Janice’s Journal: IML – Court Denies Request for Preliminary Injunction
Today the dragon won. That is, the federal government was given permission to continue its implementation of the International Megan’s Law (IML).
The U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California denied our Motion for Preliminary Injunction which attempted to stop the government’s addition of a Scarlet letter to the passports of American citizens as well the government’s notifications to foreign countries that citizens intend to travel there.
The court’s denial was based, in part, upon the legal concept of ripeness. That is, whether the issue was ready (or ripe) for judicial review.
The court declared it was not. Why? Because the federal government has not yet determined the appearance or placement of a “conspicuous unique identifier” on a passport. In making this declaration, the court avoided the broader issue of whether any identifier placed on any part of a passport could pass constitutional muster.
The court’s denial was also based, in part, upon the legal concept of standing. That is, whether the plaintiffs in the case have identified a “certainly impending” future injury caused by the IML.
The court declared they have not. Why? Because any injury that plaintiffs suffered could not be traceable to the IML. In making this declaration, the court failed to consider the harm already done to plaintiffs in this case as well as to thousands of others including the inability to live with one’s spouse, assist an elderly parent or conduct lawful business overseas.
Although today’s decision was not unexpected, it is disappointing. It is one more decision in which a court ignores empirical evidence and relies instead upon myths.
The big picture is this. Today the dragon won. Tomorrow we fight again. Our challenge to the IML will continue.
SPIRC
Today the dragon won. That is, the federal government was given permission to continue its implementation of the International Megan’s Law (IML).
The U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California denied our Motion for Preliminary Injunction which attempted to stop the government’s addition of a Scarlet letter to the passports of American citizens as well the government’s notifications to foreign countries that citizens intend to travel there.
The court’s denial was based, in part, upon the legal concept of ripeness. That is, whether the issue was ready (or ripe) for judicial review.
The court declared it was not. Why? Because the federal government has not yet determined the appearance or placement of a “conspicuous unique identifier” on a passport. In making this declaration, the court avoided the broader issue of whether any identifier placed on any part of a passport could pass constitutional muster.
The court’s denial was also based, in part, upon the legal concept of standing. That is, whether the plaintiffs in the case have identified a “certainly impending” future injury caused by the IML.
The court declared they have not. Why? Because any injury that plaintiffs suffered could not be traceable to the IML. In making this declaration, the court failed to consider the harm already done to plaintiffs in this case as well as to thousands of others including the inability to live with one’s spouse, assist an elderly parent or conduct lawful business overseas.
Although today’s decision was not unexpected, it is disappointing. It is one more decision in which a court ignores empirical evidence and relies instead upon myths.
The big picture is this. Today the dragon won. Tomorrow we fight again. Our challenge to the IML will continue.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Only thing politically correct to discriminate against. But leading to fascism
This is absolutely no surprise. A presidential signed bill into federal law can be resended by the next president. Since Vermont has the most relief for RSOs, Bernie Sanders could take this of the table. Or just let the inept system run its course. There will be suits where identifiers identified wrong people. Identifiers that imprison people for nothing. Identifiers that destroy businesses and cause American companies with overseas ties to have problems. This way of keeping taps on all overseas traveling rsos is bound to fail and cause irrefutable harm.
So the judge made the decision to not make a decision. I guess what she wants is a catastrophe or a solid fail tracing that back directly to IML so she can cover her ass. That is typical with judges at all levels of the Judiciary system as it seems.
Upset by the courts ruling. What is the next step in fighting this fascist law? FYI national RSOL call tonight @7:30 pm.
this was just the preliminary injunction – the case is continuing
I want to know why were not demanding that everybody be branded as i am. I dont see drug dealer, carjacker, bank robber etc put on on passports. You can rob a bank, do yoour time in prison then get out and live near the bank you robbed and probably get an account there. How is a drug dealer caught selling drugs to under age kids within so many feet of a school is allowed to be back around kids with no restrictions.If your going to label me then label everybody across the board. Make everybody register for a crime all the way down to alcoholic.
Americans detained in America.