Why do they get a warning?
I don't get a warning when I break the law.
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2025
413 points (99.5% liked)
News
33378 readers
2529 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
short version? the government has to consent to the suit in order for you to sue them.
Enforced by the same police that helped ICE be violent towards peaceful protestors?
.... And they basically admitted it.
“Our operators comply with federal law and, consistent with the Supremacy Clause, endeavor to comply with state law except where doing so could compromise or interfere with the federal mission and operations,” the DHS said.
Which basically is another way of saying "We do what we want and Illinois can fuck off".
"Operators" is also an interesting way to describe their officers/agents. They're trying to conflate themselves with the military, specifically special operations.
No, I think in this case they may be referencing the relevant Illinois statute. I bet it refers to "Motor Vehicle Operators".
"We always comply with the law, except when we don't"
“We always comply with the law, because the executive has decreed that we ARE the law.”
Someone needs to go back to civics class and learn what the Supremacy Clause actually means.
Perhaps you do?
Ever seen a license plate on a mail truck? No, you haven’t, because they don’t use them. The Federal government does plate some of their vehicles, but it’s well established that they don’t have to obey state laws about it.
My father was a Federal pig, many years ago, and I once had a conversation with him about how they plated their cars. A few of the vehicles were owned by the government, but most were leased. Some were registered with the state, to the government, they were only supposed to look like ordinary cars at a glance. Some were registered to fictitious identities that were designed to hold up to a background check conducted by another government agency. They also had fake plates, including fake Mexican plates, as this office was near the Mexican border.
These vehicles are not owned by the Federal Government, though. They are owned by a rental agency, which is subject to State Law. Those law don't dissolve into a puddle just because a Fed is renting them.
If ICE wants to flout State licensing laws, they can just buy all the cars they use. Lord knows they have enough money to do that.
Isnt that the clause that makes Donald Trump the supreme ruler, like King Cyrus?
Unfortunately I think they’re probably right. If you cannot comply with both state and federal law you must comply with federal law first. That’s the supremacy clause.
I doubt there is any Federal law that authorizes Federal employees to fiddle with license plates for cars that are registered with a state.
If the Federal government wants to do that they have their own system to register cars, independent of any state. If they were substituting State plates with US Government plates, maybe they have a point. But they are simply ignoring local laws, because they are inconvenient. The Supremacy clause doesn't allow that.
10th amendment would like to have a word with you.
If Illinois decades to get off their butts and prosecute ICE, they should cross reference the rentals with traffic cameras. Presumably the rentals have GPS trackers - so check the routes they take with the cameras, and see if the plates magically change.
Arrest them!
Until someone starts to hold them to account then it is just a suggestion.
"Official notice"
So it's the rental car companies responsibility to enforce the law?
If they know it's happening, maybe they need to step up enforcement, not pass the buck. But, I suppose that might actually be effective, and we can't have that now, can we?
So it's the rental car companies responsibility to enforce the law?
Kind of.
These are cars registered with the state, owned by the rental companies. Which makes them their cars, and their liability.
It isn't so much that its their job to enforce the law, but their vehicles being used in violation of the law. If these were federally owned vehicles, they wouldn't be required to register with the state, and it would be kind of irrelevant in that regard.
They aren't though. These are rental company vehicles.
The goal, if I had my guess, is to make rental companies unwilling to rent their cars out due to the liability associated here. By publicly stating it like this, it gives a reason for the rental companies to say they can't rent them out to DHS anymore. That part is just my guess though.
Yeah but it seems they are being rented by people in plain clothes, as apparently several companies are already trying to refuse.
In particular one truck rental place was named that they were complaining that their trucks are not for transporting people in the cargo space.
In any case, if I rent a car where I live, and run a red light, commit a speeding offence, park illegally and get it towed, what usually happens is that the car gets treated the same way as any other car, the owning rental company gets charged and fined, and then they put on massive fees and forward the problem to me.
Why can't they just pull over the vehicle, impound it, and have everything happen like it would with anyone else?
Yeah but it seems they are being rented by people in plain clothes, as apparently several companies are already trying to refuse.
Seems to me (non-lawyer) like they can put out a form like "Are you renting this vehicle on behalf of a federal agency, or to accomplish work for a federal agency Y/N" and if the ICE agents lie on the form, the rental company can now sue the government for fraud. I imagine the individual ICE agent would also be in breach of contract or something.
I know someone who works for a federal agency (DOI, not DOJ/DOD) and they rent cars on behalf of the government frequently when they need to travel to accomplish their work (or they used to, in the before times). But they're like, doing normal, non-reprehensible things with the car... not filling it up with detainees.
Why can’t they just pull over the vehicle, impound it, and have everything happen like it would with anyone else?
They can do both, and I imagine they probably will.
Why can't they just pull over the vehicle, impound it, and have everything happen like it would with anyone else?
I really wish I had that answer, to me it makes the most sense too.
Like you said though, the fines would go to the rental company, and thats the liability we are talking about here.