U.S. District Judge James Boasberg – immigrationcourtside.com

GULAG WATCH: Here’s Some Better News From The USDC in DC! 👍🏼 — O.M.G. et al. v. Wolf et al.

https://www.law360.com/immigration/articles/1267946/flores-ruling-extends-to-adults-in-covid-19-detention-fight

Flores Ruling Extends To Adults In COVID-19 Detention Fight

By Khorri Atkinson

Law360, Washington (April 27, 2020, 8:50 PM EDT) — A D.C. federal judge ordered the government Monday to apply certain standards laid out in a landmark consent decree that established bedrock standards of care for migrant children in custody to adults held in three residential detention centers in Pennsylvania and Texas amid the coronavirus outbreak.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled during a teleconference hearing that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must deliver by May 15 an account of what’s being done to expedite the release of adult detainees as well as efforts to ensure those detained at facilities with confirmed COVID-19 cases are being protected.

The decision came amid allegations by immigration advocacy groups that ICE has exhibited indifference to families at high risk of contracting the disease and that no appropriate steps are being taken to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus. The Rapid Defense Network, ALDEA — the People’s Justice Center, and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services last month sued federal immigration authorities, demanding the immediate release of dozens of migrant families at detention centers in Berks County, Pennsylvania, and Dilley and Karnes City, Texas.

In his ruling Monday, Judge Boasberg once again declined to grant immediate release of the asylum-seekers. But the judge applied some conditions in the landmark 1997 federal consent decree known as the Flores settlement agreement, which established bedrock standards of care for migrant children in custody. The decree prohibits the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from detaining migrant children beyond the 20-day limit.

Judge Boasberg expanded that holding to cover their parents, but stopped short of mandating the government to explain why an adult has been in detention for more than 20 days.

The judge noted that while adults are not protected under Flores, the government has been providing some information on adults in detention to U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of California, who has been overseeing the consent decree as part of a long-running class action.

“I think this is sufficient at this point to ensure the constitutional treatment of” detainees, the judge said of his order during the teleconference session.

Nonetheless, Judge Boasberg indicated that ICE has been making substantial efforts to prevent the spread of the novel coronavirus at the facilities, pointing out that the three centers are at least 16% under capacity. So far, none of the centers have recorded cases of COVID-19, the government told the court.

“Conditions are definitely improving,” the judge said. “That’s highly significant to me.”

Monday’s order builds upon previous decisions by the judge, who instructed ICE to provide the court with statistics on the number of detained migrants seeking asylum; testing and treatment plans; and compliance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for congregate settings such as detention centers.

Vanessa Molina, a U.S. Department of Justice attorney representing ICE, argued against applying Flores in this case. She maintained that it would be improper to demand that the agency explain why adults are in detention for more than 20 days because the consent decree was never meant to include parents or adults.

Detention is a part of the removal process pending a deportation proceeding, Molina continued, and the plaintiffs have not demonstrated their burden of showing why they should be released. And there’s no finding in this case that ICE had been deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of asylum-seekers with COVID-19 risk factors, she said.

“ICE is authorized to detain the adults pending deportation proceedings,” the government attorney doubled down

Judge Boasberg responded that the government has been producing detention information on minors to the California federal judge and asked, “Why would there be any objections … [to provide similar data to the D.C. district court] for the adults?”

Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP partner Susan Baker Manning, an attorney for the migrant families, conceded to the government’s argument that detention is authorized as part of the deportation process. But the lawyer contended that her clients are being held in unsanitary conditions, that they are not subject to mandatory detention, and that they are not a danger to the community because they have no criminal histories.

Manning had urged Judge Boasberg to include the 20-day condition because it “is a perfect and reasonable benchmark to understand why migrants are being held in facilities where they are at risk of contracting COVID-19.” But the judge declined to do so.

The judge has set a May 20 teleconference hearing for the parties to discuss the latest developments in the litigation.

The migrants are represented by Susan Baker Manning of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, ManojGovindaiah and Curtis F.J. Doebbler of the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Amy Maldonado of The Law Office of Amy Maldonado, and Sarah T. Gillman and Gregory P. Copeland of Rapid Defense Network.

The government is represented by Vanessa Molina of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division’s Office of Immigration Litigation and Daniel Franklin Van Horn of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.

The case is O.M.G. et al. v. Wolf et al., case number 1:20-cv-00786, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

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

Thanks to Dan Kowalski over at LexisNexis Immigration Community for sending this!

Sadly, the lack of leadership among all three branches of our Government means that what should be uniform policies applicable throughout the country are instead litigated piecemeal, with differing results. Not surprisingly, as the regime touts draconian immigration “bans and bars” approaches to the coronavirus crisis, it continues to fail on the everyday “Xs and Os” of competent government, requiring constant prodding from lawyers, judges, and journalists to get the basics right.

Still, a “W” is a “W” for the “good guys!”

PWS

04-28-20

SCOFFLAWS: SESSIONS & NIELSEN LIE, CONFUSE, AND OBFUSCATE TO HIDE REAL ILLEGAL INTENT BEHIND CHILD ABUSE POLICY!

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-family-separation-policy-is-meant-to-deter-immigration-that-could-make-it-illegal_us_5b194b89e4b0599bc6e17605

Roque Planas reports for HuffPost:

You won’t hear Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen call this “deterrence.”

By Roque Planas

The aim of President Donald Trump’s new policy of splitting kids from their mothers at the border is, in a word, deterrence: The White House wants to discourage more immigrants from trying to enter the United States.

Kirstjen Nielsen, Trump’s secretary of homeland security, is careful not to say this outright — she dodged a direct question on the subject from Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at a hearing last month.

JOHN MOORE VIA GETTY IMAGES

Central American immigrants walk after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to turn themselves in to Border Patrol agents in February near McAllen, Texas. The Trump administration adopted a policy in May of intentionally separating mothers from their children at the border in order to deter migrants from crossing illegally into the U.S.

There’s a reason Nielsen and other administration officials shy away from attaching the word “deterrence” to the new policy: Changing immigrant detention policy as a way to deter undocumented people from coming to the U.S. is illegal, federal courts have repeatedly ruled. So now she and other Trump administration officials find themselves struggling to defend a family separation policy whose clear ambition is deterrence.

A growing number of mothers have crossed into the United States since 2014, often from Central America and often requesting asylum. Other administration officials were blunter in the past when discussing a policy that would split the families up to scare them away from coming.

The Department of Homeland Security was considering separating children from their parents “in order to deter” undocumented immigration, White House chief of staff John Kelly told CNN while serving as Nielsen’s predecessor last year. And Gene Hamilton, a former aide to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, asked participants at a meeting last August on the policy to “generate paperwork laying out everything we could do to deter immigrants from coming to the U.S. illegally,” according to The New Yorker.

Whether or not the deterrence goal is spelled out, the strategy is likely to backfire. Former President Barack Obama learned that lesson in 2015, when a federal judge in Washington blocked his plans to lock up Central American immigrant mothers and their kids without bond to deter others from trying to cross the border.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the federal government can’t detain immigrants indefinitely for the sake of deterrence alone. Instead, the decision to detain needed to be based on whether the immigrant posed a threat to the community or a flight risk.

The Obama administration was forced to provide bond hearings to the migrants in family detention. A separate ruling that year ordered the Obama administration to start releasing people from family detention after three weeks in order to comply with the Flores settlement, a 1997 deal that bars the government from locking up children in detention centers.

The Trump administration hopes to skirt the rulings that got Obama officials into trouble by prosecuting immigrant parents at the border. The federal government can’t jail children while their mothers await trial, so immigration authorities transfer them to the Office of Refugee Resettlement to find a sponsor or to non-secured facility to hold them, as if they arrived by themselves.

But this legal maneuver stands on the same shaky ground.

“Whether the deterrence to seeking protection is being done by detaining families or separating families doesn’t make a whole lot of difference,” said Michelle Brané, the director of the Migrant Rights and Justice Program at the Women’s Refugee Commission. “They’re both punishing families for seeking protection, and protection to which they have the right under U.S. law.”

The Trump administration is already running into legal trouble over its policy. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court in Southern California to overturn Trump’s family separation policy, asking U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw for a nationwide injunction to halt the practice. At a hearing on May 4, Sabraw repeatedly asked whether the Trump administration had adopted the family separation policy to deter others.

“If there were a blanket policy to separate for deterrence value, would that be legal?” Sabraw asked, according to a transcript of the hearing. “Would that pass muster under the Fifth Amendment?”

The judge did not receive a straight answer. The government’s lawyer, Sarah Fabian, instead argued that the government wasn’t separating mothers from their kids systematically, and only following existing immigration law to do so.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions undermined her argument three days later, when he announced that the Justice Department’s “zero tolerance” policy for prosecuting border-crossers included mothers who cross with their children.

Lee Gelernt, the lawyer leading the ACLU lawsuit, called the government lawyer’s unwillingness or inability to defend family separation on the merits without resorting to the legally fraught term “deterrence” significant.

“The government still needs a persuasive justification for separating children,” Gelernt wrote in an email. “And the government has not provided one.”

On Wednesday, Sabraw ordered that the case against family separation can move forward, over the Trump administration’s objections. Although he has yet to rule on the case’s merits, his order did not augur well for the federal government.

Implementing a family separation policy to deter other migrants “arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child,” Sabraw wrote. “Such conduct, if true, as it is assumed to be on the present motion, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency.”

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

Ah, the never-ending legal, moral, and intellectual corruption and dishonesty of the Trumpsters!

Take depositions — force them to lie under oath or admit they have been lying publicly. And, as I recently pointed out, most Article III Federal Judges, who actually have contempt of court authority, take a dim view of perjury by Cabinet Officers in their court proceedings.

I also think that even under the Supreme’s restrictive standards, there is an ever increasing possibility of actually imposing monetary damages on Nielsen, Sessions, and others for their intentional denial of Constitutional rights and their dishonest schemes to conceal their true intent. I actually think that when the full truth some day comes out, we will find not only illegal deterrence, but rather clear evidence of racial animus underlying Sessions’s policies. To be honest, Sessions has turned the entire U.S. Immigration Court system into a tool for enforcement deterrence — a huge violation of Due Process, as well as an astounding conflict of interest and violation of ethics.

Also, not surprisingly, the name of Sessions’s restrictionist crony Gene Hamilton has surfaced in connection with this scheme.

PWS

06-11-18

Related posts:

Related posts: