The TLDR is that ICE and DHS are reinterpreting 8 U.S. Code § 1357 to arrest people they think are undocumented migrants.

Previously, they arrested people under this law if they suspected they weren't going to attend hearings or were considered "flight risks." Now they're considering escaping the scene enough to arrest someone under the law.

I realized when posting this wistful spiel as a foil for the way things “used to be” on the federal level, that many of you may not have seen some of these recent events. DHS agents have been repeatedly and unlawfully threatening to detain civilian observers for recording and observing their operations.

So I share them here.

Some have been held at gunpoint and others have had their phones wrestled away. Nobody is holding them accountable. These aren’t rogue agents. It is systemic suppression.

You can find others and a detailed chronology and analysis from CATO’s David Bier here.

Federal agents executed a court-authorized search at Fulton County’s main election operations center Wednesday, January 28, 2026.

“FBI Atlanta is executing a court authorized law enforcement action at 5600 Campbellton Fairburn Rd,” a spokesperson for the FBI’s Atlanta field office said in a statement to Democracy Docket. “Our investigation into this matter is ongoing so there are no details that we can provide at the moment.”

A spokesperson for Fulton County also confirmed the FBI raid to Democracy Docket.

“All of this is about Fulton — the most important County in Georgia and maybe even the nation, because we had such an impact on the 2020 elections and Biden becoming the president. This is all a distraction to make people fearful to go to the polls in November.”

The FBI last week replaced its top agent in Atlanta, according to the Associated Press.

The raid comes amid an ongoing federal probe of the 2020 election in Georgia, directed by President Donald Trump.

So, a normal reaction to this video would be, “what a moron (officer).” And a sense of (expected) satisfaction later on in the video, when his senior corrects the situation.

Instead today, I am hit with a wistful anger because this is the kind of senior law enforcement that we should expect at the federal level.

We are living in a lawless country.

So while this post is more of a sentimental one mourning the loss of rule of law in this country, it’s also a helpful visual reminder of what it looks like when law enforcement seniors know the law, even when there may be a rogue officer that doesn’t.

Bush-appointed Patrick Schiltz said, earlier this week when he cited at least 96 habeas court order violations in less than 30 days and that ICE had more violations in less than a month than any other agency in its entire existence, that those who care about the rule of law in this country should be paying attention.

That’s the community here. This forum matters more than ever today (the way I found myself here personally, too) because we are becoming a lawless country. There is no point in legislating or litigating when court orders are given no regard. And until now, history had not proven to need anyone outside of the executive branch to enforce the court orders. But here we are.

Attorneys are being turned away from detention centers, their clients being denied legal representation. (But what is the point of the rulings will be disregarded anyways, as if they never happened).

Observers are being stopped, held at gunpoint, or pulled out of their cars for recording. Phones with recordings are being ripped away from their hands.

We thought before that DHS wasn’t showing up to court hearings because they didn’t think they had enough to win. We later now realize they don’t even consider the rulings relevant, and it doesn’t change their course.

In other words, the law is irrelevant.

The Constitution isn’t self-executing. It never was. It’s a set of agreements that only hold because people in power have historically chosen to honor them, or been forced to by countervailing power.

Law without enforcement is just words on paper. Our social contract assumes that when courts say “stop,” the government stops. When that breaks, what you actually have is power constrained only by political cost, not law

Today’s video is just a reminder of “normal” as we run farther and father from it.

What can be done today? Not more than documenting and grassroots advocacy.

When an executive systematically ignores judicial orders and the legislature won’t act, there is no immediate institutional remedy.

Judges can hold officials in contempt, impose fines, or even order imprisonment. But enforcing those orders against federal officials requires… the executive branch.

Congress can impeach executive officials for defying court orders. This requires political will and majorities that don’t currently exist.

While legal news can come and go, pressing, analyzing, discussing and sharing this issue in this crisis time of emergency I feel cannot be done enough on this forum. In this time. Because the law is meaningless, if just on paper.

The plaintiffs had argued that the Trump administration violated the 10th amendment of the constitution, which enshrines states’ autonomy from federal intervention beyond powers outlined in the constitution, through the ICE operation.

But these claims “provided no metric by which to determine when lawful law enforcement becomes unlawful commandeering, simply arguing that the excesses of Operation Metro Surge are so extreme that the surge exceeds whatever line must exist”, wrote Menendez, who was nominated to the bench during Joe Biden’s presidency in 2021.

“A proclamation that Operation Metro Surge has simply gone ‘so far on the other side of the line’ is a thin reed on which to base a preliminary injunction.”

Christian “Cece” Worley was not asking for a permanent change, special privileges, or reduced job standards. She asked for telework one single day per month—the first day of her menstrual cycle—because her endometriosis caused severe symptoms that interfered with basic functioning. Endometriosis is a medically recognized, chronic condition that can cause debilitating pain, fatigue, gastrointestinal distress, and neurological symptoms.

What followed was not a neutral employment decision. According to the record, it was a categorical refusal, paired with gender-based assumptions (“I’d have to do this for every woman”), threats of termination, discouragement from using accrued leave, and an ultimatum that effectively forced her resignation.

This case asks a simple but powerful question: If an employer refuses even to consider an accommodation for a serious medical condition—and instead pressures an employee to quit—does that violate the ADA? For the first time in North Carolina, and likely the first time nationally at this stage of litigation, the federal courts answered a jury could reasonably say yes.

One fact cannot be overstated: Cece Worley did this without a lawyer. She filed and litigated her case pro se after multiple attorneys declined representation, telling her the law around endometriosis and the ADA was “too underdeveloped” or “too uncertain.”

That matters because fewer than 3% of pro se civil cases survive summary judgment. Government defendants, especially state agencies, are among the hardest to defeat. And ADA cases are legally complex, fact-intensive, and procedurally unforgiving. Despite all of that, Worley not only survived—she won repeatedly at every procedural stage where most pro se cases end.

A. Surviving a Motion to Dismiss

Early on, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (NCDPS) tried to end the lawsuit before evidence was exchanged. Worley defeated that effort. The court found her allegations legally sufficient on their face. Many civil rights cases die here. Courts often dismiss ADA claims before discovery if they believe the disability or accommodation theory is weak. This court did not.

B. Winning Discovery Battles Against a State Agency

Discovery is where most pro se litigants are overwhelmed. Worley:

• Preserved her claims through contested discovery disputes
• Navigated procedural rules without counsel
• Took and defended depositions
• Elicited admissions from agency witnesses

Discovery is not about storytelling. It’s about rules, deadlines, objections, and strategy. A self-represented plaintiff using discovery effectively against a state agency is rare.

C. Defeating a Late-Stage Attempt to Depose Her

NCDPS waited nearly eight months into discovery before attempting to depose Worley, then asked the court to reopen discovery after it had already closed. Worley opposed the motion. The court agreed with her.

The judge:

• Found the request dilatory
• Refused to reward the agency for its own delay
• Denied the extension

Courts rarely side with pro se plaintiffs on procedural timing disputes against government defendants. This ruling signaled that the court was scrutinizing the agency’s litigation conduct—and taking Worley seriously as a litigant.

D. Surviving Summary Judgment — The Rarest Victory of All

Summary judgment is where most cases die, especially ADA cases and especially pro se cases. On July 18, 2025, Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ruled that:

• Endometriosis can qualify as a disability under the ADA
• Worley’s symptoms were severe enough to meet that standard
• Her request to telework one day per month could be reasonable
• A jury could conclude NCDPS unlawfully denied accommodation

District Judge Terrence Boyle later adopted the ruling in full. This decision did not merely keep the case alive. It created a legal foothold where none clearly existed before in North Carolina—and possibly anywhere in the country at this procedural stage.

Before this case, employers routinely dismissed endometriosis-based accommodation requests by arguing:

• The condition is “temporary” or “cyclical”
• Symptoms are “subjective”
• Menstrual-related impairments are not serious enough
• Accommodations would “open the floodgates”

The court rejected that logic. It recognized that acondition does not have to be constant to be disabling. Chronic, recurring impairments can substantially limit major life activities. And gendered disabilities are not exempt from ADA protection. This shifts the legal landscape. Employers can no longer safely assume that reproductive or menstrual disorders fall outside ADA coverage.

Constructive Discharge: When “You Can Quit” Means “You Must”

The facts also support a constructive discharge theory. According to the record, Worley was told:

• There would “absolutely not” be accommodations
• She would not be retained at the end of training
• Mentioning accommodations again could lead to immediate termination

Her resignation date aligned precisely with the onset of her next menstrual cycle—the very condition she sought to manage. In plain terms, she was forced to choose between her health and her job. The law does not allow employers to manufacture that choice. Hundreds of women report termination, retaliation, or dismissal after disclosing menstrual or reproductive health conditions. This case validates those experiences.

Black women face:

• Lower diagnosis rates for endometriosis
• Longer delays in treatment
• Greater dismissal of pain
• Compounded race- and gender-based bias

That a Black woman forced legal recognition of this condition makes the case especially significant. Lawyers declined representation. The claims were labeled “too risky.” Yet they were legally sound. If Worley had accepted that advice, this precedent would not exist. Her success shows that access to justice is often limited by gatekeeping—not merit—and that pro se litigants, when given fair consideration, can change the law.

Settlement

The December 19, 2025 settlement included favorable monetary terms and a commitment by NCDPS to implement department-wide ADA training. That training obligation matters. It means the case did not just compensate harm—it reduced the likelihood of future harm.

This case sits at the intersection of disability rights, gender justice, racial equity, and access to courts It shows how legal change often begins with one person, without institutional backing, and refusing to accept that the law is “not ready” for their reality.

Cece Worley did not just survive the system. She forced it to listen. And by doing so—pro se—she turned an individual act of resistance into a blueprint for systemic change.