second. now i m going to you ask the question that the judge has asked both sides to respond to. and it said, would a finding that at least one but not all of the overt acts charged occurred under the color of meadow s office be sufficient for a federal removal of a criminal prosecution under section 28, united states code 1442-a1. how do you read that. i don t know what the words mean. so take this anywhere you like erk let s unravel this. kudos to the staff because they ve been sending me things to speed read. i find this fascinating and just revealed myself as a law geek because i find this fascinating. first of all, what we could glean from the fact that judge jones is asking the party this question. we could glean that there is no binding legal authority, there is no appellate court precedent
exact same language. laura: you can find a district court judge as we ve seen in all these challenges to the president s temporary travel ban, so many other moves, you can did find a district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction thwarting the president s policy for a short time there is not a single judge in california that was appointed by a republican. laura: that s got to change quite frankly the statute is not ripe. laura: ripe, meaning. law geek sorry about that ripe meaning it s premature. the things that are supposed to happen. laura: haven t happened yet that are gonna cause harm to california haven t happened and may not happen. laura: all you law students out there it is not a ripe case or controversy hence the court should step back if we had a fair court the real question is when a nationwide injunction gets issued, i don t doubt it will, how quickly the supreme court is going to block than junction.
time, my former boss clarence thomas. explain the ruling for us. it s 36 pages long. folks watching don t want the legalese but want the bottom line. good news. sanctuary cities in arizona are still illegal if you re interfering with federal enforcement of federal immigration law, being be prosecuted and citizens can bring suit against you. that s very good. i love good news first. second thing, very deep in a footnote but the second thing is what the judge enjoined or stopped effectiveness of is the requirement that every law enforcement official in arizona enforce federal law. they still have the discretion to enforce federal law. this is key. this isn t a footnote. a lot of people will miss this. you re a law geek. they buried in the dirty stuff. what you re saying basically is if the police want to ask somebody about their immigration status, they can. but they can t be required too under this preliminary junction. that s right. her argument is if every single law enf
time, my former boss clarence thomas. explain the ruling for us. it s 36 pages long. folks watching don t want the legalese but want the bottom line. good news. sanctuary cities in arizona are still illegal if you re interfering with federal enforcement of federal immigration law, being be prosecuted and citizens can bring suit against you. that s very good. i love good news first. second thing, very deep in a footnote but the second thing is what the judge enjoined or stopped effectiveness of is the requirement that every law enforcement official in arizona enforce federal law. they still have the discretion to enforce federal law. this is key. this isn t a footnote. a lot of people will miss this. you re a law geek. they buried in the dirty stuff. what you re saying basically is if the police want to ask somebody about their immigration status, they can. but they can t be required too under this preliminary junction. that s right. her argument is if every single law enf
thomas. explain the ruling for us. it s 36 pages long. folks watching don t want the legalese but want the bottom line. good news. sanctuary cities in arizona are still illegal if you re interfering with federal enforcement of federal immigration law, being be prosecuted and citizens can bring suit against you. that s very good. i love good news first. second thing, very deep in a footnote but the second thing is what the judge enjoined or stopped effectiveness of is the requirement that every law enforcement official in arizona enforce federal law. they still have the discretion to enforce federal law. this is key. this isn t a footnote. a lot of people will miss this. you re a law geek. they buried in the dirty stuff. what you re saying basically is if the police want to ask somebody about their immigration status, they can. but they can t be required too under this preliminary junction. that s right. her argument is if every single law enforcement was required to,