‘Resistance’-rotted judge’s anti-ICE emoting – Latest News
In the annals of left-wing jurisprudence, the ruling issued Saturday by Judge Fred Biery of the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas units a complete new commonplace for judicial activism.
The opinion, which secured the quick release of asylum seeker Adrian Conejo Arias and his 5-year-old son Liam, affords a glimpse inside the “resistance”-rotted mind of an activist choose.
Liam, you’ll recall, turned a social-media sensation final month when activists accused Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers of “using him as bait” to arrest his dad in Minneapolis.
ICE denied the story, countering that Conejo Arias had deserted the tot within the frigid avenue when he noticed brokers coming.
Unfortunately, Saturday’s ruling by the 78-year-old Clinton appointee, which is heavy on ethical posturing and light-weight on law, is simply the most recent in a wider trend of judges abusing the courtroom as their personal soapbox, a trend that has reached even the Supreme Court.
Letting unfastened with such unchecked emotion is unbecoming for any choose, regardless of the difficulty.
However, in Biery’s case particularly, grandstanding from the bench is worse than inappropriate; it’s reckless.
Biery has inserted himself into a contentious constitutional debate over whether or not administrative warrants issued by the Department of Homeland Security legally allow federal officers to forcibly enter houses to arrest immigrants with last removing orders — or whether or not the chief department is violating the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment with such ways.
You’d assume that, given the stakes, Biery would have made his opinion legally hermetic.
You’d assume he would have been cautious to not muddy issues with pointless sentimentalism or overtly hostile and partisan language that virtually begs for a legal problem.
You’d be improper.
Biery’s three-page ruling is 99% a teary-eyed appeal to emotion, with the remaining 1% consisting of offhand mentions of case law, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Thomas Jefferson.
The closest he involves explaining his reasoning is when he casually asserts that the Fourth Amendment requires the oversight of an unbiased judicial official.
“Civics lesson to the government: Administrative warrants issued by the executive branch to itself do not pass probable cause muster,” he declares.
Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our every day Post Opinion publication!
Thanks for signing up!
“That is called the fox guarding the henhouse.”
What is that this?
Amid the controversy over the constitutionality of DHS’s actions, the best Biery can offer is a diary entry full of idioms about foxes and pleas for a more “humane” immigration coverage rooted in “human decency”?
As if that weren’t ridiculous enough, he indicators off with a line of self-praise, lauding himself for having caught his “judicial finger in the constitutional dike.”
To heighten the drama, he additionally added to his signature the now-viral photograph of little Liam, standing within the snow in his candy blue cap and Spider-Man backpack, together with two Bible citations (Matthew 19:14 and John 11:35).
Finally, as a kind of unintentional coup de grâce for this embarrassing train in Boomerific left-wing foolishness, Biery completes his order with a nonexistent date: “SIGNED this 31st day of February, 2026.”
He can’t even lean on intercalary year as a protection.
To call this a judicial opinion could be deceptive. It’s barely even an opinion.
It’s a smorgasbord of over-the-top emotion, loosely caught along with saccharine platitudes.
We’re no strangers to flimsy rulings, particularly given current judicial resistance to President Donald Trump’s agenda.
After all, we dwell in an period the place liberal Supreme Court justices usually append overwrought signoffs to their selections, together with when Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer wrote of their Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization dissent: “With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent.”
Sotomayor additionally concluded her opinion in Trump vs. the United States with the road: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
But this catastrophe from Judge Biery is so uniquely idiotic and infantile that it’s nearly unimaginable to imagine it’s actual.
Worse than being merely self-absorbed, Biery’s opinion makes a mess of a troublesome legal debate, nearly guaranteeing his ruling will face strong challenges — and protecting the Arias household within the administration’s deportation crosshairs.
This raises the apparent query: What was the purpose of this?
Was the choose aiming for sound jurisprudence, or merely a self-indulgent show of performative resistance?
If the previous, Biery failed miserably.
If the latter, effectively, maybe Biery’s skills could be higher suited to a life in neighborhood theater, the place his emoting and histrionics could be put to raised use.
T. Becket Adams is a journalist and media critic in Washington, DC.
