cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/48271970
PHILADELPHIA (CN) — The Department of Justice sued the city of Philadelphia and multiple city officials Thursday over a municipal ordinance banning law enforcement at all levels from using face coverings and unmarked vehicles to conceal their identities.
Describing the law as “blatantly unconstitutional,” the federal government accused Philadelphia, Mayor Cherelle Parker, District Attorney Larry Krasner and City Solicitor Renee Garcia of “undermin[ing] the principles of federalism that underlie our entire constitutional order” by limiting federal law enforcement from properly conducting its duties.
“For centuries, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that states have no authority whatsoever to regulate the federal government’s operations,” the federal government wrote in its complaint.
“Despite that well-established precedent, Philadelphia — the very city where the principles of federal sovereignty and supremacy were first established — recently enacted a bill that purports to do exactly what constitutional law says it cannot: subject federal officers and agencies to criminal and civil liability, respectively, through laws that seek to regulate how those officers carry out their federal duties,” the government added.
The ordinance targeted in the suit — passed by Philadelphia City Council on April 23 and adopted on May 8 as part of a larger “ICE Out” legislative package — prohibits all local, state and federal law enforcement operating in Philadelphia from wearing a mask, facial covering or other garment that obscures their identity, except in limited circumstances.
Additionally, the ordinance prevents the intentional concealment of officer badges, tags and labels; bans the use of unidentified vehicles in the course of official duties; and requires law enforcement to identify themselves to a subject of arrest, holding or detention.
…
Under the ordinance, failure to comply would constitute criminal concealment, punishable by law. It is currently set to take effect on July 7, 60 days after its adoption.
“We will arrest you,” Krasner said in fiery support of the ordinance in January. “We will put handcuffs on you. We will close those cuffs. We will put you in a cell. We will do everything in our power to convict you, and we will make sure you serve your entire sentence because Donald Trump has no power whatsoever to pardon you.”
In its complaint, the federal government accused the city’s bill of violating the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which allows federal law to take precedence over conflicting state and municipal laws.
The government’s argument is not new — it made similar claims when challenging bans on masked federal agents in California and New Jersey.
While a final ruling has not yet been made in either case, a Ninth Circuit appeals panel issued an injunction in April prohibiting California from enforcing its ban pending appeal, finding that the Trump administration was likely to prevail on its supremacy clause claim.
Nice! Good job Philly!
Why do they need all the secrecy if they are only going after the supposed worst of the worst?
They should be proud to show their faces and do this in the open.
subject federal officers and agencies to criminal and civil liability
bruh , what ? So these motherfuckers are above the law ?!
But if they’re doing nothing wrong they’ve got nothing to hide.
And Philadelphia sure does has a precedent - one for telling national governments to fuck right off.
It’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL to NOT allow us to Kidnap or Kill Citizens without Cause!
-Republicans!
They’re gonna need a mask when they’re rolling around town with no fuckin’ teeth
PHILADELPHIA (CN) — The Department of Justice sued the city of Philadelphia and multiple city officials Thursday over a municipal ordinance banning law enforcement at all levels from using face coverings and unmarked vehicles to conceal their identities.
Describing the law as “blatantly unconstitutional,” the federal government accused Philadelphia, Mayor Cherelle Parker, District Attorney Larry Krasner and City Solicitor Renee Garcia of “undermin[ing] the principles of federalism that underlie our entire constitutional order” by limiting federal law enforcement from properly conducting its duties.
“For centuries, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that states have no authority whatsoever to regulate the federal government’s operations,” the federal government wrote in its complaint.
“Despite that well-established precedent, Philadelphia — the very city where the principles of federal sovereignty and supremacy were first established — recently enacted a bill that purports to do exactly what constitutional law says it cannot: subject federal officers and agencies to criminal and civil liability, respectively, through laws that seek to regulate how those officers carry out their federal duties,” the government added.
The ordinance targeted in the suit — passed by Philadelphia City Council on April 23 and adopted on May 8 as part of a larger “ICE Out” legislative package — prohibits all local, state and federal law enforcement operating in Philadelphia from wearing a mask, facial covering or other garment that obscures their identity, except in limited circumstances.
Additionally, the ordinance prevents the intentional concealment of officer badges, tags and labels; bans the use of unidentified vehicles in the course of official duties; and requires law enforcement to identify themselves to a subject of arrest, holding or detention.
…
Under the ordinance, failure to comply would constitute criminal concealment, punishable by law. It is currently set to take effect on July 7, 60 days after its adoption.
“We will arrest you,” Krasner said in fiery support of the ordinance in January. “We will put handcuffs on you. We will close those cuffs. We will put you in a cell. We will do everything in our power to convict you, and we will make sure you serve your entire sentence because Donald Trump has no power whatsoever to pardon you.”
In its complaint, the federal government accused the city’s bill of violating the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which allows federal law to take precedence over conflicting state and municipal laws.
The government’s argument is not new — it made similar claims when challenging bans on masked federal agents in California and New Jersey.
While a final ruling has not yet been made in either case, a Ninth Circuit appeals panel issued an injunction in April prohibiting California from enforcing its ban pending appeal, finding that the Trump administration was likely to prevail on its supremacy clause claim.
The Supremacy Clause deals with conflicts between state and federal LAWS. Is there a Federal law that specifically endows ICE to be masked and in unmarked vehicles?
I am not a lawyer, but I think it is because the USA is governed by a fascist regime.
Oh, now suddenly mask bans are BAD, not good. 🙄
It’s highly selective. If it’s about hurting the people they want to be hurting, they are for it. Otherwise, they are against it.
So if Covid was thought to harm black people more - as it was initially - then masking up is stupid and un-American.
If masks need to be in-place to give terrorist storm troopers anonymity so that they can tackle, kidnap, and disappear brown gardeners, day laborers and nannies then it’s obviously something great and patriotic, etc.
Wow, Republicans sure care about “StAtEs’ RiGhTs”, huh?
It’s absolutely useless to point out the hypocrisy in republican’s actions because they’re don’t care.
At all.
I disagree. It sounds insane, but election data tells us many people truly are centrists or “undecided”. Oblivious? Lying to themselves? Who knows, but they’re out there and they swing elections. Calling out Republicans and hammering them on their lies and corruption is exhausting, but it’s absolutely necessary, every election. Not to sway the cult members, but to speak to everyone else…
They also seem to care a lot about “supremacy”.
