Could a group opposed to Trump's actions, get an injunction prohiting this from

[Stuart G]

happening again. "it is illegal to take children without a court order" ..and Trump must not until a court decides on the legality of such actions.. And while this is adjudication, no children may be taken from their parents. That could stop this indefinitely..

[Rhiannon12866]

1. Governor Cuomo has initiated a lawsuit. *sigh*

[Stuart G]

2. Thank You for the information...I sure hope it is successful and stops this. As soon as possible nt

[Gothmog]

3. The ACLU has a lawsuit pending

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

4. District Court Judge Denounces Forced Child Separation as "Brutal" and Clear Constitutional Violatio

this is a clear constitutional law violation https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/district-court-judge-rules-that-trump-administration-child-separations-would-be-unconstitutional.html

From Sabraw’s ruling (emphasis added):

For Plaintiffs, the government actors responsible for the “care and custody” of migrant children have, in fact, become their persecutors. … These allegations sufficiently describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child, and is emblematic of the “exercise of power without any reasonable justification in the service of an otherwise legitimate governmental objective[.]” Such conduct, if true, as it is assumed to be on the present motion, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency. At a minimum, the facts alleged are sufficient to show the government conduct at issue “shocks the conscience” and violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to family integrity. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ due process claim is denied.

As Sabraw noted, he is still poised to rule on whether or not separated families will be certified as part of the ACLU’s requested class action lawsuit, and to determine if a preliminary injunction will be issued to halt a practice he describes as “brutal, offensive, and [failing] to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency.” In other words, the class action question is still open, but his view that such a practice is shockingly cruel for constitutional purposes, does not seem to be in doubt.

The ACLU attorney who argued the case, Lee Gelernt, described the ruling to me as a powerful initial victory for his clients.

“This is an enormous ruling, there’s no question about it, because the major dispute between us and the government was whether there was a constitutional right [for] families … to remain together in these circumstances,” Gelernt told me.

The court has essentially said that the practice alleged in the suit—and reportedly taking place all across our border for the past month—is a gross violation of the U.S. constitution. Now it has merely to determine whether the practice is actually taking place.