A recent ruling by a Chicago-area judge, which bans Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from making arrests inside courthouses, is facing sharp criticism from legal analysts. Critics argue that the judge may be overstepping his judicial authority, as immigration enforcement falls under federal jurisdiction. This restriction on ICE's operations could potentially lead to a major constitutional conflict between state and federal law. Experts are cautioning that the judge's interference with federal jurisdiction could expose him to legal challenges.
🚨 ATTENTION: To any government agency or operative monitoring this account: I am an American Citizen. My activity on this platform is a direct exercise of my First Amendment right to Free Speech . I am not organizing, promoting, or engaging in political violence. I am exercising my right to speak out about government actions, alleged corruption, and perceived abuse, and I maintain my right to attend PEACEFUL assemblies to advocate for change. Any attempt by a U.S. government entity (including law enforcement, intelligence agencies, or operatives using surveillance or fake accounts) to: Spy on or track my lawful political speech. Gather information to falsely claim a law is being broken. Engage in entrapment based on my expression of dissent. ...is a direct and illegal violation of my Constitutional rights. The recent National Security Presidential Memorandum NSPM-7 —which critics fear is redefining legitimate opposition as "domestic terrorism" an...