No. of Recommendations: 1
Lambo,
Not sure why you're so angry all the time?
Federal court decisions are generally complex, nuanced, and oftentimes, ambiguous and self-contradictory things.
That's why preliminary decisions, before a full fledged merits hearing or trial, are not deemed "binding precedent."
While I have not personally read the underlying court decision, one of the issues concerning certain courts' possibly overreaching behavior is when they attempt, in advance, to dictate the procedure of federal/executive branch agencies.
Generally speaking that is not the proper role of the courts, certainly not as the basis for a preliminary decision prior to a full hearing or trial on the merits.
Conventionally, courts are to decide "actual cases and controversies" between adverse parties litigating an actual, ripe dispute.
So, in the particular case, if let's say ICE uses excessive force or illegally discriminates to detain someone, there is an "actual case or controversy" and the court needs to determine if the person's rights were violated and if so the appropriate remedy.
However, that is far different from a court--again, before a full merits hearing or trial--preemptively restricting the ambit of operations of an entire federal agency.
I apologize in advance if this post is not emotional enough to satisfy your need for stimulation.
I will therefore assume you will self-stim as per your standard operating procedure.
