🏴‍☠️☠️💀⚰️👎🏻THE HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSERS 🤮 ON OUR PAYROLL: DHS Detention Outlaws Outed Again By U.S. Judge!

From the WashPost:

https://apple.news/AJGOptsSWSUqO9DzDOLgXaA

U.S. judge rules ICE unlawfully jails unaccompanied migrant children once they turn 18

BY SPENCER S. HSU

JULY 2 AT 5:18 PM

A federal judge ruled Thursday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has unlawfully transferred thousands of unaccompanied children who turned 18 to adult detention facilities without considering alternatives, in violation of a 2013 law.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras of Washington, D.C., said he will order changes “in the near future” after a bench trial in a class-action lawsuit brought in March 2018 on behalf of immigrant teenagers by the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC).

Contreras found that ICE does not train field offices to search for or select less-restrictive options than contractor or ICE prisons and jails for minors aging out of refugee resettlement facilities, and in fact guides aofficers to act contrary to a law protecting trafficking victims.

As a result, the judge ruled, many officers choose not to review minors’ files, contact group homes or shelters, or respond to their attorneys suggesting alternatives. Many of ICE’s largest field offices “nearly automatically” send minors to adult jails, even when in extreme cases their parents in the United States or other sponsors would take them, the judge wrote.

“These are not the decisionmaking processes that Congress required” in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act or federal rulemaking law, Contreras wrote in a 180-page opinion. “By failing to make decisions in the way Congress dictated, and based on the factors Congress identified as relevant, ICE fails to fulfill its obligations under the statute.”

The Justice Department did not have a comment, spokeswoman Alexa Vance said.

In a statement by plaintiffs, pro bono lead counsel Steve Patton of Kirkland & Ellis said: “This is a great victory for thousands of current and future unaccompanied immigrant children who turned 18 in government custody. We could not be happier with the court’s thorough and well-reasoned decision.”

. . . .

****************

Read the rest of Spencer’s article at the link.

While a majority of the Supremes seem committed to willfully furthering a program of racist-motivated human rights violations by the Trump kakistocracy, lower Federal Courts appear to be disassociating themselves from the Illegal activities and racist agenda of a lawless regime.

Due Process Forever!

PWS

O7-02-20

JUDGE BOASBERG ORDERS REGIME TO COUGH UP MORE INFO ON THOSE IN GULAG!

 

Spencer S. Hsu
Spencer S. Hsu
Investigative Reporter
Washington Post

https://apple.news/AAA028OREQ4itWr-VKIpz5A

Spencer S. Hsu reports for WashPost:

U.S. immigration officials must disclose the number of releases they have granted or denied from detention centers in five southern states to migrants considered at higher risk of dying from coronavirus.

The order from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg came during a hearing Thursday – days after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement expanded the categories of detainees who should be considered for release beyond pregnant women and those over age 70.

On Saturday, ICE directed field offices nationwide to reassess custody of anyone over 60, as well as those of any age with chronic illnesses compromising their immune systems.

“What I’m looking for is, is it in fact happening on the ground?” Boasberg told lawyers for ICE at an emergency hearing in U.S. District Court in Washington in a lawsuit brought by immigrant advocates seeking release of asylum seekers detained in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee.

Boasberg, who ordered the numbers released by April 30, said ICE’s shift may “go a long way” toward releasing the most vulnerable detainees.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeremy Simon said ICE will determine if it can release the information. He said ICE also retains full discretion over the outcome of reviews, saying “none of the [listed] factors are determinative” of release, with public safety a high priority.

. . . .

******************

Read the rest of the article at the above link.

Unfortunately, April 30 might be too late for some of those held in the Gulag.

The “ICE guidance” sounds like the normal DHS bureaucratic doublespeak that promotes arbitrariness and allows individual offices to do whatever they feel like doing, while providing a “smokescreen” of reasonable action. Hopefully, Judge Boasberg won’t be fooled.

PWS

04-09-20

GULAG WATCH: DC FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS DHS TO DO BETTER ON DETAINED FAMILIES: “I will order that in a week [April 6], the government has got to come back to me and give me answers about the capacity of these centers, videotapes of living conditions and steps taken toward release.”

Spencer S. Hsu
Spencer S. Hsu
Investigative Reporter
Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/us-judge-widens-order-urging-ice-release-of-migrant-families-with-young-children-in-coronavirus-outbreak/2020/03/30/8226ed06-7296-11ea-85cb-8670579b863d_story.html

Spencer Hsu reports for WashPost:

A federal judge in Washington pressed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release migrants held in family detention centers, citing the imminent risk of coronavirus outbreaks in confinement and their rapid spread to surrounding communities.

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington, D.C., stopped short of ordering the immediate release of about 1,350 members of migrant families detained at three centers in Pennsylvania and Texas as part of a lawsuit advocates recently filed. But during a hearing on Monday, the judge directed U.S. immigration authorities to report on their efforts to release families in custody by next week.

“I will order that in a week [April 6], the government has got to come back to me and give me answers about the capacity of these centers, videotapes of living conditions and steps taken toward release,” Boasberg said after a 45-minute hearing.

“Circumstances are changing rapidly, and if there are cases in these centers or there are other problems that are not compliant, I will revisit” the petitioners emergency release request, the judge added.

Boasberg’s order expands on a similar one U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee issued Saturday in Los Angeles related to an emergency hearing seeking the release of 6,900 detained children. Gee had ordered that federal agencies operating detention facilities for migrant children report their efforts to release children in custody by April 6. Boasberg widened the order to cover their parents.

[[Coronavirus could pose serious concern in ICE jails, immigration courts]]

Boasberg also directed U.S. immigration authorities to comply with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for congregate housing and the Constitution’s guarantee that prisoners be held in safe and sanitary conditions.

[[Sign up for our Coronavirus Updates newsletter to track the outbreak. All stories linked in the newsletter are free to access.]]

Boasberg entered his order in a lawsuit filed March 21 by three groups helping migrant families seeking asylum and being held at three centers in Berks County, Pa.; Dilley, Tex.; and Karnes City, Tex., under the Trump administration’s family detention policy.

Lawyers for the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, the Rapid Defense Network, and ALDEA — the People’s Justice Center argued that their clients are “trapped and at risk of serious, irreparable harm” in situations they called “a tinderbox.”

The suit alleged that groups of about 60, 500 and 800 detained mothers, fathers and children live, eat and sleep in close quarters at the three facilities and cannot meet hygiene and “social distancing” standards recommended to prevent the spread of the virus.

The complaint asserts that up to 100 people sit “elbow to elbow” in lunchrooms at tables of 10; soap is limited; access to hand sanitizer is limited or nonexistent; and cleaning of centers is typically done by volunteer detainees who are paid $1 a day and not provided hand sanitizer or masks.

“Families in [detention centers] are scared and concerned for their lives,” the complaint alleged. “It is almost certain to expect COVID-19 to infect and spread rapidly in family residential centers, especially when people cannot engage in proper hygiene or isolate themselves from infected or asymptomatic residents or staff.”

The suit said authorities have begun to release some families that include pregnant women or people with asthma from the Karnes and Dilley facilities.

. . . .

******************

Read the complete story at the link.

It’s clear that DHS has neither the desire nor the ability to comply with CDC guidelines. Delay could be deadly. Indeed, that Judge Boasberg had to order the DHS to do what it should be doing anyway and what it has falsely claimed it was doing actually demonstrates why the whole system should long ago have been removed from the regime’s control

The good news is that in this case the regime’s immigration kakistocracy is finally getting some much-needed “adult supervision” from Judge Boasberg. Let’s hope he can save some lives from a system designed and operated to demean, dehumanize, and endanger as part of an unconstitutional “deterrence” strategy.

But, at some point, both our society and our justice system will have to stop the ongoing “willful blindness” and deal directly with the unconstitutionality, intentional cruelty, immorality, and wastefulness of falsely classifying gratuitous “cruel and unusual punishment” of families and children seeking asylum as “civil detention.” It’s no such thing; it must be outlawed and abolished except in the extremely limited circumstances where it is actually required to protect the public or insure appearance. 

And, under our Constitution, it should never be imposed without an individualized order from an independent Federal Judge. Today’s “New American Gulag” is an unconstitutional national disgrace which has been “weaponized,” with disturbingly little actual supervision by the Article III Judiciary, by a regime interested only in furthering a White Nationalist agenda of gratuitous cruelty and oppression of “the other” (primarily, other humans of color)!

PWS

 

03-31-20

SOME ARTICLE III JUDGES “JUST SAY NO” TO SESSIONS’S “ZERO TOLERANCE” ABUSES OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judges-balk-at-ice-detention-of-defendants-granted-bail-under-trump-zero-tolerance-push/2018/10/10/ccd42830-c4f7-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html

Spencer Hsu reports for WashPost:

Judges in the nation’s federal criminal courts increasingly are balking at what they call unlawful efforts by U.S. immigration authorities to continue to detain people charged with entering the country illegally, even after they have been granted bail.

The rulings complicate the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” crackdown on defendants who are charged with illegally crossing the border but whom judges have determined do not pose a flight or safety risk.

The decisions force prosecutors to make a choice — charge defendants with illegal entry or reentry and risk that a federal judge releases them pending trial, or keep suspects locked up in civil detention pending deportation proceedings and forgo criminal prosecution.

A recent ruling by a federal judge in Washington highlights the human and legal issues at stake, the case of a dishwasher from El Salvador who has a wife and two children in the District, where he returned after two deportations.

The surge in such criminal cases stems from an April 2017 announcement by U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions prioritizing Justice Department prosecutions of entry and reentry crimes. More than 60,000 people have faced such criminal charges since then, with twice as many new prosecutions this July, the most recent month for which data is available, compared with the same month in 2017, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which monitors cases.

Individuals caught without documents on a first offense can be charged with a misdemeanor, but anyone caught in the United States after a prior deportation can be charged with a felony and face more than a year in prison. Immigration-related prosecutions are now the majority of all federal criminal cases, stretching far beyond states bordering Mexico.


Attorney General Jeff Sessions early this month in Ohio. (Adam Cairns/Columbus Dispatch/AP)

Advocates for immigrants say the recent court rulings may limit the use of the criminal charges to pressure defendants to abandon efforts to stay in the United States. The impact on overall removal efforts remains to be seen, but courts appear to be pushing back at an expansion of authority by prosecutors and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In the District, one rejection of the tougher tactics came from U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth, a 1987 appointee of President Ronald Reagan. On Sept. 26. Lamberth said the government cannot have it both ways — asking federal courts to deny bail to defendants awaiting criminal trial and then, if a judge disagrees, holding them anyway in the immigration system.

The decision came in the case of Jaime Omar Vasquez-Benitez, 38, who court papers say was picking food up at a restaurant in July when D.C. police stopped him for suspected gang activity and turned him over to ICE. Federal public defenders say Vasquez-Benitez had quit a gang and fears for his life if he is deported.

He was charged in August with felony reentry despite deportation orders in 2008 and 2014.

A federal magistrate and district judge ruled Vasquez-Benitez should be released on bail, but U.S. marshals returned him to ICE custody. Defense attorneys moved to enforce the release order, and the case ended up in front of Lamberth after Vasquez-Benitez was indicted.

Lamberth ruled that a landmark 1966 U.S. bail statute specifically covers migrants and must “trump” more-general immigration laws, releasing Vasquez-Benitez into a high-intensity supervision program. He wrote that courts have long “upheld as sacrosanct” the principle that no one can act as prosecutor and judge at the same time, and that the Justice Department cannot ignore bail rulings any more than it can shrug off a defendant’s right to a speedy trial.

The judge said prosecutors can pursue both criminal charges and civil removal cases against defendants but must abide by a judge’s decision to grant bail. Or they can forgo charges and keep defendants locked up in civil detention while pursuing deportation.

People detained without valid immigration documents may well be worse off if uncharged, “languishing” indefinitely without speedy trial or access to bail in ICE detention camps far from families or counsel, the judge noted.

“Nevertheless, the government can do that” under immigration law, Lamberth wrote. “But so long as the government invokes the jurisdiction of a federal court, the government must consent to the Court’s custodial dominion over the criminal defendants before it.”

A decision on whether to appeal is pending. Bill Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office for the District, said the office was reviewing the ruling.

In a July 2017 Justice Department bulletin to 94 U.S. attorney offices nationwide, Oregon federal prosecutor Gregory R. Nyhus said that federal criminal statutes and civil immigration laws “are reconcilable” and that “courts should be encouraged to harmonize these statutes rather than focusing on [one] to the complete exclusion of the other.”

The government’s position — that it can hold Vasquez-Benitez strictly for deportation on a reinstated removal order, unrelated to his prosecution — has yet to be decided by an appeals court.

Rulings by trial judges in similar cases have varied.

Since July 2017, federal judges in Washington, Manhattan, Brooklyn, Detroit, Cleveland and Austin have rejected the government’s approach, drawing on a 2012 district court opinion in Oregon and a similar 2015 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that “the executive branch has a choice to make” between holding an undocumented person for deportation or prosecuting that person under criminal law and the Constitution.

Federal judges in Buffalo and Philadelphia have come down on the other side, saying that criminal and immigration laws can “coexist” on “parallel” tracks. Before the Trump administration, prosecutors would typically drop criminal charges to pursue civil removal if a previously deported defendant won bail.

Yihong “Julie” Mao, staff attorney with the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, said the group was “heartened” by court rulings upholding undocumented immigrants’ right to bail and pretrial release based on family and community ties. She added: “This is fundamentally a separation-of-powers issue. The Department of Justice cannot be both judge and prosecutor.”

Mary Petras, an assistant federal public defender who is representing Vasquez-Benitez in the District, declined to comment.

In court filings, Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Clair Kohl argued that the defendant’s case is not covered by the 2012 ruling, because ICE is holding him solely to deport him, not to prosecute him.

The Salvadoran man was first arrested in 1997, falsely claimed Mexican citizenship and was allowed to go to Mexico, according to court papers. He was deported in 2008 after serving a three-year sentence for felony obstruction of justice in the District and again in 2014, before he was caught for a fourth time this July.

Prosecutors would have prosecuted Vasquez-Benitez even in past years because of what they said in court papers was his “threatening, violent behavior” and felony criminal conviction. Vasquez-Benitez was convicted of obstruction of justice for telling a woman in 2005 she would “pay the consequences” if she called the police, and a 2014 arrest warrant in El Salvador said he has been charged with extortion, prosecutors said.

“There may come a time . . . [when] immigration proceedings have concluded . . . forcing the United States to choose between physical removal and continuation of this criminal case. That time, however, has not yet come,” wrote Kohl and Assistant U.S. Attorney Elizabeth Dewar in an unsuccessful effort to detain the man.

Petras told the court the man is a longtime restaurant worker, and his wife works part time as a hotel housekeeper. Both have family nearby, and the couple’s 3-year-old daughter and 9-year-old son attended a recent court hearing.

Petras argued the man posed no flight risk, because he is seeking to halt his deportation after gang members in El Salvador sent him a message warning that he had “signed his death warrant” by quitting the gang and removing gang tattoos.

The lawyer said the fact that her client has lived in the Washington area for years and returned shows that he “wants to be here and that he has no intent or incentive to flee.”

Read more:

******************************************

Compare what is happening in DC and some other jurisdictions with the “go along to get along” approach by some U.S. District Judges and U.S. Magistrate Judges along the border whom I have criticized in prior posts. The latter have allowed Sessions, Nielsen, and co. to turn their courts into “assembly line justice” — the kind that Session is implementing in his “wholly owned” U.S. Immigration Courts.

It’s pretty clear from the published reports that almost none of those being railroaded through that system actually understand the full immigration implications of their guilty pleas, nor do they understand how they can apply for asylum and what other rights they might have under the “civil immigration system.” Indeed, accepting guilty pleas without insuring that those entering the pleas fully understand the civil immigration situation and implications, including the likelihood of indefinite civil immigration detention and possible denial of a chance for a full hearing before an Immigration Judge, is arguably a violation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky.

I also have a “personal recollection” of Judge Royce Lamberth from decades ago when he was the Chief of the Civil Division at the U.S. Attorneys Office for DC and I was the Deputy General Counsel/Acting General Counsel at the “Legacy INS.” On several occasions I had to trek over from the “Central Office” in the “Chester Arthur Building” at 4th and Eye St., NW to the U.S. Courthouse complex on 5th Street to explain and justify the INS position to Royce.

He was known as a formidable individual, even in those days — a chief litigator who brooked no-nonsense from USG Agencies and who was concerned with maintaining the Government’s reputation for integrity and legal excellence before the U.S. Courts. That probably has much to do with how he got nominated and confirmed to be a U.S. District Judge and why he still brooks no-nonsense from the “Masters of Nonsense” in the Trump Administration.

PWS

10-13-18

DACA: IS THE ADMINISTRATION ON THE VERGE OF ANOTHER BIG COURT DEFEAT? — US District Judge Bates Signals He Might Order Restart Of Program!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/federal-judge-in-dc-weighs-ordering-administration-to-restart-dreamers-program/2018/03/14/883b5178-27a7-11e8-bc72-077aa4dab9ef_story.html?utm_term=.b70de8a39e92

Spencer Hsu reports in the Washington Post:

“A federal judge said Wednesday that he is considering ordering the Trump administration to restart the “dreamers” program and accept new applications for protection from deportation by undocumented immigrants brought here as children.

Such a ruling by U.S. District Judge John D. Bates in Washington would go further than federal district judges in California and New York have when they issued nationwide injunctions blocking the government’s plan to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, this month.

The injunctions, issued after lawsuits by several states and organizations, require the Department of Homeland Security to continue to accept DACA renewal requests from about 800,000 people in the program but not to process new applications.

Bates spoke near the end of a two-hour-long hearing Wednesday on two lawsuits seeking to overturn the administration’s ending of DACA in cases brought by the NAACP, Microsoft, Princeton University and a student.

The judge’s remarks came as White House officials told key Republican leaders that President Trump is open to cutting a deal in an upcoming spending bill to protect the dreamers in exchange for border-wall funding.

No appellate court has reviewed the earlier court decisions, and the Supreme Court last month declined to enter the national controversy for now when it turned down a Trump administration request to immediately consider the decisions.

In Washington on Wednesday, Bates appeared skeptical of Justice Department arguments that he dismiss the lawsuits because immigration authorities have discretion and do not need a court review when it comes to deciding to halt a “non-enforcement” policy.

Bates said, “You have been unsuccessful in three other courts with this argument, correct?”

“Yes, your honor,” Justice Department trial attorney Brinton Lucas replied.

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled in January that challengers to the administration probably were correct in their contention that ending DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, because it is arbitrary and capricious. A federal judge in Brooklyn reached a similar finding in February. Both judges issued injunctions.

Justice Department trial attorney Kathryn Davis told Bates that the administration ended the program because of the threat of legal challenges from a coalition of states led by Texas and a belief that the program created in the Obama administration could not be successfully defended in court.

Noting that explanation, Bates then asked why the change was presented to the government as a policy shift and not a legal conclusion by the Homeland Security and Justice departments. Bates questioned that legal conclusion given a 2014 Justice Department decision.

Noting the Washington court’s expertise in federal regulatory law, Bates sounded skeptical about whether issuing another nationwide injunction would be appropriate.

Rather, Bates said it might be better to strike down or vacate DHS’s attempt to end the program — which would oblige the government to continue to accept new DACA applications while the administration decides whether to try again to cancel DACA but with a fuller justification for the change in position.

Davis, the Justice attorney in court, opposed taking that course of action, saying it would create “undue chaos.”

Lindsay C. Harrison and Joseph M. Sellers, the plaintiff’s attorneys, said allowing new applications would not be disruptive because it would simply restore the status quo.”

*******************************************

The Administration’s legal problems here start, not surprisingly, with AG Jeff Sessions.

Sessions told then Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke that the Obama Administration’s DACA program “an open-ended circumvention of immigration laws was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.” Without any meaningful legal analysis, he summarily concluded that the program inevitably would be successfully challenged in Federal Court by some of his White Nationalist cronies serving as state Attorneys General.

The problem is that the DACA program had never been invalidated on legal grounds. The Fifth Circuit’s order invalidating the different although somewhat related “DAPA Program” was affirmed without opinion by an “equally divided Supreme Court” (a decision having no precedential effect).

There certainly was a strong legal basis for defending DACA that was totally ignored by Sessions. This includes a lengthy DOJ Office of Legal Counsel memorandum prepared during the Obama Administration that certainly was more thoughtful and thorough than the “Sessions letter.” Indeed, even the single U.S. District Judge who upheld the Administration’s DACA termination found that the legal issue was one upon which reasonable minds could differ.

So, basically, Sessions was arguing that the Federal Courts should hold that the Executive Branch is legally without authority to exercise so-called “prosecutorial discretion” in immigration cases.  That’s facially absurd as a legal proposition, and a stunningly dumb argument for an Executive Branch official to make. This Administration, like all others, exercises large-scale “prosecutorial discretion” daily. How many actions is Scottie “Make Me AG If You Don’t Fire Me First” Pruitt at EPA taking to enforce existing environmental laws and regulations? How’s Ol’ Gonzo himself doing on enforcing those Civil Rights laws to protect minorities? How about the enforcement of those ethics laws applicable to Cabinet members and other Trump politicos? 

Realizing the problem, it appears that in defending the Administration’s actions the DOJ lawyers “subtly switched” their argument to say that the Administration had “discretion” to terminate the DACA program. That’s actually a better argument than the one Sessions made to Duke. After all, if the Obama Administration had essentially unreviewable prosecutorial discretion to institute DACA, why can’t the Trump Administration exercise the same prosecutorial discretion negatively to terminate the program?

But, that position also raises some big problems.

  • First, it requires the Administration to admit, at least inferentially, that DACA was a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion by the Obama Administration. That’s hard for them to do, since Sessions’s position was based on a bogus White Nationalist political argument and Trump campaign rhetoric that DACA was “unconstitutional” rather than on any careful objective analysis of the law (something that as far as I can tell, Jeff Sessions has never engaged in during his public career).
  • Second, it ignores the facts of the case. The “Sessions letter” to Duke did not purport to be based on a different “policy determination” regarding DACA. Rather it contained typical unsupported disingenuous Sessions’ pontificating about the law and his duty to uphold it. This is a joke on its face from probably the most “lawless” Attorney General since John Mitchell. 
  • Third, no Federal Court to date has found that this exercise of prosecutorial discretion is totally unreviewable. And, given that almost everybody in America except Jeff Sessions has acknowledged the merit of the “Dreamers” as a group, it’s doubtful that the Administration could come up with even a “minimally rational” reason for terminating the program.

Several weeks ago, Judge Roger Titus of the US District Court in Maryland basically “tossed the Administration a lifeline.” He effectively “re-jiggered” the facts to find that the Sessions letter combined with Duke’s reaction constituted a “reasonable discretionary determination” to terminate DACA in light of the possible legal difficulties it might face in court.

The only problem with Judge Titus’s ruling is that’s not what Sessions and Duke actually did. We should also remember that even in upholding the Administration, Judge Titus basically found that the Administration had probably chosen the least palatable of the policy choices available to it. Hardly a “ringing endorsement,” despite the “favorable spin” put on the ruling by the DOJ.

So, stay tuned! But, don’t be shocked if Judge Bates hands the Administration another DACA defeat — this time one with potentially larger impact since it would require the Administration to allow new DACA registrations, not just adjudicate renewals of existing ones.

PWS

03-16-18