The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a federal statute that forbids encouraging illegal aliens to remain in the U.S. unlawfully in a decision Thursday.
The Supreme Court justices voided an earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled that a federal anti-harboring statute was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated the First Amendment by restricting free speech. The ruling by the nation’s highest court Thursday upholds the law.
3 Likes
This is a good decision, but I still fail to understand why the supreme court needed to rule on this in the first place. Isn’t that obvious it’s a crime? The law says so.
1 Like
So now it’s official and final - all those Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States are breaking the law. Which we all knew to be the case to begin with but now it can’t be appealed. So what’s next for these criminals? More federal bailout money or prison? I hope it’s the latter because that’s what would happen if you or I were to break the law.
2 Likes
We already have all the laws we need on this issue. It’s enforcement that’s the problem and always has been.
2 Likes
Now it’s time to jail the 9th circuit.
2 Likes
Well, enforcement now has the green light, no excuses as there are no more places to go!
To rational people yes, but the ninth circuit is packed with activists instead of judges and they never uphold the law…
1 Like
This is related to section 1324 of title 8 of the US code which makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here.
It’s the same law that should be used to imprison Obama as DACA certainly encouraged illegals to live here.
2 Likes
Ginsberg must have just got confused. She probably thought she was outlawing being a US Citizen - or she and her fellow activist judges are starting to fall back into sanity now that Trump admin is moving against the traitors.
1 Like
No over the years I’ve seen where she got it right. Sometimes coming at expense of follow conservatives.
1 Like
Maybe she’s deciding with an 8-ball now?
In my opinion, when she charged a fee for her services is where she overstepped her free speech grounds.
Even as an ardent Libertarian, one could see this.
Furthermore, one wonders whether giving advice to specific people on how to commit an illegal activity should be illegal, or falls under free speech protections.
I personally am on the side of free speech protections, due to it being a slippery slope, but current precedent fairly clearly establishes it is not.
Attorneys at least can lose their license to practice if they help clients set up illegal schemes.
There’s also the question about whether she may have misled them about their prospects after applying to get that certification, which if it is the case is borderline fraud.
While I’m not very concerned about the outcome of this specific case, I am very concerned the rulings in these type of cases could set a very disturbing precedent for free speech.
The Supreme Court should have been a lot more careful and cautious how they wrote their opinion.
And not a fucking thing will be done about it . We have in excess of 30, 000,000 hiding in plain sight in our Country and law enforcement can touch them . State have passed laws to protect them and hindered ICE at every step , hell even judges are protecting them from ICE .