Huh? They're either chasing down people with an administrative warrant (which as far as I can tell are largely valid) or they're using reasonable suspicion which SCOTUS just decided can be determined by a combination of ethnic, economic, and geographic factors. The latter seems wrongly-decided but it is lawful by definition.

What actions are you referring to and what is the treasonous intent? They seem to just be self-selected xenophobes trying to chase bonus money.

> What actions are you referring to

The deportations to Ecuador despite a court order not to. Detaining an American and refusing him a lawyer [1]. Ignoring state law (where not superseded by federal law).

[1] https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/01/massive-...

Ecuador: my recollection is they did the deportations without process which is probably illegal and was therefore halted by SCOTUS pending a final decision. The administration sent a plane after a lower court had ordered them not to, then claimed incompetence. As far as I am aware, since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket. I'd personally bin this under "not descriptive of the legality of ICE's campaign in general" because it (afaik) is halted indefinitely. It's terrible, for sure, but that's not the question at hand.

Detentions: I've read a handful of stories of citizens being detained in the dragnet operations, then released. We'll see if they have successful civil rights suits. Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law. Since this isn't a haphazard operation, they probably have some reason to believe their detention powers cover this.

> since then deportees have been given enough process that it hasn't required another trip to the shadow docket

My understanding is a lot of them get deported before their cases have run course. That, in turn, robs them of standing.

> Depending on the scale, this could disprove the contention that ICE is largely acting within the law

I agree that everything being said here is allegation. That said, if we're waiting for unappealable judiical findings, that's could take us into the 2030s.

The SCOTUS abdicating their duty to the constitution does not make ICE's actions any less illegal, it just makes the Supreme Court as an institution illegitimate. It is unfortunate that things have devolved so far, but it is more important than ever that we state things clearly and succinctly in the face of those that have decided the constitution no longer matters.

You might believe SCOTUS has abdicated their duty, but that doesn’t make it illegal. The whole reason the Supreme Court exists is because there is no such thing as “clearly illegal” without some kind of adjudicating body that can decide if something breaks the law. Laws aren’t like math axioms; you can’t prove or disprove that a law has been broken with pure logic, you have to have humans interpret the words and apply it to a situation.

By definition, the supreme courts decisions are the law, unless the legally prescribed measures to overrule them are taken.

By definition, the law is what we, collectively, agree on as being the law. The Supreme Court is only able to serve as the executor of the law on the basis of the institution being seen as legitimate and by virtue of being given that right by society.

The Supreme Court suddenly deciding that the constitution does not matter does not make their decision law, it erodes trust in that institution and removes their mandate to execute the law. Said supreme court has decided to throw away all trust in favor of giving unchecked and clearly illegal power to the executive, overriding Congress's very clear authority as delegated by the constitution.

Many of the actions taken by this Supreme Court are illegitimate and are things that will need to be reckoned with assuming that the presidency changes hands in 2028. As well as the actions by ICE and this presidency in general.

Well, the law of this land is based on the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court ultimate authority to interpret the law. That is what gives it the force of law.

Now, the legitimacy of the CONSTITUTION is based on what we, collectively, agree on, however

> the law of this land is based on the Constitution, which gives the Supreme Court ultimate authority to interpret the law

The Constitution vests "the judicial Power of the United States" in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish" [1].

That isn't the same as "ultimate authority to interpret the law." In practice, SCOTUS does usually have this power, due to Marbury and other precedent. In practice, too, it can be bullied, e.g. by FDR and potentially right now.

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/

If that's true that's the same thing as Supreme Court simply having all the power isn't it? SCOTUS largely serves as a veto power on the other two branches. If they can actually unilaterally make a binding interpretation of the constitution then they could simply declare the constitution is actually saying SCOTUS has all of the federal powers and that Clarence Thomas is King.

SCOTUS has been relied on far too much as a method of legitimation of extra-constitutional powers. People know they are lying bastard, but because the court-gods have used their holy powers to interpret the constitution as magically meaning stuff like intrastate commerce is actually interstate commerce and sawn off shotguns aren't actually protected 'arms' then many gullible zealots will actually believe that.

There are supposed to be checks on the power of the supreme court through both the ability to impeach justices and the ability to pass constitutional amendments. Those checks are not working as they are supposed to for many reasons.

Immigration has always come under the plenary powers of The Congress and is not subject to judicial review. This plenary power doctrine has weakened over the centuries but it still holds.

https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...

The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants. It's interesting that you believe the Supreme Court is illegitimate for rightly ruling based on the letter of the law.

If you want it changed, you have 100 ways to advocate for that without declaring one of the greatest American institutions we have as "illegitimate". It's an extreme view, but certainly common in shrinking hyper-left-wing online spaces.

You won't always get your way. That's Democracy.

> The constitution doesn't prohibit the deportation of illegal immigrants.

Who are you responding to? I don't see that anywhere in this thread.

Immigration 'mostly' falls under plenary powers of The Congress and the courts have little to no authority in these matters (similar to how Presidential pardons may not be overturned by the Court or Congress). This legal theory has been changing over time but it still mostly holds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power https://cis.org/Report/Plenary-Power-Should-Judges-Control-U...

Just because SCOTUS says something doesn't make it just. Especially this court.

How about denying the Fourth Amendment rights of US citizens to be secure in their homes in the recent Chicago apartment raid? https://www.notesfromthecircus.com/p/the-sufferable-evil

How about detaining US citizens without warrants for days at a time and then releasing with no charges? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/09/george-...

Let's hope the people not subject to a warrant sue ICE's pants off. As far as I can tell, most of the dragnets are either in public places or with the permission of the property owner.

I'd love to be wrong because it means the judciary has a chance to shut this down but I fear outside of a few civil rights suits this will have to be remedied at the ballot box.

It's essentially impossible to sue ICE, they have qualified immunity. Police have been doing similar things for years.

The officers do, not the agency or police department. People sue and win against police departments all the time.