Since you're the one who alleged that city officials were obstructing ICE you provide a link and by obstructing I'm referring to interference with ICE officers who were actually in the process of apprehending illegals.
I agree with you. I only disagree on the timeframe of the left using the judiciary for legislative purposes. IMO, it has been going on in varying degrees since 1920, 105 years. For the first time in multiple generations, the left is truly out of power. I cannot express my gratitude enough for the SCOTUS being strong with their constitutional decisions on Thursday and Friday last week.
Okay then, simply read what I posted in the #1 post in this thread. It has 2 links, the DOJ and the LA Times. I can assure you, Pam Bondi filed this suit to win. There is plenty more, but, again, do you own research as I don't intend to spoon feed you for you to just turn around and say I don't approve of your links, been down that road with you and others before. Try starting outside the realm of the lamestream media.
According to both links the Trump Administration is suing the City of Los Angeles based on its "sanctuary city" policies and its alleged refusal to cooperate with ICE. According to the first link which is a press release from Trump's DOJ those policies constitute "obstruction". Neither cites allegations of actual interference of ICE officers who are in the process of apprehending illegals maybe because there aren't any. By the way I consider the mainstream media more credible than a self-serving press release from Trump's DOJ keeping in mind that fabrications, distortions and outright lies are features rather than bugs of the administration.
Interesting. I don’t think we disagree on timeline. I said well over 50 years because I was not sure how far back I needed to go back on my timeline. Court cases prior to the 1960s are not an area of expertise for me. “Well over 50” gave me some margin of error if I needed to go back further, which I suspected might be the case.
Few specific allegations from the Complaint. The last allegation - about criminal versus civil arrest warrants - is the most interesting to me at first glance. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1406366/dl The challenged law and policies of the City of Los Angeles obstruct the Federal Government’s enforcement of federal immigration law and impede consultation and communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out federal immigration law and keep Americans safe. The Los Angeles Ordinance and other policies intentionally discriminate against the Federal Government by treating federal immigration authorities differently than other law enforcement agents through access restrictions both to property and to individual detainees, by prohibiting contractors and sub-contractors from providing information, and by disfavoring federal criminal laws that the City of Los Angeles has decided not to comply with. The Los Angeles Ordinance and other policies intentionally obstruct the sharing of information envisioned by Congress, thereby impairing federal apprehension and detention of removable aliens, including dangerous criminals, as required by federal law. Obstructionist Sanctuary City laws preclude Los Angeles officials and law enforcement agencies from assisting federal immigration authorities unless federal officials procure criminal arrest warrants to take custody of removable aliens. The preferences of the City of Los Angeles notwithstanding, Congress made an explicit policy choice that such removals can be effectuated by civil arrest warrants for immigration enforcement.
Noting that there are no allegations alleging that officials and/or employees of the City of Los Angeles actually interfered with ICE officers who were performing their duty of apprehending illegal immigrants.