Minnesota

Andrew Weissman and Mary McCord delve into recent legal and constitutional controversies in Minnesota, focusing on the tragic shooting of Mr. Preddy by ICE agents. They discuss the federal government's obstruction of state investigations, including allegations of evidence destruction, and the broader implications of federal overreach under Operation Metro Surge. The hosts critique a leaked ICE memo authorizing home arrests with administrative warrants, highlighting Fourth Amendment concerns. They also address a federal judge's frustration with ICE's noncompliance with court orders, and the resignation of an unlawfully appointed U.S. attorney in Virginia, underscoring ongoing tensions between federal and state jurisdictions.

• The podcast focuses on the tragic shooting of Mr. Preddy in Minneapolis and the subsequent legal and factual issues.
• The federal government attempted to block state and local investigators from conducting their own investigation.
• An emergency motion was filed to prevent the federal government from destroying evidence related to the incident.

"There's so much that has happened that it's almost hard to figure out what order to put it in. But obviously we will start with the absolutely tragic shooting of Mr. Preddy in Minneapolis on Saturday morning."

• This quote highlights the complexity and gravity of the situation surrounding the shooting of Mr. Preddy.

• The federal government quickly labeled Mr. Preddy and other individuals as domestic terrorists without conducting an investigation.
• Senior officials did not intervene to halt these premature conclusions.
• Legal actions have been initiated, including a class-action suit challenging unconstitutional actions against protesters.

"The administration, with no investigation at all, immediately in both situations, came to the defense of the federal agents."

• This quote underscores the lack of due process and immediate defense of federal agents without proper investigation.

• Eyewitnesses and video evidence contradict the federal government's narrative of the incident.
• Witnesses and journalists, including Don Lemon, were involved and provided testimony that challenges the official account.
• Videos and eyewitness statements suggest Mr. Preddy was not armed and was trying to help others when he was shot.

"The man tried to help up the woman the ICE agent had shoved to the ground. That is the last thing that Mr. Preddy did on this earth."

• This quote provides a poignant depiction of Mr. Preddy's final actions, contradicting claims of aggression.

• There is a conflict between federal and state authorities regarding the investigation and preservation of evidence.
• The federal government restricted access to evidence and witnesses, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.
• Proper crime scene procedures were allegedly not followed by federal agents.

"Local and state investigators were forbidden from accessing evidence and accessing the witnesses."

• This quote highlights the obstruction faced by local authorities in conducting a thorough investigation.

• The incident has sparked broader legal debates about immigration enforcement and the use of administrative warrants.
• A chief judge in Minnesota has ordered DHS officials to appear in court due to non-compliance with court orders regarding bond hearings.
• The federal government's handling of protesters and journalists has also come under legal scrutiny.

"DHS has not been obeying court orders to give people who have been arrested bond hearings."

• This quote indicates ongoing legal challenges and the federal government's non-compliance with judicial orders.

• The podcast aims to slow down the narrative and provide an overview of the legal and factual issues at play.
• The hosts emphasize the need for a thorough investigation and accountability at all levels of government.
• Upcoming legal proceedings and investigations will be critical in determining the outcomes of these events.

"Our job now is to slow this down and try and give you an overview of some issues that have been concerning us and then to highlight key legal things that have happened and then what we're looking at."

• This quote encapsulates the podcast's mission to provide clarity and insight into the complex legal landscape surrounding the incident.

• The discussion centers around the jurisdictional conflict between federal and state authorities when investigating crimes involving federal officers.
• States have a legitimate interest in investigating crimes committed within their borders, even if federal officers are involved.
• Historical instances show federal authorities often claim precedence in investigations, potentially limiting state access to evidence.

"Let's assume that the agent just committed absolute cold-blooded murder. And in the course of doing this... a true investigation, you want the investigation first before you reach that conclusion."

• This quote emphasizes the necessity for thorough investigations before conclusions are drawn, highlighting the state's right to investigate crimes within its jurisdiction.

"It is simply not the case that the state has no interest and has to stand down if there is a state crime that's been committed."

• The quote underscores that states maintain the right to pursue investigations into crimes, even those involving federal agents.

• Federal authorities sometimes assert control over evidence in cases involving federal agents, potentially hindering state investigations.
• The federal government may prioritize its investigation, which can lead to conflicts with state-level investigations.

"It's not completely unheard of that the federal government says, you know, we have the primary interest here, we're going to go first."

• This quote reflects the common practice of federal authorities asserting primary control over investigations, which can complicate state efforts to pursue justice.

"We're not doing an investigation and we're not giving you access."

• This statement highlights situations where federal authorities may not only assert precedence but also restrict state access to critical evidence.

• The handling of investigations involving federal officers raises concerns about adherence to policies, laws, and constitutional provisions.
• Judges may be skeptical of federal claims to adhere to policies due to past violations.

"You've been violating not just policies, but laws and the Constitution now for months and months."

• This quote points to a lack of trust in federal authorities' adherence to policies, laws, and constitutional norms.

"The court's patience is at an end... there's been so many repeated violations of court orders."

• The quote indicates judicial frustration with ongoing violations by federal authorities, impacting the credibility of their commitments.

• States can pursue criminal charges against federal agents if evidence supports such actions, with cases potentially being moved to federal court.
• The legal process involves determining whether federal agents acted within their official capacity and adhered to constitutional standards.

"If the evidence is there and the state has it, they can seek a grand jury indictment of federal agents."

• This quote highlights the state's ability to pursue legal action against federal agents when justified by evidence.

"The state prosecutors go with the case. They're just sitting now in federal court, not in state court."

• The quote explains that state prosecutors maintain their role in cases moved to federal court, with state law still applying.

• Minnesota and its cities are challenging federal immigration enforcement actions, citing excessive force, racial profiling, and violations of the 10th Amendment.
• The legal argument posits that federal actions disproportionately target Minnesota for political reasons, violating equal sovereignty principles.

"The state and the cities are saying, look, this is in violation of the 10th Amendment... to protect public safety."

• This quote outlines the states' argument that federal actions infringe on their constitutional rights to manage law enforcement and public safety.

"You're targeting Minnesota because of Minnesota's policies... and that is not treating states equally."

• The quote suggests that federal enforcement actions are politically motivated, undermining the principle of equal treatment among states.

• Judges face complex legal and factual questions in these cases, requiring careful consideration to ensure correct rulings.
• The unique and unprecedented nature of these cases challenges conventional legal frameworks.

"If I had a front burner on my front burner, that's where this would be."

• This quote reflects the urgency and importance judges attribute to these cases, emphasizing the need for thorough and timely decisions.

"It's novel and unique because this hasn't happened."

• The quote highlights the unprecedented nature of the legal challenges, necessitating careful judicial analysis.

• Discussion centers on the conflict between the Supremacy Clause, which establishes federal law as supreme, and the 10th Amendment, which grants states rights to police power within their own states.
• The unprecedented situation arises from federal enforcement tactics that are perceived as reckless and unconstitutional, impacting state law enforcement's ability to protect constituents.

"We have that clashing with the state's 10th Amendment rights to the police power, power within its own state."

• Highlights the tension between federal authority and state rights in the context of law enforcement.

• A letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi to Governor Walls is described as an "extortion letter," demanding Minnesota share records, repeal sanctuary policies, and allow federal access to voter rolls.
• The demands are seen as a federal overreach and an attempt to coerce state compliance with federal immigration enforcement.

"It says that if you do three things, we will consider pulling ICE out or at least reducing ICE and CBP's presence in this surge."

• The letter is seen as a coercive tactic to enforce federal immigration policies by threatening state autonomy.

• The federal government's demands are viewed as attempts to commandeer state resources and policies, which is legally questionable.
• The judge questions the validity of linking immigration enforcement with voter data, seeing it as unrelated and coercive.

"How can you say this is a valid immigration enforcement when you're perfectly happy to withdraw immigration if you get voter data?"

• The judge challenges the rationale behind the federal demands, suggesting they are more about coercion than legitimate enforcement.

• The situation highlights a shift in the Republican Party's stance from states' rights to prioritizing red states over blue cities.
• The federal tactics are seen as inconsistent with traditional conservative values of respecting state sovereignty.

"It used to be about sovereign states and respecting states rights. It is now about respecting red states."

• The shift in political priorities is noted, with federal actions targeting blue cities within red states.

• The judge orders supplemental briefing on whether federal actions are meant to punish states for sanctuary policies and coerce changes in state law.
• The case is separate from another involving protesters detained by federal authorities, which has also faced legal challenges.

"The court finds that additional briefing on this issue is necessary because it was explored most clearly in the reply and, and in light of recent factual developments."

• The judge's order for additional briefing indicates the complexity and significance of the legal issues at hand.

• A whistleblower reveals an ICE memo allowing the use of administrative warrants for home arrests, which is a significant policy change.
• The memo's secrecy and limited distribution suggest awareness of its controversial nature.

"It did not go out to, to all ICE personnel. It was kept under wraps and people were allowed to see it but not keep it."

• The secrecy surrounding the memo indicates potential legal and ethical issues with the policy change.

• The memo raises constitutional concerns about the use of administrative warrants without judicial oversight.
• The discussion emphasizes the distinction between executive and judicial authority in immigration cases.

"The Department of Homeland Security is saying that it's enough if the executive branch has made the determination."

• The reliance on executive determinations rather than judicial oversight is seen as problematic and potentially unconstitutional.

• Immigration judges are part of the executive branch, not the judiciary (Article III).
• The executive branch, under the current administration, claims control over all its components, limiting perceived independence.
• Decisions regarding immigration enforcement are made within the executive, lacking judicial oversight.

"Any immigration judge is just part of the executive branch."

• Immigration judges operate within the executive, not the judicial branch, impacting their neutrality.

"This is just the executive branch saying we want to do it. And so there's no oversight."

• The executive branch makes immigration decisions without external checks, raising concerns about fairness and neutrality.

• To arrest someone in their home, a judicial arrest warrant is required, not just an administrative one.
• The Fourth Amendment mandates a neutral and detached judge to issue warrants, ensuring checks on executive power.
• The constitutional protection of homes under the Fourth Amendment is recognized across the political spectrum.

"If you want to go into the home to arrest somebody...you have to have an arrest warrant."

• Entering a home for an arrest requires a warrant, emphasizing the protection of personal privacy.

"The framers of the Constitution correctly said that the executive branch needs to have checks and balances and they cannot be judge and jury."

• The Constitution mandates separation of powers to prevent executive overreach.

• The Fourth Amendment applies to everyone in the U.S., regardless of citizenship status.
• Claims that non-citizens have fewer Fourth Amendment rights are not supported by current law.
• Diluting constitutional protections for non-citizens could inadvertently affect citizens.

"The fourth Amendment applies under current law to everyone in the United States."

• Constitutional protections extend to all individuals in the U.S., ensuring equal rights.

"If you water down the Constitution that way, it's going to hurt all of us."

• Weakening constitutional protections for non-citizens could undermine rights for everyone.

• A case in Minnesota highlighted unusual government appeals against magistrate judges' decisions on arrest warrants.
• The government sought higher court intervention without traditional judicial processes, raising concerns about transparency and fairness.
• The chief judge in Minnesota expressed the unprecedented nature of such appeals and the need for careful consideration.

"Every judge apparently said to him, no, that's never happened before."

• Judges found the government's appeal process unprecedented, indicating a deviation from norms.

"The US Government then went up secretly and filed a petition for Ridda mandamus in the 8th Circuit."

• The government pursued extraordinary legal measures secretly, bypassing usual judicial procedures.

• ICE's non-compliance with court orders led to significant hardships for affected individuals.
• The chief judge in Minnesota ordered ICE's acting director to explain the agency's actions in court.
• The judge emphasized the human impact of ICE's failures to comply, including prolonged detentions and logistical challenges for detainees.

"The court's patience is at an end."

• The judge expressed frustration with ICE's repeated non-compliance with court orders.

"The practical consequence of respondents failure to comply has almost always been significant hardship to aliens."

• ICE's actions resulted in severe hardships for individuals, highlighting the need for accountability.

• In Virginia, an unauthorized appointment of a U.S. attorney led to legal challenges and eventual resignation.
• The judiciary intervened to ensure lawful appointments and prevent unauthorized individuals from acting as federal prosecutors.
• The case underscored the importance of adhering to legal procedures in government appointments.

"The judges were concerned, saying that this is a form of fraud."

• The judiciary viewed unauthorized appointments as fraudulent, necessitating corrective action.

"It is, though, remarkable, remarkable that it took this long."

• The delay in addressing unauthorized appointments raised concerns about oversight and enforcement.