A lawyer working with the Minnesota attorney’s office said she just wants some sleep, after working so hard to try to get ICE to follow court orders.

“I wish you would just hold me in contempt of court so I can get 24 hours of sleep,” Le said. “The system sucks, this job sucks, I am trying with every breath I have to get you what I need.”

Edit clarification: This attorney works for the federal government, not the State of Minnesota.

all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 96 points 9 months ago (1 child)

Le said that the government was “overwhelmed” by the legal challenges to Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota, and that trying to get ICE to comply with court orders has required nonstop work for an office depleted by resignations. 

Exactly the child rapist's intent.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 102 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    Le normally doesn’t work for the U.S. Attorney’s Office. She used to work as an attorney for ICE in immigration court, and last month volunteered to help prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney’s Office deal with the many habeas petitions from immigrants in ICE detention seeking their release.

    Maybe don't work for a criminal organization and volunteer for more?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 74 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

    It's not as if ICE is going to stop kidnapping people if they [the DOJ] run out of lawyers.

    Staying on and trying to make the system work sounds like the most moral option to me. It also sounds fruitless.

    Edit: This article doesn't have a ton of detail, and it's pretty hard for an outsider with no legal background (like me) to understand what the players involved are trying to do. These stories have some more details:

    MPR News: ICE attorney to judge: ‘This job sucks’

    The Independent: ‘This job sucks’: DOJ lawyer asks to be held in contempt so she can sleep after judge accuses ICE of blowing court orders

    See also OP's comment.

    Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Le is described as a volunteer. I don't know if that means she's getting paid or not. She is working to get ICE to comply with court orders to release people. My guess is that if everyone in her position were to resign in protest, ICE would just ignore the courts completely, and wouldn't release anyone at all anymore.

    This is an attack, a deliberate stratagem, by the executive, on the justice system, and it sounds to me like Julie Le is caught up in that attack, not a perpetrator of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] [S] 7 points 9 months ago

    She could say what exactly the feds are doing wrong, for example, with federal officers' names and dates and details. Create the record.

    My guess is that the ICE and DHS people who are breaking the law have figured out not to tell the attorneys this stuff, for precisely this reason. The attorneys have a duty of candor to the court, but ICE does not.

    She could refuse to file motions supporting the feds.

    She may already be doing this, at least with respect to 100% dilatory motions. I haven't kept up with her case work.

    Then the people would win those uncontested cases.

    In this case, and in many others like it in MN, the petitioners already won their case. They've been ordered to be released, but they aren't getting released in a timely manner.

    When a judge issues a release order, it is the responsibility of the federal attorney to communicate the contents of that order into the federal bureaucracy, to ensure it is carried out. That process has turned into an all-consuming job, because that's how ICE wants it.

    I agree in general, though, that the only ethical or moral move here is to resign.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    I think the problem is her not properly informing the judge WHY she is being stonewalled or ignored by her company. The judge holding her in contempt is probably not going to do anything because ICE doesn't give a fuck. So she should name names who WILL give a fuck so that they will be held in contempt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    She's the one who asked the judge to hold her in contempt so she can get some rest because she's the one working to get ICE to follow court orders to release people. It was a tongue in cheek comment on how overworked she is.

    She's not being held in contempt because of her actions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    No but I was replying to her complaining that she found the job terrible and tiring: she kinda signed up for it. So ya know... Cry me a fucking river...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 26 points 9 months ago

    Blackwell said that he called the hearing to stress that ICE and other government agencies are not above the law.

    They're not? Could have fooled me.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 9 months ago

    Sucks to be on the sucky side

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago
    [–] [S] 5 points 9 months ago

    Update: the government fired the attorney the next day, so she can at least get some sleep.

    (The judge declined to grant her request for contempt.)

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    I feel for her. The best way to explain this situation to a layperson would be a teacher (the attorney) trying to manage a class of unruly students (ICE) whose parents (Trump) have the administration (Congress) kowtowing to their will.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    This is FAKE News! If she DIDNT want to Defend People who FINGER BLAST CHILDREN Before auctioning them to Rich Men she would have Resigned!

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    So quit the job or quit your bitching. You're working for fascists and deserve to suffer by doing it.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • 7 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 22 points 9 months ago

    The long term problem is that lawyers are often not stupid, and they can see that working for this DOJ will have deleterious effects on their future careers when this stuff is over. I've heard that the Minneapolis office is down to 9 attorneys, and should be staffed for 50.

    But the immediate problem here dates back to Rumsfeld v. Padilla*. In that case, the supreme court decided that habeas petitions must be filed in the district of actual, physical confinement. This created a race condition, where ICE is trying to get these people out of Minnesota as fast as possible, and these people's lawyers are trying to file the lawsuits in Minnesota before their clients physically leave the state. ICE would prefer for these petitions to be filed in Texas, because the Texas district courts are a lot more favorable to them. The Minnesota lawyers don't want to have to file in Texas, both because it's a disadvantage to them, and because they aren't admitted to practice in Texas, and it's a big hassle to work around that.

    Combine that with Trump v. CASA, and no one wants to try a habeas class action. So you have a crap ton of individualized habeas petitions, all over the same issue, which is ICE's incorrect interpretation of federal immigration law. And in many, many of these cases, they properly got filed in Minnesota, but the prisoners got shipped to Texas anyway. The Minnesota judges are figuring out that all these cases are the same, and they're making the decisions real fast now, and ICE is not keeping up, by design. It's a total logistical cluster.

    *Yes, it's that Donald Rumsfeld, and that Jose Padilla, the dirty bomb guy.

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    We have no guidance or direction on what we need to do,

    Wrong. You have plenty of guidance. It's called "the law" and you went to school to learn how to understand it. If your people get instructions to violate the law, the instructions are invalid.

    This is not complicated.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    Well, the rules of professional conduct, which all attorneys are bound by, make it very clear what the client gets to decide versus what the attorney gets to decide. Essentially, the client gets to decide what the best conclusion is while the attorney decides the best means to get there (or, as close as can be) via the legal apparatus such that the other rules of professional conduct aren't violated. Basically, the client pulls the trigger, the attorney furnishes the gun and aims it as best as can be for the client.

    So, when there's no guidance or direction, they're saying the political establishment isn't giving guidance on what the end result looks like. So, the attorney can't proceed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    What do the rules of professional conduct say about a client who repeatedly and aggressively ignores the law and the orders of the court?

    Not being sarcastic here, I'm honestly curious. The lawyer can't control the client, so what do?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago

    A client's attorney is not there to help with enforcing the law; they are there to know the law and to represent the interests of the client to the court. The court decides what is to happen and whether there is any punishment. If the client is appearing in court because they are alleged to have violated a court order, the client needs to instruct their attorney whether to argue that they did not, in fact violate the court order, or that they did but that they have an excuse which should mitigate punishment, or that the court order is invalid, or whatever.

    Without that instruction, the lawyer can't do very much.

    The problem is that all social institutions require some level of co-operation from the people subject to their judgements. Sure, if you're a violent criminal the police might arrest you and drag you kicking and screaming from the dock, but it's not practical to do that to an entire government department - or an entire company for example. Once the government decides it's not going to respect the rule of law, they can get away with a lot before any consequences catch up with them, because in the meantime the court system has to continue to presume innocence, to permit the argument of mitigating circumstances, to presume good faith, and so on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago

    I actually feel really sorry for the career attorneys who make the representations in court on the political apparatus’ behalf,

    Don't, they are 100% part of the problem.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Seems like this attorney is making it easy for the judge: rule against the government!

  • source