Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

Menu

Subscriptions

Drudge Retort RSS feed RSS Feed

Links

Recent Comments

Recent comments from all news stories on this site. Users must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you want to retrieve a comment of yours that was recently deleted, visit your user page and click the Moderation link.

Google Maps is calling it Lake America

www.google.comontario/@42.6406835,-86.9670012,6z?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDgzMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

www.freightwaves.com

This a long and hard to understand article written by an expert on freight, compliance, and how freight moves in this country and his take on what Lankford's bill does and doesn't do.

It's hard to understand unless you have a high level of understanding of how our government regulates over the road trucking.

Re 59

Dang.. Well that did not print out the way I expected.

So I will try again with the "specifics".

There are so many of them.

Federal courts have ruled thousands of times that ICE has broken or failed to follow three main areas of law:

1. The Fifth Amendment and Federal Immigration Statutes (Unlawful Mandatory Detention)A massive legal battle centers on ICE's policy of locking up undocumented immigrants indefinitely without a hearing.

The Violation: ICE has bypassed statutory requirements to grant bond hearings. In August 2026, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals became the eighth federal appeals court to rule that ICE's blanket mandatory detention policy violates both federal immigration law and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The Ruling: Courts have repeatedly held that individuals who have lived in the country for years have a constitutional right to a bond hearing before an immigration judge, which ICE attempted to strip away.

2. The Fourth Amendment (Warrantless Entries & Roving Patrols)

The Violation: ICE authorized its agents to use administrative warrants (documents signed by ICE itself, not a neutral judge) to enter private residences.

The Ruling: Legal organizations like the Brennan Center maintain this violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, which traditionally requires a judicial warrant to enter a home. Furthermore, federal judges have recently blocked ICE roving patrols in regions like Southern California, ruling that stopping people simply based on racial profile or appearance violates the Fourth Amendment.

3. Judicial Orders and Contempt of Court

The Violation: In over 4,400 rulings, federal judges have ordered ICE to release specific individuals who were jailed illegally or to stop certain enforcement tactics.

The Ruling: Federal judges in jurisdictions like Minnesota and California have formally rebuked ICE for outright defying judicial authority"ignoring valid court orders to release detainees or transferring them away before a judge's order could take effect.

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy