By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Several developments have emerged from the Trump administration and its allies, including U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli facing scrutiny for allegedly disregarding the Justice Manual in protest-related cases, and a former immigration judge who claims to have been pressured to dismiss cases. Additionally, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order. Furthermore, Columbia University reached a $200 million settlement with the federal government over alleged anti-discrimination violations. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to fire three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Read the original article here
LA Grand Juries Are Refusing to Indict ICE Protestors, and that’s a really interesting development. It seems that these grand juries in Los Angeles are declining to indict individuals who have been protesting against ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. This isn’t just a random occurrence; it points to a larger picture, and it’s one worth unpacking.
One major factor is the recognition of First Amendment rights. The grand juries appear to understand that civil protest is a protected right under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. This suggests that they are carefully considering the context of the protests and the actions of the protestors, recognizing that many of their actions fall under protected free speech. This stands in stark contrast to attempts by some to undermine the protections afforded by the Constitution, particularly the First Amendment.
The underlying sentiment here is that the government might be trying to push these cases into the expensive court system, not necessarily because the government has a strong case, but rather to financially and mentally exhaust those involved. The grand juries, in their refusal to indict, may be seeing through this.
Furthermore, the standard for an indictment in a grand jury is actually much lower than that needed for a conviction at trial. The fact that these grand juries are refusing to indict suggests a significant lack of evidence to support the charges. Some people believe the prosecutors are trying to move cases that should not even be in court to begin with. It seems that grand juries are recognizing that the cases presented to them are often weak or that the evidence is insufficient to warrant an indictment.
The nature of the evidence itself also plays a role. Much of the evidence against protestors might come from ICE agents themselves. Without independent corroboration, like video evidence from phone cameras or reporters, there may not be enough to support the charges. The situation is complicated by the fact that ICE agents don’t always wear body cameras, making it difficult to independently verify their claims. Without sufficient, credible evidence, it’s understandable that grand juries would hesitate to indict.
Another key aspect is the perception of the protesters’ actions. The phrase “did nothing wrong” comes up, which suggests that the juries may believe the protestors were not actually breaking the law. There is a sense that these are people just doing what is constitutionally protected.
Additionally, there is a general distrust of authority, or at least, in the actions of ICE and the government more broadly. The comment “Americans fundamentally do not respect MAGA and their lies,” reflects a broader sentiment about the current political climate and a skepticism towards claims made by those in power.
The fact that the grand juries are refusing to indict is also not “jury nullification”. It is not about the jury actively disregarding the law. It is simply them saying, “there’s not enough evidence here for a crime to have been committed.” They are doing the fundamental duty of a grand jury, which is to investigate and only indict with sufficient evidence.
The idea is that the grand jury system is designed to prevent the government from bringing “specious” or unsubstantiated criminal charges for political reasons. In this case, the grand juries are acting as a safeguard against potential overreach by the government.
Some believe this trend is a testament to the power of the people to counteract unjust laws and actions, suggesting that the grand juries are wielding their power in a responsible way. This speaks to the core principles of the American legal system, where the jury is a vital check on the power of the government. This should be celebrated, as it underscores the importance of a justice system that prioritizes evidence and protects constitutional rights.