logo
Lawmakers are right to try to bar ICE agents from hiding their identities

Lawmakers are right to try to bar ICE agents from hiding their identities

The images are jarring. Across the country, federal law enforcement officers in plain clothes and wearing ski masks and balaclavas are seizing and detaining protesters, students and even elected officials. These scenes evoke images of government thugs in violent regimes disappearing opponents.
This is not how policing should look in a democratic society. Which is why everyone — regardless of political affiliation or stance on immigration enforcement — should support bills being introduced in Congress to address this growing problem. Three pieces of legislation — under consideration or expected soon — would prohibit masking by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, including one Thursday from Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) and one expected Friday from Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). These are obvious, common-sense measures that shouldn't need to be codified into law — but given the reality today, and what's being done on streets across the country, they clearly do.
In the United States, those tasked with enforcing the law are public servants, answerable to the people through their elected representatives. Wearing uniforms and insignia, and publicly identifying themselves, are what make clear an officer's authority and enable public accountability.
That is why U.S. policing agencies generally have policies requiring officers to wear a badge or other identifier that includes their name or another unique mark, like a badge number. That is why — not so long ago — one of us wrote a letter on behalf of the Justice Department to the police chief in Ferguson, Mo., to ensure that officers were readily identifiable during protests. This letter was sent by the federal government, in the middle of the federal civil rights investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, because ensuring this 'basic component of transparency and accountability' was deemed too important to hold off raising until the end of the investigation. Exceptions have long been made for scenarios such as undercover work — but it has long been understood that, as a general rule, American law enforcement officers will identify themselves and show their faces.
This foundational democratic norm is now at risk. In February, masked ICE officers in riot gear raided an apartment complex in Denver, one of the first times Americans saw agents hide their faces on the job. In March, the practice came to widespread attention when Tufts University doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk was snatched by plainclothes ICE officers, one of them masked, while walking down a street in Somerville, Mass. Throughout the spring, bystanders captured videos of masked or plainclothes ICE enforcement actions from coast to coast, in small towns and big cities.
ICE says it allows this so officers can protect themselves from being recognized and harassed or even assaulted. ICE's arguments just won't wash. Its claims about how many officers have been assaulted are subject to serious question. Even if they were not, though, masked law enforcement is simply unacceptable.
At the most basic level, masked, anonymous officers present a safety concern for both the individuals being arrested and the agents. People are understandably far more likely to disregard instructions or even fight back when they think they're being abducted by someone who is not a law enforcement officer. If the goal is to obtain compliance, masks are counterproductive. It's far safer to encourage cooperation by appealing to one's authority as a law enforcement officer — which almost always works.
Related, there is a very real and growing threat of law enforcement impersonation. There has been a disturbing uptick in reported incidents of 'ICE impersonations,' in which private individuals dress as ICE or law enforcement officials to exploit the trust and authority invested in law enforcement. Just this month, the assailant in the recent assassination of a Minnesota lawmaker was posing as a police officer. Other examples are abounding across the country. As Princeton University noted in a recent advisory, when law enforcement officers are not clearly identifying themselves, it becomes even easier for impostors to pose as law enforcement. Replicas of ICE jackets have become a bestseller on Amazon.
Most fundamentally, masked detentions undermine law enforcement legitimacy. Government agencies' legitimacy is essential for effective policing, and legitimacy requires transparency and accountability. When officers hide their identities, it sends the clear message that they do not value those principles, and in fact view them as a threat.
Federal law currently requires certain clear accountability measures by federal immigration enforcement officials, including that officers must identify themselves as officers and state that the person under arrest is, in fact, under arrest as well as the reason. That should sound familiar and be a relief to those of us who are grateful not to live in a secret police state.
But those words are cold comfort if you are confronted by someone in street clothes and a ski mask — with no way to know if they are who they say or whom to hold accountable if they violate your rights.
ICE officials cannot be allowed to continue to enforce our laws while concealing their identities. Transparency and accountability are what separate democracy from authoritarianism and legitimate law enforcement from the secret police in antidemocratic regimes. The images we are seeing are unrecognizable for the United States, and should not be tolerable for anyone.
Barry Friedman is a professor of law at New York University and author of 'Unwarranted: Policing Without Permission.' Christy Lopez is a professor from practice at Georgetown University School of Law. She led the police practices unit in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice from 2010-2017.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Fireworks will light up this Fourth of July. Next year could be different if tariff talks fizzle
Fireworks will light up this Fourth of July. Next year could be different if tariff talks fizzle

Hamilton Spectator

time28 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

Fireworks will light up this Fourth of July. Next year could be different if tariff talks fizzle

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — Like clockwork, Carla Johnson sends out letters every spring asking for donations to help pay for the annual Fourth of July fireworks show that draws tens of thousands of people to New Mexico's largest lake. And she has no reservations about doling out verbal reminders when she sees her patrons around town. There's too much at stake to be shy about fundraising when donations collected by Friends of Elephant Butte Lake State Park are what make the tradition possible. But even Johnson's ardent efforts as the group's fundraiser might not cut it next year if the U.S. and China remain locked in a trade war. With nearly all of the aerial shells, paper rockets and sparkly fountains that fuel America's Fourth of July celebrations being imported from China, volunteer groups like Johnson's and cities big and small have been closely watching the negotiations. A 90-day pause on what had been massive tariffs brought some temporary relief, but industry experts acknowledge that the tiff has lit a fuse of uncertainty as the price tag for future fireworks displays could skyrocket if an agreement isn't reached. Not the first time There were similar concerns in 2019 as trade talks between the U.S. and China dragged on. Industry groups had called on officials then to exempt fireworks from escalating tariffs. The American Pyrotechnics Association and the National Fireworks Association reignited the lobbying effort this spring, noting in letters to President Donald Trump that fireworks play a crucial role in American celebrations. The groups say the industry is made up mostly of family-owned companies that are often locked into long-term contracts that leave them unable to raise prices to offset cost surges brought on by higher tariffs. And there are few options for sourcing the more than 300 million pounds (136 million kilograms) of fireworks needed to feed demands . China produces 99% of consumer fireworks and 90% of professional display fireworks used in the U.S., according to the APA. 'I think overall it's the uncertainty,' said Julie Heckman, the APA's executive director. 'Yeah, we have a 90-day pause, but are the negotiations with China going to go well? Or is it going to go sky-high again? You know, triple digits. It's very hard for a small business to plan.' How it began Fireworks have their roots in China. To ward off evil spirits, people would throw bamboo stalks into a fire, causing them to pop as the air inside the hollow pockets heated up. These early firecrackers evolved into more sophisticated fireworks after the Chinese developed gunpowder in the 9th century. By the 15th century, Europe was using fireworks for religious festivals and entertainment. In 1777, they were used in Philadelphia and Boston for what were the first organized Independence Day celebrations. Now, fireworks are synonymous with the summer holiday and with ringing in the new year. Shows have become elaborately choreographed displays that are often synced to live music. In Nashville, the Music City's award-winning symphony orchestra puts its own spin on the festivities. In New York City, organizers of the Macy's show will fire off 80,000 shells, with some reaching heights of 1,000 feet (304 meters). The National Park Service promises a spectacular show on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. At Elephant Butte in southern New Mexico, they're going old school and will light the fireworks by hand. Charlie Warren, vice president of the Friends of Elephant Butte Lake State Park, said it's like spectators are getting two shows at once as the colors reflect on the water below and the loud booms reverberate off the lake. Johnson, who also serves as the group's treasurer, gets emotional describing the experience. 'Oh man, in my heart and sometimes out loud, I'm singing the Star-Spangled Banner. I'll sing it out loud to the top of my lungs when I watch that show,' she said. 'It makes you proud to be in this country, and we're celebrating our freedom, and I'm going to start crying now. Don't get me started.' Stocking up before the tariffs Organizers in Nashville ordered fireworks for that show over a year ago so they weren't affected by the tariffs. It was the same in one of New Mexico's largest cities, where Rio Rancho officials planned to spend a little more to go bigger and higher this year. In Oklahoma, Big Blast Fireworks supplies nonprofit groups so they can fundraise by setting up fireworks stands. The company received its first container from China in January before the tariffs hit. The second container arrived in February and was subject to a 10% tariff. The third container was put on hold to avoid the highest tariffs, meaning inventory could be tight later this year if nothing changes. 'As a small business, we are passionate about watching our price points and intentional about passing along as much savings on to customers as possible,' said Melissa Torkleson, a managing partner at Big Blast. With some orders on hold, industry experts say Chinese manufacturers throttled back production as warehouses filled up. The backup in the supply chain also has resulted in competition for shipping space aboard ocean vessels, and Heckman, the APA's director, said it will take much more than flipping a light switch to ease either situation. If the trade war drags on, she said, there are ways that show organizers can adjust and spectators might not notice. A minute or two could be shaved from a show or certain types of fireworks could be substituted with less expensive options. As for this year, Warren said the price tag for the Elephant Butte show was unchanged and he and Johnson can't wait to see spectators lining the shoreline, on the surrounding hillsides and on boats bobbing on the lake. The mission every year is to make sure 'that the T's are all crossed,' Warren said. 'Because this community would not be happy if this show didn't come off,' he said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

What to know about the US Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ books
What to know about the US Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ books

Hamilton Spectator

time43 minutes ago

  • Hamilton Spectator

What to know about the US Supreme Court's ruling on public school lessons using LGBTQ books

A divided U.S. Supreme Court has sided with religious parents who want to pull their children out of the classroom when a public school lesson uses LGBTQ-themed storybooks. The 6-3 decision Friday in a case brought by parents in Maryland comes as certain books are increasingly being banned from public schools and libraries. In Justice Samuel Alito's majority opinion — joined by the rest of the court's conservatives — he wrote that the lack of an 'opt-out' option for parents places an unconstitutional burden on their rights to religious freedom. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent for the three liberal justices that public schools expose children to different views in a multicultural society. 'That experience is critical to our Nation's civic vitality,' she wrote. 'Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs.' Here's what to know about the case and its potential impacts: What happens next The decision was not a final ruling in the case. It reversed lower-court rulings that sided with the Montgomery County school system, which introduced the storybooks in 2022 as part of an effort to better reflect the district's diversity. At first, the school district allowed parents to opt their children out of the lessons for religious and other reasons, but the district later reversed course, saying it became disruptive. The move prompted protests and eventually a lawsuit. Now, the case goes back to the lower court to be reevaluated under the Supreme Court's new guidance. But the justices strongly suggested that the parents will win in the end. The court ruled that policies like the one at issue in this case are subjected to the strictest level of review, nearly always dooming them. The ruling could have national implications for public education Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the court's ruling could inspire similar lawsuits in other states. 'I think any school district that reads similar books to their children is now subject to suit by parents who don't want their kids to hear these books because it substantially interferes with their religious beliefs,' she said. Whether it could open the door to broader legal challenges remains to be seen. Levinson said the majority opinion's emphasis on the particular books at the center of the case, including 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding,' a story about a two men getting married, could narrow its impact. 'The question that people will ask,' Levinson said, 'is if this could now allow parents to say, 'We don't want our kids to learn about certain aspects of American history.' ' LGBTQ rights advocates slam court ruling Adam Zimmerman, who has two kids in school in Montgomery County, Maryland, called the ruling abhorrent. 'We need to call out what's being dressed up as religious faith and values and expose it for the intolerance that it really is,' he said. Zimmerman has lived in Montgomery County for 16 years and wanted to raise his son and daughter there, in large part, because of the school district's diversity. It was important to him, he said, that his kids be exposed to people from all walks of life. 'It's a beautiful thing, and this ruling just spits on that diversity,' he said. Other rights groups described the court's decision as harmful and dangerous. 'No matter what the Supreme Court has said, and what extremist groups are advocating for, book bans and other censorship will not erase LGBTQIA+ people from our communities,' said Fatima Goss Graves, CEO and president of the National Women's Law Center. Conservative advocates say the case is about parental rights and religious freedom Republican U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who was part of an amicus brief filed in the case in support of the Maryland parents, called the ruling a 'win for families.' 'Students should not be forced to learn about gender and sexuality subject matter that violates their family's religious beliefs,' he said. Lawyer Eric Baxter, who represented the parents at the Supreme Court, also called the decision a 'historic victory for parental rights.' 'Kids shouldn't be forced into conversations about drag queens, pride parades, or gender transitions without their parents' permission,' Baxter said. Other opponents say ruling will have 'broad chilling effect' PEN America, a group advocating for free expression, said the court's decision could open the door to censorship and discrimination in classrooms. 'In practice, opt outs for religious objections will chill what is taught in schools and usher in a more narrow orthodoxy as fear of offending any ideology or sensibility takes hold,' said Elly Brinkley, a staff attorney at PEN America. In a joint statement Friday, some of the authors and illustrators of the books in question described the ruling as a threat to First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as diversity in schools. 'To treat children's books about LGBTQ+ characters differently than similar books about non-LGBTQ+ characters is discriminatory and harmful,' the statement said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .

Trump's Big Law executive orders go 0-4 after judge slaps down order against Susman Godfrey
Trump's Big Law executive orders go 0-4 after judge slaps down order against Susman Godfrey

Business Insider

time2 hours ago

  • Business Insider

Trump's Big Law executive orders go 0-4 after judge slaps down order against Susman Godfrey

President Donald Trump faced another legal loss on Friday after a District Court judge slapped down his executive order against the Big Law firm Susman Godfrey. In her ruling, Judge Loren AliKhan wrote that the order against Susman Godfrey "was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed." "In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the US Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Three other federal judges have already found similar executive orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale unconstitutional. AliKhan's ruling in the Susman Godfrey case marks a 0-4 record for the Trump administration in legal challenges regarding his executive orders targeting Big Law firms. Susman Godfrey said in a statement that the court's ruling "is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation." "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional," the firm's statement continued. "Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." Harrison Fields, principal White House deputy press secretary, told Business Insider in a statement that the White House opposes Judge AliKhan's ruling. "The decision to grant any individual access to this nation's secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President," Fields said. "Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the President's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority." The federal government can appeal AliKhan's ruling, in which case the proceedings will be heard in the court of appeals. Any subsequent appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court. Fields did not immediately respond to Business Insider when asked if the government would appeal Judge AliKhan's decision. Judge AliKhan's ruling represents a major legal victory for the firms that have challenged the president's executive orders in court. While some other Big Law firms chose instead to strike deals with the administration to avoid or reverse punitive executive actions against them — drawing sharp criticism from industry insiders and a spate of resignations among associates and some partners — Business Insider previously reported that Susman Godfrey's decision to fight back in court took just two hours. In the original April 9 executive order against Susman Godfrey, the Trump administration accused the firm of "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections." Judge AliKahn had granted the firm a temporary restraining order on April 15, preventing enforcement of the order against Susman Godfrey pending further proceedings. In issuing her order granting the TRO, the judge said she believed "the framers of our constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power," according to The American Lawyer. Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in its suit against Fox News after the 2020 election, which resulted in a $787.5 million settlement, and The New York Times in the publication's copyright suit against OpenAI and Microsoft, which has not yet reached a conclusion.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store