
Judge temp bar on federal officers from using force, threats, dispersal: journos - aspenmayer
https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/07/judge-inclined-to-restrain-federal-law-enforcement-from-using-force-threats-dispersal-orders-against-journalists-legal-observers.html
======
aspenmayer
The ruling:

[https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7001472/Oregon-
TR...](https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7001472/Oregon-TRO-
Federal-2020-07-23.pdf)

[https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20200720809](https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20200720809)

Some judges are taking a rather dim view of the events in Portland, it seems.
To wit:

> The temporary restraining order that [U.S. District Judge Michael H.] Simon
> issued for federal law enforcement is similar to one he granted earlier this
> month governing Portland police, except for one major difference that allows
> for _individual federal officers or supervisors_ to be held liable if they
> intentionally disregard his ruling.

[Italics added for emphasis]

Original title was too long. It was:

Judge temporarily bars federal officers from using force, threats, dispersal
orders against journalists, legal observers

~~~
salawat
Is there even precedent for that?

I mean, don't get me wrong; I dig the thought behind it, but is this actually
something a judge can unilaterally do from the bench? Like, is this reversal
of a reversal of a precedent, or have things gotten so heated the Judiciary is
starting to flex some checks and balances muscle, and push the boundaries of
their normally light touch with regard to pushing back against the Executive?

Be interesting to see how it turns out. I wager the Supreme Court will have to
earn their keep this year.

~~~
droidno9
This is a decision granting plaintiffs' motion for a Temporary Restraining
Order. Yes, federal judges can issue TROs against federal agencies which, in
this case, are DHS and US Marshals Service. Precedent cited in the decision is
Winter v. Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) [A SCOTUS
decision.]. The court's analysis considered the following: (1) [plaintiff] is
likely to succeed on the merits; (2) [plaintiff] is likely to suffer
irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of
equities tips in [plaintiff]'s favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the
public interest. (It's slightly confusing, but the court is treating this
motion for TRO the same way as a motion for preliminary injunction.)

In the end, the court found for the plaintiffs and thus it issued a TRO for 14
days, unless extended (or overturned).

Of course, the federal agencies may choose to ignore a federal judge's order.
But the federal judiciary doesn't take lightly to that transgression, and it
would be a career limiting move for any federal agent, from cabinet-level
officials down to foot soldiers, to ignore the judge's order.

~~~
salawat
Thanks, I thought I understood it, I was just hoping someone else would also
reach the same conclusions. I delve into these types of thing only as a pass
time, so I wasn't sure if I was reading it correctly. It just seems so
bizarre.

I never imagined the Judiciary would back or merit an order that essentially
infringes on the Executive's prerogative to operate. As I understood it, the
Judiciary could rmdismiss cases brought by the Executive as a check, but not
outright tell the Executive how to operate via restraining order. That seems a
little too "legislating from the bench" for what my detectors are tuned for
right now.

What a strange time.

------
bluehazed
Who will enforce this? The police? There's nobody interested in enforcing such
an order.

~~~
JamesLeonis
The courts understand that they (and the Police) have a legitimacy problem. As
legitimacy deteriorates, the number and size of protests increases, which can
reach a tipping point where there aren't enough police to push back.

This is _exactly_ the problem we faced in Iraq as our tactics only increased
the size and power of the insurgency.

> disregard or violate the order will be considered a violation of “a clearly
> established constitutional right” and therefore won’t shield the officer
> through the legal doctrine of qualified immunity.

Revoking Qualified Immunity is the lede.

~~~
aspenmayer
> Revoking Qualified Immunity is the lede.

Thanks for catching this! I can’t believe they buried it; that belongs in the
headline, I would think, but it was already contextually overloaded as it is.

