"Constitution? What 'Constitution'?"

Seems like the Regime doesn't like all that fuss and bother of the 1st and 5th Amendments.  But also remember:  the REPUBLICAN HOUSE passed this 'law' along with the DEMOCRAT SENATE.

It's a Ruling Class thing, ya' know.

...The federal government had told the judge it concluded that her recent ruling exempted only the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the provision

U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest shot back in a new Memorandum Opinion and Order yesterday that said because the possible injury to Americans includes the loss of their rights, her order was intended to protect everyone...

 ...The judge noted that the law doesn’t have a requirement that there be any knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention. The judge also said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration lawyers refused to answer her questions.

Titus said the opinion underscores “the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to.”

The judge explained that the plaintiffs alleged paragraph 1021 is “constitutionally infirm, violating both their free speech and associational rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment as well due process rights guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.”

Given the trajectory outlined above, the Feds may well stuff that judge into prison first, before they frog-march the Catholic Bishops...