Advocates in Detroit are calling for the director of the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement office to resign after immigration officers stopped two undocumented immigrants on Tuesday while they dropped their children off at school. The agents had followed both men, who had children in their cars, from their homes to the children’s schools.

Jorge Hernandez, one of the men, said ICE officials pulled him over in unmarked cars across the street from his 4-year-old daughter’s school, and his son and wife were in the car when he was stopped. “I was very scared,” said Jorge through an interpreter. “My children were saying, ‘Don’t take my dad away.’” Agents released Hernandez after he was questioned. The second man, Hector Orozco Villa, was detained near the elementary school that his two children attend and is still in custody.

The Alliance for Immigrant Rights and Reform said this incident follows an agreement last year from ICE that officials would be more sensitive when enforcing immigration policies. In 2011, half a dozen ICE agents surrounded another school in the same community, trapping immigrant parents inside.

Now, parents in the area are worried again:

The presence of the agents spread alarm among arriving parents and children in the Latino neighborhood, school officials said. More than 100 people rallied on Wednesday to protest, according to a report in The Detroit News, saying the immigration agency had broken an earlier promise to avoid arrests near schools and other community gathering points.

“It is very alarming to me to have this happen during the rush hour of people taking their children to school,” said Rashida Tlaib, a Democratic state representative who attended the rally. “We are really worried about the impact on these United States citizen children.” Several of Mr. Hernandez’s and Mr. Orozco’s children were born in the United States.

The incident revealed the raw sensitivities in some immigrant communities as federal agents carry out the increasingly complex deportation policy of the Obama administration. Agents have been instructed to focus on capturing illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals or repeat immigration violators, and to avoid detaining those who have committed no serious crimes and have strong family ties to the United States.

Immigration officials said the officers’ actions followed agency policies. “After a thorough review of facts, the arrest of a priority target today in the Detroit metro area adhered to, and was in full compliance of, the stated policies and procedures of the agency,” said ICE Spokesman Ross Feinstein, according to the New York Times. Officials said Orozco was arrested because of a 2008 criminal conviction and had returned to the U.S. after being deported — a felony. While ICE reports Hernandez was not a primary target, he had two convictions for driving with an expired license.

There have been a record number of deportations under President Obama, including tens of thousands of parents whose children are U.S. citizens. Last year, the Obama administration announced a case-by-case review of deportations to ensure that lower-priority deportation cases “are being set aside so we can focus more on our more serious cases of convicted criminals and other high priority categories.”

A federal appeals court said Tuesday it will not rule before Election Day on a challenge to Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s aggressive program to purge almost 200 voters from the rolls. That list of 198 voters was pared down from 180,000 individuals, and then to a list of 2,600 that was still riddled with errors. There remains evidence that even this smaller list is not accurate.

In rejecting the request for an expedited hearing, Eleventh Circuit Judge Rosemary Barkett reasoned that the Florida Secretary of State had guaranteed “there is no chance that a citizen will be erroneously removed before election day.” But this is not because Secretary Ken Dutzner agreed to halt the purge until after the election. Instead, he made a procedural argument, based on several unsubstantiated assertions, that it would be impossible for the state to remove a citizen before the election, given the law’s required 30 days’ notice to contest a purge. In their reply motion, plaintiffs poke several gaping holes in this reasoning, including pointing out that notices could and likely have already been sent out with far less than 30 days left before the election, and that those who respond in less than 30 days with a written objection may be purged immediately.

Judge Barkett did not wade into the Secretary’s reasoning in her order, instead relying upon the “representation that there is no chance that a citizen will be removed from the voter rolls.” Given this guarantee, it may turn out that the plaintiffs have a claim of fraud upon the court, should it become evident that the state purged even a single citizen.

Earlier this month, in a case brought by several conservative groups and Republican Party committees, a federal judge in Montana struck down Montana’s limits on contributions candidates for state offices, claiming that they were unconstitutionally low. As ThinkProgress explained at the time, this decision was unfortunate, but it may be understandable given the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a somewhat similar Vermont law in Randall v. Sorrell. Randall presented a plausible, if not necessarily convincing, case that the justices’ hostility towards campaign finance regulation dooms the Montana law.

Nevertheless, on Tuesday a conservative panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a stay of the lower court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion was written by a particularly notorious conservative, Judge Jay Bybee, who is best known as the author of legal memos authorizing torture during the Bush Administration.

Judge Bybee’s opinion is labyrinthian in its complexity, and this isn’t exactly his fault. The Supreme Court’s decision in Randall resulted in a plurality opinion that only two justices joined in full, and three separate concurring opinions from three different justices. Worse, the plurality opinion points to four “danger signs” and five separate “considerations” in determining whether to strike down the Vermont law. It is the kind of precedent that law professors include in their final exams to torment their students. Judge Bybee is not normally someone who evokes sympathy, but he deserves some condolences for having to unwind this Gordian Knot of a decision. If any of our readers are masochistic enough that they insist upon reading Bybee’s opinion, they may do so here.

In other words, Bybee waded into an area of the law where there is almost maximal ambiguity, and thus maximal ability for a conservative judge to resolve all ties in favor of the Republicans. And yet he went the other direction. This is not a sure sign that the Montana law will ultimately survive, but it is a hopeful one.

Former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R-MT)

On October 3, U.S. District Judge Charles Lovell threw out Montana’s campaign contribution limits, writing that they prevent candidates from “amassing the resources necessary for effective campaign advocacy.” On October 9, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily stayed his ruling and, noting that the state’s appeal was “likely to succeed,” later ordered that the state’s campaign finance rules be operative for this year’s election.

But that left a six-day window in which Montana was prohibited from enforcing its limits on campaign contributions. The Montana Republican Party opted to use that gap to make a large transfer — $500,000 — from its coffers to the gubernatorial campaign of former U.S. Rep. Rick Hill (R). The Hill campaign accepted the money and says it will keep and spend the cash, as it was a legal contribution at the time it was made.

State Democrats are crying foul. State Attorney General Steve Bullock, the Democratic nominee for governor, says his campaign accepted no over-the-limit donations in the brief period and will challenge the donation. The Associated Press reports:

Bullock’s campaign filed a complaint with the commissioner of political practices, which oversees campaign finance reporting for state candidates. The attorney general also said he may file another complaint in court with the aim of blocking Hill from using the money before the Nov. 6 election. Lovell’s ruling only briefly prevented the commissioner from enforcing the campaign contribution limits, and it didn’t give candidates the right to accept such donations, Bullock said. Violation of state election laws is a misdemeanor crime.

“It shows that he’s going to go to any level, including taking illegal contributions, to win the election,” Bullock said of Hill. “This is a serious violation. It’s a $500,000 violation of Montana’s laws. There certainly could be implications beyond the election.”

With polls showing the race in a virtual dead heat and relatively low state donation limits, the Montana Republican Party’s contribution amounts to a significant sum, and could potentially make the difference. Even if his ruling is ultimately overturned in the appeals process, Reagan appointee Lovell’s ruling against any campaign finance limits could sway the election.

Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs is a very conservative judge. He joined a court decision effectively declaring corporations immune to international human rights law — even when they “trade in or exploit slaves, employ mercenary armies to do dirty work for despots, perform genocides or operate torture prisons for a despot’s political opponents, or engage in piracy.” And he once gave a speech to the conservative Federalist Society decrying the “anti-social effects” of attorneys providing free legal services to the less fortunate.

And yet, this severely conservative judge is also the author of an opinion striking down the unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act. Even more significantly, Chief Judge Jacobs’ opinion concludes that any law which discriminates against gay men and lesbians should be treated very skeptically under our Constitution:

[W]e conclude that review of Section 3 of DOMA requires heightened scrutiny. The Supreme Court uses certain factors to decide whether a new classification qualifies as a quasi-suspect class. They include: A) whether the class has been historically “subjected to discrimination,”; B) whether the class has a defining characteristic that “frequently bears [a] relation to ability to perform or contribute to society,” C) whether the class exhibits “obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group;” and D) whether the class is “a minority or politically powerless.” Immutability and lack of political power are not strictly necessary factors to identify a suspect class. Nevertheless, immutability and political power are indicative, and we consider them here. In this case, all four factors justify heightened scrutiny: A) homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination; B) homosexuality has no relation to aptitude or ability to contribute to society; C) homosexuals are a discernible group with non-obvious distinguishing characteristics, especially in the subset of those who enter same-sex marriages; and D) the class remains a politically weakened minority.

This is a really big deal. Jacobs is not simply saying that DOMA imposes unique and unconstitutional burdens on gay couples, he is saying that any attempt by government to discriminate against gay people must have an “exceedingly persuasive” justification. This is the same very skeptical standard afforded to laws that discriminate against women. If Jacobs’ reasoning is adopted by the Supreme Court, it will be a sweeping victory for gay rights, likely causing state discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to be virtually eliminated. And the fact that this decision came from such a conservative judge makes it all the more likely that DOMA will ultimately be struck down by the Supreme Court.

One unfortunate caveat is necessary: Judge Chester Straub, a Clinton-appointee, dissented. Nevertheless, this marks the second time that a prominent conservative court of appeals judge declared DOMA unconstitutional, and it relies on a sweeping rationale in doing so. Supporters of equality have a great deal to celebrate today.

A Los Angeles proposal to provide photo identification to undocumented immigrants and other marginalized populations cleared a city council committee unanimously on Tuesday.

The measure proposed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa would make cards available to any city resident for a small fee. They would include identifying information, allow access to city services such as libraries, and could be used as prepaid debit cards. During the hearing on the measure Tuesday, not a single person spoke in opposition to the measure, and those imploring its passage included not just immigrant advocates, but bankers and business owners, who would benefit from the business of the city’s estimated 4.3 million immigrants.

The proposal aims to reduce crime and increase access for the city’s immigrants, as well as seniors, the homeless and other individuals who have no identification. Those who cannot open a bank account must carry around significant amounts of cash, and day laborers are particular targets for theft. The city also plans to make the cards gender-neutral for transgender individuals. Other cities, including New Haven, San Francisco, Oakland and Richmond, California have passed similar measures, but Los Angeles would be the largest jurisdiction to do so.

Unlike the harsh measures in Arizona and other states that seek to criminalize immigrants and racially profile, ID proposals seek to reduce crime and increase revenue by bringing the immigrant population “out of the shadows.” Importantly, these laws are also less susceptible to legal challenges that charge local interference with federal immigration policy because they do not even consider immigration status, and the card is made available to any city resident who can verify his or her identify. Initial legal challenges to the measures in New Haven and San Francisco were rejected. Of course, because the federal government has the ultimate purview over immigration policy, laws like this can do nothing to change the legal status of immigrants, who remain in legal limbo until the federal government does more to exercise that power.

Two federal courts said that the Ohio Republican Party’s effort to reduce opportunities to vote early must not go into effect. And the Supreme Court rejected an attempt by Ohio Republican officials to reinstate a GOP-backed law taking away three days of early voting just this week.

Yet despite multiple court defeats, Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted is determined to restrict early voting as much as he can get away with. Indeed, Husted openly defied the first court order blocking the Republican restrictions on early voting, although he eventually backed down after a federal judge ordered him to appear in court personally to explain himself. Now, just two days after the conservative Roberts Court turned away Husted’s bid to reinstate the anti-voter law, he is still finding new ways to cut back early voting:

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted swiftly limited early voting hours on those crucial three days to 8 am–2 pm on Saturday, November 3; 1–5 pm on Sunday, November 4; and 8 am–2 pm on Monday, November 5. That means Ohio voters will have a total of only sixteen hours to cast a ballot during those three days. And before the weekend before the election, Ohio voters will still not be able to cast a ballot in-person on nights or weekends.

In 2008, the most populous counties in Ohio allowed more time for early voting—both in terms of days (thirty-five) and hours (on nights and weekends in many places). For the three days before the election, early voting locations were open for a total of twenty-four hours in Columbus’s Franklin County (8-5 on Saturday, 1-5 on Sunday and 8-7 on Monday) and 18 and a half hours in Cleveland’s Cuyahoga County (9-1 on Saturday, 1-5 on Sunday, 8:30-7 pm on Monday). During those final three pre-election days in 2008, 148,000 votes were cast and “wait times stretched 2 1/2 hours,” reported the Columbus Dispatch.

There is a simple explanation for why Ohio Republicans are so determined to cut back early voting. Early voters are more likely to be minorities and are more likely to have lower incomes. They are also much less likely to have jobs that give them the flexibility to take time off to vote on election day. According to a recent Ohio poll, President Obama leads 57 percent to 38 percent among people who already voted, but is tied at 43 percent with Mitt Romney among likely voters who have yet to cast their ballot.