Questiоn One (One Hоur аnd а Hаlf) In a seasоn where there seems to be no shortage of provocations to cause Americans to become angry at each other, a recent one stands out. A conservative activist posted an online video documenting his unscheduled visits to Minnesota day care centers serving the working class and poor owned and operated by individuals of Somali descent (most involved are American citizens). His video purports to demonstrate that these day care centers are just fronts for fraud, as often no one answered the door when he rang or knocked, and, in the few times in which a person came to the door, the person would refuse to or could not show any children in the facility. (The activist alleges that the masterminds of the schemes invent fictional children so they can collect government funding for each one of these “clients.”) The video went viral, and investigations into child care centers across the state and the nation ensued. President Trump entered the fray, commenting that people of Somali heritage are “garbage”, “contribute nothing” and that he “doesn’t want them in our country.” The leaders of the state of Monroe are concerned about what has happened in Minnesota because their state also has a large Somali community that owns and operates many private day care centers where the tuition is paid by the state government. (About 35% of these day care enterprises are owned and operated by individuals of Somali descent, far higher than the percentage of any other identifiable group.) The Monroe legislature has passed a bill providing that any day care center where the tuition of the majority of the children using the center is paid for by state government programs must be open to the public for inspection, with or without prior notice, (under reasonable security protocols) during regular business hours and it must always have children on the premises available to be viewed during these hours. If a state government inspector or a member of the public reports that no one has answered the door and demonstrated the presence of children in the facility three separate times in 45 days, the public funding for that facility will be terminated and the facility will be required to permanently close. (The relevant agency will contact and confirm the visit with the reporting member of the public, who must provide name and contact information.) In passing the bill, several of the legislators, who are Republican supporters of President Trump, commented that “we don’t want foreign scam artists stealing public money” and that “we don’t want what happened in Minnesota to happen here.” The relevant Monroe public agencies have vigorously enforced the law, sending public inspectors on random visits to all qualifying day care centers and conscientiously collecting and faithfully acting on all of the information supplied by the public, no matter which facility. Numerous day centers have had their funding terminated and their facilities closed, and the substantial majority of those terminated have been Somali owned facilities. The affected Somali business owners are furious about how they have been unfairly stigmatized and shut down, pointing out that their day care centers (which are often very small) run on shifts that are spread throughout the day and evening, not just during normal business hours, so that it not unusual that there may not be anyone available at a particular time of day. They also point out that children may be resting at a time of a visit and cannot be disturbed. They believe the state is arbitrarily destroying their families’ livelihood and life’s work. The reports of these alleged fraudulent schemes have had severe consequences. President Trump ordered the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency to send a large number of officers to states where fraud has been alleged to investigate the activities of immigrant communities and apprehend any members of these communities who may be violating the law. Many of the residents of these states, like Minnesota or Monroe, are angry that their friends and neighbors have been targeted and have organized, at best, to slow down or, at least, to protest what they believe are ICE’s illegal and unjust operations. They have attempted, often successfully, to spoil ICE operations by, when spotting ICE agents in an area, blowing loud whistles (using a particular kind of powerful whistle that have been distributed by organized groups to activist citizens) to alert everyone in the area of ICE’s presence and then physically impeding, using their cars or their bodies, ICE agents from moving about the area. (It is important to know that most ICE operations take place in residential neighborhoods, often seeking to move in when people are going to work or school.) The majority of the Monroe legislature is furious about this interference with they consider to be the legitimate exercise of law enforcement authority and have passed a series of laws to deal with the agitation. First, the legislature has passed a law making it a felony for any person to deliberately physically obstruct, whether in person or using any kind of vehicle, public law enforcement officers (whether state or federal) acting in the course of their duties. In addition to enforcement by state and local law enforcement officers, Monroe citizens who support President Trump and the ICE action have decided they too should be active. They have organized groups, funded by private donors, called IceAssist (“IA’). IA’s goal is to place a ring of supporters around ICE agents while they carry out operations. Their specific task is to block any opposing activists from interfering with ICE agents, generally by lining up between sidewalks and the street, so that anti-ICE activists cannot reach the street. The IA group also moves to shield the ICE officers as they enter the affected premises. To facilitate their plans, each of the IA groups has a one day training session, attended (but not run—the officer is there to answer questions) by a senior ICE officer (who has been assigned to attend and is working on government time), in which the activists learn what their tasks are and how to execute them without engaging in any force or violence (although they will defend themselves if attacked.) The anti-ICE activists believe both the law (as enforced by public officers) and the actions of the IA groups violate their rights. Next, the legislature has passed a law providing that no person may blow a particular type of powerful loud whistle (the one favored by the activist groups) in residential neighborhoods (those consisting only of single family homes and apartment buildings, without any commercial enterprises.) The anti-ICE activists also believe this law violates their rights. Finally, these events have upended the life of Monroe anti-ICE activist Julie Thomas. Having heard the whistles one morning signaling an ICE operation, she raced outside her house, only to find her that her next door neighbor, Tom Downs, also an anti-ICE activist, had pulled his car out of his driveway and moved into the street just in front of approaching ICE officers. Thomas, seeing that Downs was in the position to block the ICE operation, screamed “Tom! Drive! Drive!” Downs, hearing Thomas, drove forward, striking one of the ICE agents. He was then quickly surrounded and arrested for his act. Thomas was also arrested and charged under a law the legislature has newly enacted. This law provides that “Any person who engages in any behavior designed to incite or produce an immediate unlawful obstruction of any immigration law enforcement officer engaged in the carrying out of their duties and that is likely to result in such obstruction shall be guilty of a felony.” Thomas believes her rights have been violated and will afford her a defense against this prosecution. You are a law clerk to the judge who has been assigned to hear all these cases. Write a memorandum discussing all the legal issues raised by the claims made by the Somali business owners; the claims of the anti-ICE activists; and the defenses raised by Thomas against her prosecution. Make sure to fully explain the arguments for both sustaining and striking down the alleged government actions regarding all of these issues. Please do not discuss any areas of law that were not covered in the course.