arnt they already, and its not even likely they are instructed to listen the supreme court anyways. so its fair game if they get the same response.
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2026
488 points (99.6% liked)
News
38063 readers
1916 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
My prediction is that SCOTUS will defy the Constitution.
If this shit happens then none of us (citizens included) have due process. ICE can just say they suspect you're an illegal immigrant and lock you up forever. A lot of people seem to think that if you just show them the documents or prove that you're a citizen this won't happen. All they have to do is snatch you up. You typically see this line of thought from folks defending the current administration, like they believe if you rationally present your argument to authority they'll always agree.
Mate, with respect, they don't give a fuck about the constitution nor civilians nor citizenship and have proven so multiple times.
No shit.
My point was we already lost due process I get that you're pissed and I don't blame you, I am too
There are already enough cases of people showing their papers to ICE and discovering that ICE don't care and aren't held to account. But the people supporting it tend to be the "pay no attention until it happens to me" type.
Mom kinda thinks like this. I told her that no one should even be asked to prove their identity like that in public. She'd be more firmly on the right if my father isn't tempering her.
My parents are reversed, with my mom tempering my dad’s conservatism. But it’s the same basic idea. My mom and I will be discussing whatever Government Atrocity of the Week^TM^ is making the news cycle, and my dad will basically go “good, I hope it sucks for {victim}. If they don’t like it, they can leave.”
Gee, and you wonder why I don’t ever want to hang out…
No one should get treated like this but additionally. What’s to stop them from grabbing citizens and claiming they can’t verify their identity and holding them indefinitely?
Literally nothing.
Well at some point the camps will become overcrowded and they'll want a solution that's a bit more final.
That's what all the industrial biowaste incinerators they've been buying are for.
Yeah well... they're not getting me without a fight.
Ooooh nice, so they’re effectively going to decide if they get to actually run concentration camps in an official capacity. Delightful.
Also, I don’t expect ICEatzgruppen to abide by the court order if it doesn’t go their way
Don’t worry court will write out an instruction manual of loopholes and how to exploit the loopholes if they do rule against it
Trans people are next. They are trying to bring back psychiatric detention and calling Trans people mentally ill.
I'm not sure if transgender people or "antifa" is next. I think "antifa" because that allows them to classify any dissent about anything as supporting terrorism (NSPM-7 executive order). That would be more efficient at removing dissent, then when there's no way to speak out, they'll go after transgender, socialists, eventually gay/lesbian, anyone who's not white.
aka the Nazi's list of enemies
Yes but also anyone that doesn’t like Trump will be accused of derangement syndrome. We’re all on that list
You can already be found not criminally liable and be sentenced to indefinite psychiatric hold instead of prison.
Don't the US already hold people indefinatly in Guantanamo Bay?
Not endorsing the interpretation at all, but the idea with the people in Gitmo is that they were "combatants" from a "war" and were therefore prisoners of war and subject to a different set of laws. The whole point of putting them in Gitmo was to avoid the legal complications of the domestic American justice system.
Conversely, immigrants are, by definition, inside of the United States and therefore protected by American laws. At least that has been the case historically. The court is going to determine if that is in fact the case.
And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
And Republicans have already tried calling this a "war" on illegal immigration so that we can treat them as enemy combatants.
And yeah, we all need to be worried about an interpretation that being in America somehow does not place a person under the justification of the American justice system and all the rights and responsibilities that entails.
The Constitution references "under the jurisdiction of the United States" so if they do rule that these people aren't entitled to Constitutional rights, I'm curious how that doesn't also mean that these people are immune from US laws too. You can't claim these people aren't protected by our laws while also claiming that they're subject to those same laws.
You can't claim these people aren't protected by our laws while also claiming that they're subject to those same laws.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
You can’t claim these people aren’t protected by our laws while also claiming that they’re subject to those same laws.
They won't claim it outloud but they already operate under this interpretation.
Historically "not under the jurisdiction of the United States" meant exactly what you think it meant. It meant that they were not subject to the laws of the US and was a status commonly called "diplomatic immunity".
I agree with your conclusion that people cannot be both immune from rights and subject to law, but sadly the courts have disagreed.
Thats only temporarily indefinitely
Oh, you mean the treasonous Supreme Court?
Time to allow the racists to do something else unethical because you could technically interpret a 250 year old document in a way that allows for that, even though everyone that's not a bigot knows what the decent decision should be and that document could be interpreted that way as well.
how long Immigration and Customs Enforcement can keep lawful permanent residents in immigration detention without any opportunity to post a bond.
How is this even up for discussion? If they're legal permanent residents, they shouldn't be detained at all, and should have the right to sue if they are. Fucking hell, America. Get your shit together.
The fun part will be treating all these MAGA politicians the way they want everyone else treated.
JD Vance? Locked the fuck up without charges forever. Clarence Thomas? Locked the fuck up without charges. John Roberts, Drunken McRapey Kavanaugh? Locked the fuck up without charges.
No Habeas Corpus, no judicial review, no one to look out for their human rights, since they have no concern for anyone else's humanity.
You get the idea.
That will not happen with a Democrat in office. Still probably worth voting for them in the general for harm reduction. But don't kid yourself. The next Democratic president will appoint a Republican as attorney general and FBI head. Their cabinet will be half centrist Democrats, 1/4 progressive, and 1/4 Republican.
Putting faith in Democrats to bring justice to Republicans is literally believing in magic. It's completely divorced from history. You might as well put your faith in a literal angel coming down from heaven and personally hauling Trump kicking and screaming into Hell. Both events are equally likely.
load more comments
(13 replies)
If they lose power (lol) they will, without a doubt, flee the country.
Well, all Americans anyway.
The rest of us are still worried, but slightly less so. We're mostly just worried about a rapidly destabilizing nation with the largest military on earth.
Why would only Americans be worried?
In the US, they especially target immigrants and other foreigners (as well as American citizens of color), and it's not like there isn't precedent of them operating outside of the US without the consent of the host nation.
Every time ICE is given more leeway, them operating worldwide with no restrictions gets closer to becoming reality.
I'm thinking we should start banning yahoo.com from this commag. All that site does is copy from another site and attribute it so that we can't see what the actual publisher is from the domain. (You can see at the top here that the OG source is Slate.)
Sometimes it's useful because the original is paywalled.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's OK! The CONSTITUTION is CLEAR that this is Illegal and the Robert's Republican Supreme Court is KNOWN to UPHOLD the Constitution and NOT whoever gives them the BEST Vacation!
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›