LightNews LightNews
brttnny.bsky.social
@brttnny.bsky.social
150 followers 83 following 24 posts
Posts Replies Media Videos
brttnny.bsky.social
She got mad when she lost her blankie?
February 13, 2026 at 5:00 AM
Reposted
chrisgeidner.bsky.social
Here is the meat of it:

"Defendants chose to operate a detention facility, so 'they must meet constitutional standards.'"
In the late-filed declaration by Rich, Defendants explain that in-person visits are operationally challenging and pose safety risks. Rich explains that there are rooms available, but non-law enforcement is not allowed in this area, and it "would create a significant safety risk to provide access to these rooms" to attorneys. (Rich Decl. I 7.) Any change to standard operating procedures "would require significant resources." (Id.) And there are other rooms available, but they are in disuse because of "a lack of security functions" and because the master key does not work to these rooms. (Id. I 8.) They would need more funds to renovate these rooms and to station additional officers near these rooms. (Id.) The Court is underwhelmed by this evidence. The record shows that Whipple allowed in-person visits before Operation Metro Surge, and Defendants make no effort to explain why in-person visits suddenly strain their resources. The record also shows that during Operation Metro Surge, the rooms are not used. Putting these evidentiary concerns aside, forbidding in-person visits based on a generic and unspecified risk to safety and lack of resources is excessive. Defendants chose to operate a detention facility, so "they must meet constitutional standards." Campbell o. Cauthron, 623 F.2d 503, 508 (8th Cir. 1980). Defendants allocated substantial resources to sending thousands of agents to Minnesota, detaining thousands of people, and housing them in their facilities. Defendants cannot suddenly lack resources when it comes to protecting detainees' constitutional rights. Likewise, Defendants practice of rapidly transferring detainees out of state without an opportunity to consult with counsel is unconstitutionally excessive. The Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that enjoining transfer may be appropriate if transferring the detainee would interfere with an existing attorney-client relationship such that access to counsel is effectively denied. Cent. Am. Refugees v. I.N.S., 795 F.2d 1434, 1439 (9th Cir.), amended, 807 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1986). That reasoning seemingly tees up a distinction between detainees who have already retained counsel and those who have not. But other courts have concluded that a detainee's right to access counsel can still be violated even if they do not yet have an attorney. For example, in Torres v. D.H.S., the court countenanced "extensive allegations regarding conditions so restrictive as to prevent them from forming any attorney-client relationship to begin with." 411 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1049 (C.D. Cal. 2019). The same is true here.
February 13, 2026 at 12:25 AM
Reposted
jeremyj.bsky.social
It deserves more focus how Johnson repeatedly characterizes those observing "law enforcement" actions to be "in harm's way." The implication is more damning than Johnson seems to realize.
February 12, 2026 at 3:35 PM
brttnny.bsky.social
Ron is trying to conflate and confuse the first amendment with “trained activists” and obstruction of justice. Cool.
February 12, 2026 at 5:14 PM