Ian Millhiser

And if I were Jonathan Ross's attorney, I could argue the opposite.

Like that's really vague language that the Supreme Court handed down in Martin.

And so I don't know.

what the correct answer is to the question of whether or not Ross can be prosecuted in state court.

Because the only thing I've got to work with is this extraordinarily vague line from the Supreme Court about things that are necessary and proper to federal responsibilities.

Yeah.

No, I mean, they are they are correct that there is, in fact, selective law enforcement in the Trump administration.

You know, Trump had a very different reaction to the January 6 offenders, some of which endangered federal law enforcement officers a whole lot more than Renee Good did.

So, yeah, I mean, there's no question here that the Justice Department is behaving in a political manner and it's a serious problem.

Like, you know, for many, many years, there were very strong norms saying that even though the Justice Department is part of a presidential administration, prosecutorial decisions should be made by civil servants for neutral legal reasons and not for political reasons.

And that norm has just completely broken down under this president.

Right.

I mean, the short answer to that is probably not.

And that is somewhat by design.

So there used to be several legal mechanisms that could be used to deal with police abuse or, you know, overreaching federal agencies.

But the Supreme Court has been chipping away or even taking away the most effective means to do so.

Okay.

So broadly speaking, I wrote a piece recently where I discussed five different ways that lawsuits could be used against an agency like ICE.

So let's start with the most obvious one, which is injunctions.

So the court isn't just saying you got to pay money because you did something bad in the past.