Emmanuel Malion

And that certainly would be contrary to what I think any court has found in the past.

Certainly it would be if the only thing that's occurring is that somebody is observing.

Certainly they're doing it from a distance that's not impeding an actual shooting.

So if there's an ICE arrest occurring and you're filming from 15 feet away and an agent approaches you and takes your phone, almost every court has found that that would be a violation of the observer's First Amendment rights.

And that's whether or not you're a citizen or not, if you're entitled to record the government in carrying out its duties.

And we understand one of the reasons why is because we want to ensure accountability.

accountability and transparency.

To the extent that the government is trying to hide what it's doing, it certainly doesn't engender any sort of confidence that they're following the law.

So there was a case that was filed in Los Angeles based on the also recent surge of ICE and immigration enforcement activity there.

There were claims of widespread racial profiling.

And that case is Vasquez-Perdomo versus Nome case.

And, you know, without getting into the complicated procedural history, essentially, the district court found that ICE was engaged in widespread racial profiling, particularly of Latino men.

And it said that they were using four different factors, one of them including apparent race or ethnicity, to determine who was going to be stopped and questioned about their immigration status.

This would seem to fly in the face not only of established precedent from a case called Wren versus the U.S., which explicitly said that race should have no bearing in the production of reasonable suspicion or probable cause when determining who to stop.

Now, Wren is not a great case for other reasons, but at a baseline, it said that, you know, race cannot be an objective reason to stop someone.

The case in Perdomo v. Noem was appealed by the government all the way up to the Supreme Court, which responded on its emergency docket.

And so it issued an unsigned opinion that essentially overturned temporary restraining order against ICE for engaging in that kind of conduct.

And the only insight that we got into why the Supreme Court did this came from

a 10-page concurrence written by Justice Kavanaugh, which was not joined by any other justice, but he went to great lengths to make the case for why using race, apparent race or ethnicity, is reasonable under the Constitution.

And I think that it was an opinion that really struck many scholars of policing, certainly immigration advocates, as a concerted effort to move the constitutional goalpost and when race and ethnicity is allowed to be