00:00Hi.
00:00Hi, I'm Lynn Valdez, KNX.
00:02I wanted to share some really quick things.
00:04I want you to comment on the two main sources of the way that the temporary restraining orders,
00:12you know, ICE agents can come back into L.A.
00:15and basically part of the community is where they are, what it would look like, their language.
00:21Yeah, and would like to and happy to answer any on-topic questions as well,
00:27but let me talk about that.
00:28I know it's top of mind for so many, including us in the California Department of Justice,
00:33who, as you know, we were an amicus in the underlying case here in the Central District of California
00:38that the ACLU led and in which a trial court judge found that it violated the Fourth Amendment
00:44for ICE agents, federal immigration officers to use race, the inability to speak English, location,
00:55or perceived occupation to use those factors in any one of them or in any combination
01:03to stop and detain, search, seize Californians.
01:11And I agree with that case.
01:13I thought it was well written, well supported by the law and the facts.
01:21And the federal government, of course, appealed that case,
01:25and the Ninth Circuit did not grant the federal government's request for stay.
01:32But then they went to the Supreme Court on what's called the U.S. Supreme Court,
01:35on what's called the emergency docket, and today we got word that on the emergency docket,
01:40on a 6-3 decision it appears, the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed, provided an emergency stay on this case.
01:52And so it's disappointing.
01:54And the emergency docket has been used more and more.
02:00You often don't know who has voted how and for what reason.
02:06There's no argument.
02:09There's no written opinion.
02:11There's no statement by judges as to justices regarding where they stand and why they stand where they do.
02:19We did get a little glimpse into some thinking with a concurrence by Justice Kavanaugh
02:25on the emergency opinion, as well as a dissent by Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Brown.
02:44And so, Jackson, excuse me.
02:46And so, we don't know the reason that the six judges decided on this.
02:56We may never know.
02:57But we do know, because he told us, Justice Kavanaugh's decision.
03:02And it's very disturbing.
03:03And I think Justice Sotomayor sort of captures where it leaves us, if you follow Justice Kavanaugh's decision,
03:13again, which might not be the majority's rationale.
03:17And she says,
03:18We ought not live in a government or in a nation where the government can seize you because you appear Latino,
03:28because you speak Spanish,
03:31or because you appear to have a low-wage job.
03:36And I couldn't agree more.
03:38We shouldn't live in a country like that.
03:40And that's what the lower court's decision was about,
03:43making sure that we don't live in a country like that.
03:46And we'll see what happens next.
03:53This is, you know, an emergency petition.
03:55The U.S. Supreme Court could have stayed out of it
03:57and allowed the lower court proceedings to continue,
04:04but they decided that they wanted to weigh in.
04:06I'll also acknowledge that the U.S. Supreme Court has recently said
04:09that you can't consider race in college admissions
04:13when it could be one factor among many
04:18to tackle historical discrimination,
04:20to address personal racial discrimination in an applicant's life.
04:25You can't consider it.
04:27But you can consider race
04:31when in a city like L.A.,
04:35where there are so many Latino Californians
04:40lawfully present following the law,
04:45you can use race as a factor to discriminate
04:48potentially against Angelenos and Californians based on race.
04:53So how they prevent the use of race to tackle discrimination
04:56but allow the use of race to potentially discriminate
04:58is disturbing and it is troubling.
05:01So those are some of my thoughts on the opinion.
