Just wanted to add to this discussion.

  • Jaysyn@lemmy.world
    48·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • AxExRx@lemmy.world
      20·
      1 month ago

      Hell deputize every citizen (including membets of local PDs) to police ice- and effectively youve taken away their sovereign and qualified immunities.

  • theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world
    1691·
    1 month ago

    unlawful actions

    Uhhh… those are called crimes.

    I’m sorry, were ICE agents just entirely above the law before this ruling???

    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      90·
      1 month ago

      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?

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
        37·
        1 month ago

        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”.

          • Scubus@sh.itjust.works
            2·
            1 month ago

            Yep, thats a gang based on hate who obscure their members. Seems like something the national guard should be called in for.

            • finitebanjo@piefed.worldEnglish
              2·
              1 month ago

              You’re not gonna believe this, but the national guard was called in for it. By the gang, to help the gang.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          4·
          1 month ago

          Many cities were doing this from the beginning. Whenever you read the term “sanctuary cities” it was really just a promise not to help.

          Local police are not allowed to assist federal agencies enforce their policies unless it is a crime locally. You can even argue this prevents turf wars and conflicts of authority. States rights y’all

          Local prisons are not allowed to detain people that have not been legally convicted of something that is a crime locally. You can argue this protects state resources being exploited by unfunded federal mandates. States rights y’all

          But no, it’s a YUGE jump to actively interfere, even if it is to enforce laws against federal agents.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      29·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        6·
        1 month ago

        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

    • danc4498@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      1 month ago

      Supreme Court said Donald could not be arrested for committing crimes as president. I think we’re just a step away from them giving immunity to Donald’s personal police.

    • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
      2·
      1 month ago

      There’s a difference between an action that is part of the penal code that includes specific punishments, and actions that a government agency/worker doors not have authority to perform. Some of these overlap, but not all

    • burntbacon@discuss.tchncs.de
      8·
      1 month ago

      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.