Last week the Southern District of Florida held an amazing event celebrating Jewish American Heritage Month. Judge Beth Bloom moderated a panel that included: Judge Luck, Judge Scola, and Judge Altman. The event had almost 400 attendees and the support of the community. It was lovely to see. Here's a picture of the committee:
Judge Altman is making other news -- this NY Times article covers his ruling this week "block[ing] part of a Florida law that criminalized transporting into the state anyone who lacked lawful immigration status, raising new legal questions for other states pursuing similar measures."
More:
The Florida law was intended to discourage unauthorized immigrants from living and working in the state, and organizations that work with immigrants say many undocumented workers have left the state in recent months.
The injunction puts on hold a key enforcement component of the legislation while the lawsuit against it proceeds. The law, which into effect last July, was championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis as he ran for the Republican nomination for president.
The Farmworker Association of Florida sued the state in July, claiming that the component of the law related to transportation into the state was unconstitutional and that its 12,000 members would “suffer irreparable harm.”
They could, the group said, be separated from their families, unable to attend lifesaving medical appointments and prevented from driving to immigration agencies overseeing their cases because of the risk of jail time.
Judge Altman on Thursday ordered further briefing on the scope of the injunction. That decision was wrongly reported by the Herald as “revers[ing] his own ruling.” That’s not right.
8 comments:
“On further reflection” translates into conservatives got mad at me, my bad. Stick to your guns man.
The Miami Herald noted that the conflicting back-to-back orders from Altman on Thursday have created confusion about how pending cases will be prosecuted and how the injunction will proceed.
Somebody got worried about future political prospects.
Flip flop
Yes yes, let's criticize a judge for wanting to have a measured scope of an injunction. Let's also criticize if the injunction is nationwide but only comes from one district, e.g. mifepristone.
10:27, please. This isn’t a nationwide injunction case. It’s a state law. Not mifepristone.
I think Altman is very smart and wants to get it right. Of course the current attitude of distinct judges is such that it would have taken decades longer to integrate the south without the wide ranging injunctions judicial giants like Judge Frank Johnson of Alabama used. So I’d be arguing for the wide net before Judge Altman and citing those examples. But I get the pendulum has swung back the other way.
Why is it "not right" that he reversed his ruling. His ruling was that the law making it a crime to drive an undocumented immigrant in Florida was unconstitutional, and entering an injunction against it being enforced (which BTW is not a "nationwide injunction" because its a state law, but it is a statewide injunction, since a federal judge found the law unconstitutional that would seem to make perfect sense). Then he issues a new order saying on second thought no injunction at least not yet? Did he get pressure to change it, did he genuinely change his mind, I would only be speculating, but he certainly did reverse his earlier ruling in any normal understanding of what that means.
You fret about the proper scope before you issue the ruling not after.
Post a Comment