Now Is Not the Time for Federal Judges to Be Removing ICE Skeptics From Jury Selection

"The jury selection in the trial of anti-ICE protester Sydney Reid-who was recently acquitted by a D.C. jury in a trial that became a spectacle of government transgressions-illustrates the problem. For hours, potential jurors were questioned about their feelings toward ICE and federal law enforcement. Nearly a dozen people were excused for saying they could not be impartial because of their feelings toward the federal law enforcement apparatus, an honest response that is reflective of real community sentiment."

"One woman, apologizing through tears, explained that her cousin and aunt had just been taken by ICE and that her family had stopped working out of fear. Another prospective juror told the judge, "I don't trust government like I used to," and admitted they would "have a hard time believing their integrity" if ICE officers testified. But lying to cover their tracks has become so commonplace among ICE and DHS officials that a healthy dose of wariness is well deserved."

"When the government acts aggressively, its agents lie, and the community witnesses the erosion of justice, that community's informed distrust of the government's actions is not a bias to be purged. It is the very voice the Framers yearned for engaged citizens to bring to the jury box. That community skepticism of arbitrary and unjust government action forms the bedrock of the constitutionally prescribed mechanism by which we adjudicate criminal cases."

Aggressive Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids have ransacked communities and sown a strong sense of distrust. Jury selection in a high-profile anti-ICE protester trial revealed prospective jurors excused for admitting they could not be impartial because of their feelings toward federal law enforcement. Personal harms, including family members taken by ICE and fear-driven loss of work, underlie that distrust. Repeated lies by ICE and DHS officials make community wariness well deserved. Informed community skepticism of arbitrary or unjust government action is not a bias to be removed but a constitutional check that juries should embody.

Read at Slate Magazine