First off I absolutely disagree with the decision 100%, but that’s not exactly what it said. What it said was that race could be taken into account among other things like location, employment type, etc. The result is the same of course, people being disappeared off the street for being brown. I just don’t like dishonest reporting.
This is also only an interim decision that only officially applies to operations in Los Angeles for the duration of that litigation and further appeals (e.g. 1-2 years). There was no opinion or explanation on how this ruling comports with existing 4A and 5A case law.
First off I absolutely disagree with the decision 100%, but that’s not exactly what it said. What it said was that race could be taken into account among other things like location, employment type, etc. The result is the same of course, people being disappeared off the street for being brown. I just don’t like dishonest reporting.
This is also only an interim decision that only officially applies to operations in Los Angeles for the duration of that litigation and further appeals (e.g. 1-2 years). There was no opinion or explanation on how this ruling comports with existing 4A and 5A case law.