It’s impossible to reflect on this post without bringing up the South Florida Detention Facility (otherwise known as Alligator Alcatraz), as well as the Trump Administration’s goal of reopening Fort Bliss, a former internment camp of Japanese Americans, as well as every individual who has been racially targeted by the Trump Administration and unlawfully been taken into custody of the U.S. Government. With regard to the first question, telling the difference between security and scapegoating, on some fundamental level, comes down to both individual responsibility for seeking out the truth and an uncorrupted education in history (which arguably is probably becoming more difficult to obtain). Because national security is (literally) a constant excuse so violently steeped in policy, it’s difficult to answer the question posed regarding what role courts should play in times of fear. Frankly, I find it difficult to conceive of a time in U.S. history where fear does not exist as it pertains to the scapegoating of racial/ethnic minorities. What can be said for certain is that the courts have reflected and ruled far too late in the timeline of these camps (and bans) for it to be of any legitimate use beyond the belated and ineffectual reckoning with the state-sanctioned violence that occurs. What is clear in the 9 months after Trump took office is the importance of the very courageous federal district court judges who have been able to take meaningful action (such as the judges blocking Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation the first and now second time). In times of fear, those judges have been effectual safeguards in a way SCOTUS has proven unwilling. While an unsatisfying and incomplete answer, it seems that some of our most effective tools in the present moment are those judges closest to us, and perhaps we've underestimated the importance of those first stopgaps.
You make a great point about how local judges can act fast while the Supreme Court often speaks too late. The real challenge is that “too late” rulings can still normalize injustice while it’s happening, even if they’re later overturned. Once the Court gives its stamp of approval, that decision can be used to justify similar actions for years.
It’s impossible to reflect on this post without bringing up the South Florida Detention Facility (otherwise known as Alligator Alcatraz), as well as the Trump Administration’s goal of reopening Fort Bliss, a former internment camp of Japanese Americans, as well as every individual who has been racially targeted by the Trump Administration and unlawfully been taken into custody of the U.S. Government. With regard to the first question, telling the difference between security and scapegoating, on some fundamental level, comes down to both individual responsibility for seeking out the truth and an uncorrupted education in history (which arguably is probably becoming more difficult to obtain). Because national security is (literally) a constant excuse so violently steeped in policy, it’s difficult to answer the question posed regarding what role courts should play in times of fear. Frankly, I find it difficult to conceive of a time in U.S. history where fear does not exist as it pertains to the scapegoating of racial/ethnic minorities. What can be said for certain is that the courts have reflected and ruled far too late in the timeline of these camps (and bans) for it to be of any legitimate use beyond the belated and ineffectual reckoning with the state-sanctioned violence that occurs. What is clear in the 9 months after Trump took office is the importance of the very courageous federal district court judges who have been able to take meaningful action (such as the judges blocking Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation the first and now second time). In times of fear, those judges have been effectual safeguards in a way SCOTUS has proven unwilling. While an unsatisfying and incomplete answer, it seems that some of our most effective tools in the present moment are those judges closest to us, and perhaps we've underestimated the importance of those first stopgaps.
You make a great point about how local judges can act fast while the Supreme Court often speaks too late. The real challenge is that “too late” rulings can still normalize injustice while it’s happening, even if they’re later overturned. Once the Court gives its stamp of approval, that decision can be used to justify similar actions for years.