Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, et. al. v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, et. al.

Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Center, et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., No. 1:24-cv-6740 (S.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 5, 2024)

The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Center for Constitutional Rights, and an individual, L.B., filed a complaint on September 5, 2024, after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not comply with their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The plaintiffs requested documents under FOIA regarding HHS’s, CBP’s, ICE’s, and DHS’s radiograph practices and policies in June 2024. Specifically, plaintiffs are seeking information about defendants solely relying on dental radiographs to determine the age of unaccompanied minor children. This practice is alleged to be a violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) which requires defendants to rely on more than radiographs to determine the age of children. This determination is significant because using only the radiographs can lead to incorrect determinations of children as adults and result in their placement in adult immigrant detention centers. Placing the children in adult facilities deprives them of the additional benefits children receive in custody, such as access to education, counseling, and less restrictive settings.

After a telephone conference on May 27, 2025, the court ordered defendants to file a letter brief and declaration addressing the processing schedule for the requested records of both CBP and HHS, as well as briefing on addressing the legality of using a reduction in force at HHS (including terminations and/or placements on administrative leave) as a basis for delaying the processing and production of records pursuant to FOIA. As of February 2026, the parties continue to file joint status reports and production is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Center for Constitutional Rights ǀ Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project

Contact: Laura Belous (lbelous@firrp.org) | Rocio Castaneda (rcastaneda@firrp.org)

Press:

ACLU v. ICE

ACLU v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., No. 1:24-cv-07444 (S.D.NY., filed Oct. 2, 2024)

The ACLU filed a suit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on October 2, 2024, against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) after the departments failed to produce requested documents by the deadline under FOIA (20 working days). The ACLU is requesting documents related to detention management and care as well as deportation practices. Specifically, the ACLU requested CBP’s documents related to the transportation of individuals between detention centers and airports during deportation proceedings, including the transportation of unaccompanied minors; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE’s) records of detention facility bed availability and commercial lodging practices; DHS’s policies between CBP, ICE, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS); and any legal memoranda related to the “mass influx” provision, 8 U.S.C. section 1103(a)(10), from DHS and DOJ. Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on November 12, 2024, and as of February 2026 continue to file status reports with the court while production in response to the initial FOIA requests is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Goodwin Procter LLP ǀ ACLU

Contact: Kyle Virgien | kvirgien@aclu.org

Julian Sanchez Mora, et al., v. CBP, et. al.

Julian Sanchez Mora, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:24-cv-02430 (N.D. Cal., filed Apr. 24, 2024) and No. 1:24-cv-03136 (D.D.C., docketed Nov. 5, 2024)

Three immigration attorneys and two individual plaintiffs are suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to make a determination on each plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the 20 or, at most, 30 business days mandated by FOIA. Two plaintiffs had FOIA requests pending for over a year and a half at the time the complaint was filed. Because CBP engages in a nationwide pattern and practice of failing to make a determination on individual FOIA requests within the statutory timeframe, plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated FOIA requestors who must wait for prolonged periods for determinations on their requests.

In addition to class certification, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief ordering CBP to respond to FOIA requests for an individual’s records that have been pending for more than 30 business days without a determination and ordering CBP to make timely determinations as required by FOIA. Significant delays in FOIA productions often mean that immigrants and their attorneys are unable to know crucial information for immigration cases, such as when the individual traveled, if the individual was subject to any inspections, if the individual was ever deported, or any other meaningful action that could impact their ability to make an effective defense and to apply for status.

On July 15, 2024, defendants filed a motion to transfer or dismiss the case, arguing lack of jurisdiction and improper venue in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 2 clarifying why jurisdiction and venue in that district were proper. However, on November 4, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing plaintiffs’ FOIA claim against DHS and transferring the case to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the FOIA claim against Defendant DHS on January 31, which was granted by the D.C. District Court on June 18, 2025, and the FOIA claim reinstated.

On September 12, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the D.C. District Court. Defendants oppose the motion and have requested extensions of time to answer.

On December 23, 2025, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs filed their opposition. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the summary judgment motion was denied on January 9, 2026, on the basis that a party may file such motion at any time until 30 days after the close of discovery. Defendants have until March 27, 2026, to file a brief replying to plaintiff’s opposition to their motion for summary judgment and motion for discovery.  

Documents:

Counsel:

National Immigration Litigation Alliance ǀ Northwest Immigrant Rights Project ǀ Van Der Hout LLP

Contact: Matt Adams ǀ Northwest Immigrant Rights Project ǀ matt@nwirp.org