FOIA: Black Alliance for Just Immigration et al. v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, No. 1:20-cv-05198 (E.D.N.Y., filed Oct. 28, 2020)

On May 25, 2020, George Floyd was killed by Minnesota police officers, triggering mass protests in cities across the United States calling for racial justice and police reform. These protests were met with heightened police presence as local law enforcement agencies throughout the country deployed additional officers to protests and gatherings. In early June 2020, media outlets began reporting that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel and aerial surveillance, along with other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and federal agency personnel, had been deployed to the protests. A leaked CBP document later revealed that requests from law enforcement agencies across the country resulted in 326.5 hours of federal aviation assets deployed and 2,174 agency personnel.

After then-President Trump issued Executive Order No. 13933, “Protecting American Monuments, Memorials, and Statutes and Combating Recent Criminal Violence,” DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) began taking steps to implement the directive, including by creating roving teams of federal law enforcement officers to disperse to protests. These deployments only served to exacerbate tensions and violence, drawing criticism from elected officials – especially given CBP’s track record of abusive policing tactics and use of excessive force.

Following these deployments, the Black Alliance for Just Immigration, the American Immigration Council, the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego & Imperial Counties, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records of requests for assistance to CBP by other entities regarding the deployment of CBP personnel to U.S. cities; policies, protocols, and directives outlining CBP’s legal authority to police and surveil protests; communications sent or received by CBP personnel relating to the deployments; and data regarding the total number of CBP personnel deployed, individuals apprehended or arrested by CBP, and the statutory basis for CBP’s enforcement action.

When CBP failed to respond to the request, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction ordering Defendant to conduct a search for responsive records and timely produce those records to Plaintiffs, as well as a declaration that Defendant’s conduct violated the FOIA. On January 6, 2021, Defendant filed its answer. Production of responsive records is currently underway.

Documents:
FOIA Request
Complaint
Answer

Counsel: Immigrant Legal Defense; American Immigration Council; ACLU Foundation of Texas

Contact:
Claudia Valenzuela | Immigrant Legal Defense | claudia@ild.org
Shaw Drake | ACLU Foundation of Texas | sdrake@aclutx.org

Press:
U.S. Watched George Floyd Protests in 15 Cities Using Aerial Surveillance

FOIA: Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, No. 1:22-cv-00496-TSC (D.D.C., filed Mar. 2, 2022)

In October 2021, the chief records officer of the National Archives and Records Administration, Laurence Brewer, wrote a letter to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials expressing concern about CBP’s use of Wickr, an Amazon-owned encrypted messaging platform known for its ability to automatically delete messages, which then become unrecoverable after a predetermined period of time. In the letter, Brewer wrote that he was “concerned about agencywide deployment of a messaging application that has this functionality without appropriate policies and procedures governing its use.” Public records have revealed that CBP – which has been widely criticized for its secrecy – has spent more than $1.6 million on Wickr since 2020 and is using the platform across all CBP components. However, little is known about how the agency has deployed the app. Its auto-deletion feature, in particular, has raised concern among both government record keepers and advocates, who worry that Wickr allows CBP officials to sidestep government transparency requirements and litigation obligations, especially considering the agency’s poor track record in complying with record-keeping laws.

In September 2021, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to CBP, seeking all records and communications relating to CBP’s use of Wickr for official agency business. After CBP failed to respond to the request, CREW filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that CBP is violating the FOIA and injunctive relief requiring CBP to immediately process and release the requested records. On April 4, 2022, Defendant filed its answer.

Documents:
Complaint
Answer

Counsel: The George Washington University Law School Jacob Burns Community Legal Clinics; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Contact:
Jeffrey Gutman | The George Washington University Law School | jgutman@law.gwu.edu
Nikhel Sus | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington | nsus@citizensforethics.org

Press:
Customs and Border Protection to Use Encrypted App Wickr Widely
Border Patrol’s Use of Amazon’s Wickr Messaging App Draws Scrutiny
CREW Submits FOIA Request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regarding Use of Wickr
CREW Sues for Records on CBP Contract with Wickr, “Auto-Burn” Encrypted Messaging App

Estrada v. United States, No. 3:22-cv-00373-AJB-BGS (S.D. Cal., filed Mar. 21, 2022)

On May 14, 2021, in Campo, California, a Border Patrol agent attempted to stop a vehicle suspected of being involved in migrant smuggling. The driver of the vehicle, Silvestre Estrada Vargas, who was accompanied by two other individuals, failed to yield before eventually stopping in a gas station parking lot. Without any legal justification or threat to their safety, an unknown number of Border Patrol agents then began shooting at the vehicle. Mr. Estrada, who was unarmed and had one hand on the steering wheel and another holding a cell phone up to his ear, was struck by an unknown number of bullets. He was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead shortly after arrival. Luckily, the other two occupants of the vehicle, despite being directly in the line of fire, were uninjured.

Mr. Estrada’s minor son and mother, as well as the two other vehicle occupants, Francisco Madariaga and Jaime Madariaga-Gonzalez, filed this suit pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents alleging wrongful death, excessive use of force, assault and battery, and negligence.

The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department Homicide Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the San Diego County Medical Examiner’s Office, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, and CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility had all responded to the scene and began an investigation. However, when Plaintiffs’ investigator spoke to the gas station manager, the manager said that one of the responding agencies had already seized a videotape from the gas station surveillance system and had been advised not to speak to anyone about the incident.

Documents:
Complaint

Counsel: Keith Rutman Law

Contact:
Keith Rutman | krutmanlaw.com

Press:
Border Patrol Sued Over San Diego Man’s Shooting Death in Campo

Kariye v. Mayorkas, No. 2:22-CV-01916 (C.D. Cal., filed Mar. 24, 2022)

On March 24, 2022, the ACLU, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and ACLU of Minnesota filed a lawsuit on behalf of three Muslim Americans, Abdirahman Aden Kariye, Mohamad Mouslli, and Hameem Shah, who have all been subjected to intrusive questioning from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) officials about their religious beliefs, practices, and associations in violation of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. On multiple occasions when the three Plaintiffs returned home from abroad, these border officers asked them inappropriate religious questions, including whether they are Muslim, whether they attend a mosque, which mosque they attend, whether they are Sunni or Shi’a, and how often they pray. Border officers then retain the answers in a law enforcement database for up to 75 years.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiffs argue that this questioning by both CBP and HSI violates their First Amendment freedoms of religion and association, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In addition, because CBP and HSI specifically single out Muslim Americans for this questioning, the lawsuit alleges violations of the First and Fifth Amendments’ protections against unequal treatment on the basis of religion. Plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that border officers’ religious questioning violates the Constitution and RFRA, as well as an injunction barring CBP and HSI from questioning about their faith at ports of entry. The suit also seeks expungement of records reflecting information that border officers obtained about Plaintiffs through their unlawful questioning.

Documents:
Complaint

Counsel: ACLU Foundation of Southern California; ACLU Foundation; American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota

Contact:
Mohammad Tajsar, ACLU Foundation of Southern California | mtajsar@aclusocal.org

Press:
ACLU Sues DHS, Says Muslim American Questioned About Faith at Border
Minnesota Imam on Intrusive Religious Questioning by CBP

FOIA: Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 3:22-cv-00149-JRK (N.D. Ohio, filed Jan. 28, 2022)

On March 12, 2021, Plaintiffs Advocates for Basic Legal Equality (ABLE) and the American Immigration Council (AIC) submitted three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking documents related to the Border Patrol’s immigration enforcement activities in Ohio. Specifically, the requests sought policies and communications of the Sandusky Bay Border Patrol Station in Port Clinton, Ohio, as well as various forms documenting apprehensions by the Sandusky Bay Border Patrol Station.

On January 28, 2022, after Defendant failed to adequately respond to the request, Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendant seeking a declaration that Defendant’s failure to disclose responsive records and failure to promptly produce responsive records violates FOIA, as well as an order that Defendant immediately conduct a reasonable search for agency records and immediately produce all responsive agency records.

On March 9, 2022, the Court granted CBP’s motion for extension of time to answer the complaint until April 23, 2022.

Documents:
Complaint

Counsel: Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc.; American Immigration Council; Immigrant Legal Defense

Contact:
Mark Heller | mheller@ablelaw.org
Emily Creighton | ECreighton@immcouncil.org
Claudia Valenzuela | claudia@ild.org

FOIA: Al Otro Lado v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01450-DSF-AFM (S.D. Cal., filed March 3, 2022)

Over the past year, the media has reported multiple incidents of injuries and deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border as migrants cross to seek safety in the United States. In many of those instances, rather than transporting injured migrants to hospitals for medical treatment, both U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have abandoned them at volunteer-run organizations not equipped to provide such medical care; taken them into custody and refused to provide them with medical care; or left them at border crossings without any assistance.

On July 20, 2021, Al Otro Lado submitted Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to both CBP and ICE seeking information related to CBP and ICE’s unlawful treatment and processing of migrants injured falling from the border wall at the southern border. CBP denied Al Otro Lado’s request for expedited processing, and after seven months, neither CBP nor ICE have issued determinations regarding the request and both agencies have failed to produce even a single document in response. On March 3, 2022, Al Otro Lado filed suit seeking to compel CBP and ICE to issue determinations regarding the requests, arguing that the request is critically urgent because Defendants’ failure to adequately provide medical treatment to severely injured migrants and their expulsion of severely injured migrants is ongoing and continues to threaten migrants’ lives and safety. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that CBP and ICE have failed to timely respond to Plaintiff’s request for agency records and grant expedited processing of Plaintiff’s requests, as well as an order that Defendants must conduct a reasonable search for responsive records and produce non-exempt responsive records within twenty days of the Court’s order.

Documents:
Complaint

Counsel: Arent Fox LLP

Contacts:
Douglas Hewlett, Jr. | douglas.hewlett@arentfox.com
David Dubrow | david.dubrow@arentfox.com
Andrew Dykens | andrew.dykens@arentfox.com

Abdulkadir Nur v. Unknown U.S. Customs & Border Protection Agents, et al., No. 1:22-cv-00169-AJT-JFA (E.D. Va., filed Feb. 17, 2022)

Abdulkadir Nur is a 69-year-old U.S. citizen who was born in Somalia but lives in northern Virginia. Mr. Nur is also Muslim. As a business owner and humanitarian, Mr. Nur frequently travels internationally, and every single time he arrives back in the United States after traveling overseas, CBP officers have illegally seized any phone or laptop he has with him.

In September 2008, Mr. Nur was providing logistical support to a United Nations relief program in Somalia when his caravan was raided by local insurgents. Following the event, a United Nations Monitor Group launched an investigation, and ultimately found that Mr. Nur had not done anything improper. However, the investigation drew the attention of the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office, who demanded financial records and data from Mr. Nur and his company. Mr. Nur fully complied with the investigation, and both the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office told Mr. Nur that they wouldn’t be looking into the event any further.

However, since that time, Mr. Nur has been the target of increased scrutiny at airports and border crossings, always being subjected to secondary inspection and interrogation. In 2018, the intensity of this scrutiny increased – following every flight Mr. Nur has taken into the United States since then, CBP officers have seized Mr. Nur’s electronic devices and demanded the passwords. Believing he had no choice and not wanting to further prolong his detention, Mr. Nur gave his passwords to the officers, who then left the room with his devices, eventually returning them upon his release. When Mr. Nur eventually began refusing to give officers the passwords, the officers would still take Mr. Nur’s devices, sometimes seizing them and holding them for days or weeks.

Mr. Nur believes that following the incident in Somalia, he was placed on a federal terrorist watchlist known as the “Terrorism Screening Database” for those suspected to have ties to domestic terrorism. However, in order to be placed on the watchlist, the federal government need only have a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is “reasonably suspected” of nefarious activities – a standard far lower than “reasonable suspicion” or “probable cause” that often leads to people being placed on the watchlist merely for being a friend or community member of someone on the watchlist, rendering the list highly over-inclusive. The FBI itself has admitted that it is “not aware of any instance where [the identifying information included on the watchlist] alone prevented an act of terrorism.” Mr. Nur believes that his placement on the watchlist has caused his repeated detention, interrogation, and seizure of his devices. 

On February 17, 2022, Mr. Nur filed a lawsuit alleging that CBP’s searches and seizures of his devices based solely on his inclusion on the watchlist violate the Fourth Amendment and that officers compelling him to provide his device passwords violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. He also alleges that CBP’s policies of searching and seizing him and other U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents included on the federal watchlist are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act.

He seeks, among other things, a declaratory judgment that Defendants must have reasonable suspicion apart from watchlist status before performing nonroutine search and seizures of persons on the watchlist or forensic searches of their electronic devices and that Mr. Nur’s placement on the watchlist imposed unlawful consequences on him. He also seeks an injunction prohibiting Defendants from searching someone’s device because of their watchlist status or ordering individuals at the border to provide passwords or other access to their electronic devices, and ordering Defendants to remove Mr. Nur’s watchlist status and expunge records regarding his status and information illegally seized from him. Mr. Nur also seeks damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unnamed Agents.

Documents:
Complaint

Counsel: CAIR Legal Defense Fund

Contacts:
Lena Masri | lmasri@cair.com
Gadeir Abbas | gabbas@cair.com
Justin Sadowsky | jsadowsky@cair.com
Kimberly Noe-Lehenbauer | knoelehenbauer@cair.com


Texas and Missouri v. Biden

Texas & Missouri v. Biden, No. 2:21-cv-00067-Z (N.D. Tex., filed Apr. 13, 2021)

Within hours after President Biden’s inauguration, the Biden administration suspended new enrollments into the Trump administration’s Remain in Mexico program (also known as the “Migrant Protection Protocols” or “MPP”), which forcibly returned certain people seeking asylum at the southern U.S. border to Mexico, where they had to survive dangerous conditions during the pendency of their immigration proceedings in U.S. immigration courts. The program was notoriously a humanitarian disaster – as a result of the policy, people seeking asylum were murdered, raped, kidnapped, extorted, and compelled to live in squalid conditions. They also faced significant procedural barriers to meaningfully presenting their legal claims for protection.

On April 13, 2021, the states of Texas and Missouri (Plaintiffs) filed suit in the Northern District of Texas, arguing that the Biden administration’s January 2021 statement suspending new enrollments into MPP “functionally end[ed] the MPP” program and was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) given the “huge surge of Central American migrants, including thousands of unaccompanied minors, passing through Mexico in order to advance meritless asylum claims at the U.S. border.” Plaintiffs also argued that the Biden Administration’s decision to suspend MPP violated both the Constitution and an agreement between Texas and the federal government.

On May 14, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. However, before the briefing was complete, DHS issued a new memo on June 1, 2021 formally terminating MPP. The Court concluded that the June 1 memorandum mooted Plaintiffs’ original complaint (which had focused on the January 2021 pronouncement), but allowed Plaintiffs to amend their complaint and file a new motion seeking to enjoin the June 1 memo. Plaintiffs did so. On June 25, 2021, Defendants filed their response to Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, and Plaintiffs filed their reply on June 30, 2021.

On July 22, 2021, the Court held a consolidated hearing and bench trial on the merits, and the parties then filed supplemental briefs on the scope of relief available to Plaintiffs. On August 13, 2021, the Court issued an order concluding that Plaintiffs were entitled to relief on both their APA and statutory claims and issued a nationwide injunction permanently enjoining Defendants from implementing or enforcing the June 1 memo, vacating the June 1 memo in its entirety, and ordering Defendants “to enforce and implement MPP in good faith until such a time as it has been lawfully rescinded in compliance with the APA and until such a time as the federal government has sufficient detention capacity to detain all [noncitizens] subject to mandatory detention under Section 1255 without releasing any [noncitizens] because of a lack of detention resources.” The Court’s reasoning was rooted in a mistaken understanding of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A) and its determination that MPP “demonstrated operational effectiveness” — a finding based on Trump Administration statements and flawed data analysis and which ignored hundreds of pages of record evidence detailing the dangers MPP respondents had experienced in Mexico.

The Court stayed its order for seven days to allow the federal government time to seek emergency relief from the Fifth Circuit. On August 16, 2021, the Biden administration sought an additional stay from the District Court, which the District Court summarily denied two days later. The Biden administration then appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The American Immigration Council, Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, Human Rights First, and Southern Poverty Law Center, filed an amicus brief in support of the government, asking the Fifth Circuit to prevent the reinstatement of MPP and arguing that the District Court’s order rests on inaccurate facts about the purported effectiveness of MPP in deterring migration and reducing meritless asylum claims. The ACLU and ACLU of Texas filed a separate amicus brief in support of the government primarily focusing on the District Court’s misinterpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).

On August 19, 2021, the Fifth Circuit denied the government’s request for a stay in a published decision that wholly adopted as true the Trump administration’s claims about the effectiveness of MPP in deterring migration and ignored the mountainous evidence refuting such claims. The decision, however, stated that the administration does not have to restart MPP at any particular time, just “in good faith” (without defining the term) and clarified that the government “can choose to detain” someone in accordance with § 1225, so long as the government does not “simply release every [noncitizen] described in § 1225 en masse into the United States.”

On August 20, 2021, the Biden administration filed an application to stay the District Court’s injunction and for an emergency administrative stay with the Supreme Court. That same day – just minutes before the injunction was to go into effect – Justice Alito granted an emergency stay of the injunction until 11:59 pm EDT on August 24, 2021, to allow the full Court to consider the application. On August 23, 2021, the ACLU and ACLU of Texas filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of the stay application, again addressing the lower courts’ deeply flawed premise that the federal government must subject all people seeking asylum apprehended at the border to mandatory detention or return them to Mexico under MPP.

On August 24, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the government’s stay request in a 6-3 decision, stating that “[t]he applicants have failed to show a likelihood of success on the claim that the memorandum rescinding the Migrant Protection Protocols was not arbitrary and capricious.” The decision, however, did not endorse the states’ incorrect claims that the government is actually required to return people to Mexico under the immigration statutes. That same day, DHS issued a statement saying that the Department “respectfully disagrees with the district court’s decision,” have appealed that order, and “will continue to vigorously challenge it.” However, the Department stated that “[a]s the appeal process continues . . . DHS will comply with the order in good faith.”

On September 23, 2021, Plaintiff States filed a motion to enforce the preliminary injunction and expedite discovery, citing delayed implementation of MPP and bad faith on the part of the government. The government responded that Plaintiff States have not met their burden of proof to demonstrate that the government is not acting in good faith to implement the injunction. The government filed their reply at the Fifth Circuit on October 19, 2021.

On October 29, 2021, DHS issued a memorandum terminating MPP again. In light of the termination memo, the administration filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit in Texas v. Biden stating that the appeal of the injunction requiring them to re-start MPP in good faith was now moot and requesting that the court vacate the district court’s preliminary injunction and remand or, alternatively, to stay the appeal while the case is remanded. On November 1 2021, the states filed an opposition to the administration’s claim of mootness and request for vacatur or stay and remand, and the Fifth Circuit heard oral arguments from both parties the following day.

On November 18, 2021, the Court issued an opinion granting in part Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce, allowing for limited discovery but denying Plaintiffs’ request to implement MPP in the same manner. On December 2, 2021, Defendants filed a motion to reconsider Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Ruling on the Preliminary Injunction, which was granted on January 20, 2022. The Court ruled that, because MPP was reinstated on December 2, 2022, Defendants have met the Court’s concern about reimplementation and there is no reason to comply with limited discovery to ensure compliance with the injunction.

On December 21, 2021, the Fifth Circuit issued an order affirming the district court’s judgment and refusing to vacate the injunction. The Biden administration has petitioned for certiorari.

Documents:

Compliance Reports:

DHS Memorandum:

Counsel for Amicus: ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; ACLU Foundation of Texas; American Immigration Council; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Human Rights First; Southern Poverty Law Center

United States v. Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez

United States v. Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez, No. 3:20-cr-00026-MMD-WGC (D. Nev., filed June 25, 2020)

On June 25, 2020, Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez was indicted on one count of being a deported noncitizen present in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) (Section 1326). On October 19, 2020, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez moved to dismiss his indictment on the grounds that Section 1326 violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment under Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). In his motion to dismiss, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez argued that because Section 1326 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose and has a disparate impact on Latinx persons, the law is unconstitutional; as such, the Court must dismiss the indictment.

In his briefing, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez presented extensive historical evidence about the racist origins of Section 1326, including how it was first enacted at the height of the eugenics movement and how the “Undesirable Aliens Act of 1929” was conceived, drafted, and enacted by white supremacists out of a belief that the “Mexican race” would destroy the racial purity of the United States and that Mexicans were “poisoning the American citizen.” Although the statute was recodified in 1952, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez argued that the 1952 reenactment did not cleanse Section 1326 of its racist origins and was likewise motivated by discriminatory intent. Moreover, he argued that Section 1326 disproportionally impacts Mexican and Latinx defendants, given that the overwhelming number of Border Patrol arrests along the southern border are of Mexicans or people of Latinx origin.

On January 22, 2021, the Court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss, and on February 2, 2021, the Court held an evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez presented the testimony of two experts. Professor Kelly Lytle Hernandez, an expert on policing in immigration and criminalization of migration, testified extensively on the racist origins of the 1929 act and that “the illegal re-entry provision of the 1929 law was intended to target Latinos.” Professor Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien, an expert on political science, immigration policy, race, and public policy, testified to the historical link between the 1929 and 1952 codifications. Following the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez submitted a post-hearing brief outlining for the Court how the 1952 recodification of Section 1326 made illegal reentry penalties even harsher and expanded grounds for deportation, all with the knowledge of the law’s disparate impact and over a presidential veto calling out the bill’s racism. Mr. Carrillo-Lopez explained that the 1952 Congress did not reenact the illegal reentry provision despite its racist origins – it reenacted it because of them. In light of these facts, Mr. Carrillo-Lopez argued he had met his burden under the Arlington Heights test.

On August 18, 2021, the Court issued an order granting Mr. Carrillo-Lopez’s motion to dismiss, finding that because Section 1326 was enacted with a discriminatory purpose, the law has a disparate impact on Latinx persons, and that because the government failed to show that Section 1326 would have been enacted absent racial animus, Section 1326 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. As such, the Court ordered the United States to dismiss Mr. Carrillo-Lopez’s indictment and release him from federal custody. 

On August 19, 2021, the United States filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Documents:

Counsel: Federal Public Defender of Nevada

Contact: Lauren Gorman, Assistant Federal Public Defender | Lauren_Gorman@fd.org

National Immigration Litigation Alliance et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

National Immigration Litigation Alliance et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:2021-cv-11094 (D. Mass., filed July 1, 2021)

Since 2019, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has engaged in the practice of expelling from the United States migrants who recently gave birth, along with their U.S. citizen infants, often without birth certificates. CBP has even expelled individuals from the United States who were in active labor. The National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Al Otro Lado, and the Haitian Bridge Alliance (Plaintiffs) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on March 18, 2021 to CBP seeking records relating to policies, guidance, or statistics regarding the treatment of pregnant people in CBP custody, people in CBP custody who have given birth within the United States within the last six months, U.S. citizen children in CBP custody who are under the age of six months, and non-U.S. citizen children of parents in CBP custody while their parent is giving birth at a U.S. hospital or other medical facility. Plaintiffs sought these records to better understand the scope and extent of CBP’s practice of expelling migrant parents and their infant children without considering the merits of their asylum applications.

When CBP failed to produce any responsive records or provide any other substantive response to the request, Plaintiffs filed suit on July 1, 2021. CBP filed their answer on August 13, 2021. CBP produced documents in August, October, and November 2021. The case was dismissed on May 4, 2022.

Documents:

Counsel: Proskauer Rose LLP; National Immigration Litigation Alliance; Al Otro Lado; Haitian Bridge Alliance

Contact: Trina Realmuto, National Immigration Litigation Alliance | trina@immigrationlitigation.org

Additional Links: