Author Archives: NWIRP

Djumaev v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al.

Posted on by

Djumaev v. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation et al., No. 1:21-cv-05016-DG-MMH (E.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 8, 2021)

Plaintiff Akram Djumaev, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) of the United States, commenced this action against various federal agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), alleging violations of his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Mr. Djumaev is a resident of Chicago and a citizen of Uzbekistan who has been a lawful permanent resident since 2013. In January 2016, he traveled to Uzbekistan for the purpose of visiting family and getting engaged. After going through the security checkpoint at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, four law enforcement agents approached him and interrogated him, specifically asking whether he knew anyone in Turkey, Syria, or Afghanistan. Without consent or warrant, the agents then searched and confiscated his smartphone without providing any reason for doing so. After an hour of questioning, Mr. Djumaev was allowed to board the plane to Uzbekistan. However, the agents did not return his smartphone to him. In fact, to date, they still have not done so.

When Mr. Djumaev attempted to return home to the United States in March 2016, the airline attendant at the airport informed him that he would not be able to board—presumably because he had been placed on the U.S. government’s “No Fly List.” That same day, Mr. Djumaev contacted the U.S. embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, and filed a Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) complaint with DHS shortly afterward.

Two months later, Mr. Djumaev was instructed to visit the embassy for an interview. When he arrived, he was taken to a windowless room and interrogated by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and State Department agents. The agents allegedly stated that Mr. Djumaev was a “threat to the U.S.” without any explanation or justification for that claim. They also suggested—again, without providing any basis—that they knew he had terrorist affiliations and had been involved in criminal activity. The agents repeatedly coerced Mr. Djumaev to admit that he was guilty and threatened that he would be arrested and imprisoned upon returning to the United States. After about two hours of interrogation, the agents told him that he had only two choices: either return to the United States. and be imprisoned, or agree to sign a form stating that he would not return to the United States. The agents handed him a pre-filled Form I-407, Record of Abandonment of Lawful Permanent Resident Status. Although Mr. Djumaev had no desire whatsoever to relinquish his LPR status, he signed the form, believing that he had no other choice. During this process, the agents never informed Mr. Djumaev of his rights.

After that incident, Mr. Djumaev attempted twice to return to the United States, but he was denied boarding each time. Although LPRs placed on the No Fly List are eligible for a one-time waiver to return to the United States, the embassy has refused to issue such a waiver to Mr. Djumaev. Later, Mr. Djumaev retained counsel and challenged the validity of the I-407, but the government has not provided any response. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Mr. Djumaev has been unable to return to the United States for over five years and has suffered significant financial and emotional harms.

Mr. Djumaev’s complaint alleges that Defendants violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment by placing him on the No Fly List without adequate notice or opportunity to challenge the decision, as well as by coercing him to abandon his LPR status. The complaint further asserts that Defendants’ actions violated his rights under the INA (depriving him of LPR status and excluding him from the United States without charge or a removal hearing) and the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizure of his smartphone and its private contents). Finally, Mr. Djumaev claims that Defendants’ actions were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, otherwise not in accordance with law,” in violation of the APA. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, and requests, among other things, that the district court issue an order voiding the improper I-407 form and directing Defendants to restore his LPR status. The parties agreed to a settlement and stipulated to dismiss the case on January 24, 2023.

Documents:

Counsel: Jamila Marjani Hall & Sharnell S. Simon | Jones Day, Atlanta
Ramzi Kassem & Naz Ahmad | Main Street Legal Services, Inc.

Khalid v. Garland, et al.

Posted on by

Khalid v. Garland et al., No. 1:21-cv-02307-CRC (D.D.C., filed Aug. 31, 2021); No. 24-5091 (D.C. Cir., filed April 17, 2024)

Plaintiff Saad Bin Khalid brought this action for declaratory and injunctive relief against various federal agencies, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), claiming that the U.S. government has wrongfully placed him on its “No Fly List” which indefinitely bars him from flying to, from, or within the United States.

Mr. Khalid is a 27-year-old U.S. citizen of Pakistani descent. He was first designated by the U.S. government as a “known or suspected terrorist” in 2012, when he was still a minor. As a result, Mr. Khalid has been subject to multiple interrogations and intrusive searches by CBP and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officers. He learned that he had been placed on the No Fly List in 2019, when he tried to return to the U.S. from Karachi, Pakistan, but was prohibited from boarding his flight. He was unable to return to the U.S.—his home country—for several years due to his placement on the No Fly List. Mr. Khalid claims that the U.S. government has failed to provide any reason or justification for placing him on the list, or a fair process for challenging that placement.

The complaint alleges violations of Mr. Khalid’s rights under the Fifth Amendment (substantive and procedural due process), the First Amendment (retaliation for refusing to acquiesce to interrogations), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (burden on his exercise of religion), and the Administrative Procedure Act. Mr. Khalid seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendants have violated his rights, as well as an injunction which, among other things, requires Defendants to remove Mr. Khalid from any watchlist or database that burdens his ability to enter the United States.

On March 16, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction Plaintiff’s challenge to the TSA Administrator’s decision to place him on the No Fly List, finding that such a claim must be brought in a circuit court of appeals under 49 U.S.C. § 46110. The court held that it had jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s challenge to his placement on the broader terrorism watch list.

On April 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion asking the court to certify its order for interlocutory review. In the alternative, Plaintiff asked the court to transfer his No Fly List claims to the D.C. Circuit to avoid the 60-day deadline in 49 U.S.C. § 46110. On May 25, 2023, the court found no grounds for an interlocutory appeal and transferred the dismissed claims to the D.C. Circuit. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on August 10, 2023. Briefing concluded on October 20, 2023. On March 27, 2024, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court, and briefing is complete. Oral argument was held on October 10, 2025.

On April 14, 2026, the D.C. Circuit issued two opinions rejecting Mr. Khalid’s claims. The court of appeals denied his petition for review of his placement on the No Fly List, finding, inter alia, that he had no substantive due process right to be removed from the list, that the procedures for challenging the No Fly List are constitutionally adequate, and that the decision itself was not arbitrary and capricious (based, in part, on an ex parte record). The court of appeals also affirmed the district court’s order dismissing Mr. Khalid’s challenge to the Terrorism Watchlist.

Documents:

Counsel: Council on American-Islamic Relations

Contact: Gadeir Abbas | gabbas@cair.com | 202-742-6420

State of Texas and State of Louisiana v. United States

Posted on by

State of Texas and State of Louisiana v. United States, No. 6:21-cv-00016 (S.D. Tex., filed Apr. 6, 2021); 21-40618 (5th Cir., filed Aug. 20, 2021); 22-40367 (5th Cir., filed Jun. 23, 2020)

On April 6, 2021, the State of Texas and the State of Louisiana commenced this action seeking to enjoin the enforcement of interim immigration enforcement priorities outlined in two memoranda issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (dated Jan. 20, 2021) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (dated Feb. 18, 2021). Noting DHS’s limited resources and inability to respond to all immigration violations, those memos announced that the agency would prioritize enforcement against individuals who are purported to pose a threat to national security, individuals apprehended at or near the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States on or after November 1, 2020, and individuals convicted of an “aggravated felony” and recently released from criminal detention. Texas and Louisiana argue that these enforcement priorities are unlawful because:

(1) They violate the mandatory detention statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), as well as § 1231(a)’s requirement that noncitizens with final orders of removal be detained during the removal period;
(2) They unconstitutionally direct executive officials not to enforce federal immigration laws, in contravention of Article II’s “Take Care” Clause;
(3) They constitute arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA);
(4) DHS and ICE issued the interim enforcement priorities without following the notice-and-comment procedures required by the APA; and
(5) The memos were issued without adherence to the notice and consultation requirements contained in DHS’s cooperation agreements with Texas and Louisiana.

On August 19, 2021, the district court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, concluding that the memos violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the APA. It thus enjoined the government from following the interim priorities outlined in the challenged memos. The U.S. government then sought an emergency stay pending appeal as well as a temporary administrative stay. The Fifth Circuit granted a temporary administrative stay and heard oral argument on the motion for emergency stay pending appeal.

On September 15, 2021, the Fifth Circuit published its decision granting in part and denying in part the government’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction. While staying much of the injunction, the Fifth Circuit left narrow portions of the order in place. Specifically, the court declined to stay the injunction only insofar as it restrained the Biden Administration from using the Priorities Memos to guide the discretion of immigration officials in deciding whether to release two specific categories of immigrants: (1) those subject to the mandatory provision under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(c)(1) against whom immigration officials have issued a detainer and (2) those with final removal orders and subject to mandatory detention under § 1231(a)(2). The injunction is stayed pending appeal in all other respects.

On September 30, 2021, DHS completed its review of its policies and practices concerning immigration enforcement and issued a new memorandum establishing its revised enforcement priorities. The new guidance is set to become effective on November 29, 2021, thereby superseding the challenged interim priorities. In light of this development, the government filed a motion for abeyance on October 6, 2021, arguing that the case would likely become moot before the court reaches a decision on merits. The government requested that the court hold the case in abeyance until the new priorities go into effect, and also that the court stay the briefing schedule pending resolution of the motion.

Texas and Louisiana filed a response opposing the motion for abeyance as well as a petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the panel had erred by misconstruing the relevant INA provisions and also by failing to evaluate whether the challenged memos violated the APA. The Fifth Circuit granted appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal on February 11, 2022. In the district court proceedings, the States filed an amended complaint, alleging that DHS’s September 30 memorandum “suffers from the same legal infirmities” as its earlier memos. They also filed a motion to postpone the effective date of the recent memorandum, or, in the alternative, to preliminarily enjoin its enforcement.

The district court case went to trial on February 23, 2022. After the bench trial and post-trial briefing, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order on June 10, 2022, finding the plaintiff states have proven their first four counts by a preponderance of the evidence, and finding that the states did not prove Count V with regard to lack of consultation of the individual states. The final judgment vacated the September 30, 2021, memorandum. The government filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit on June 13, 2022. The Fifth Circuit denied a motion for stay pending appeal, and an application for a stay of judgment was filed with the Supreme Court on July 8, 2022. The Supreme Court denied the application for stay but construed the application as a petition for certiorari before judgment and granted the petition on July 21, 2022. The Fifth Circuit appeal was placed in abeyance pending the Supreme Court case.

On June 23, 2023, the Supreme Court decided that the states lacked standing to challenge deportation priorities, and in an 8-1 decision said that no precedent existed to support a federal court ordering the Executive Branch to alter arrest policies in order to make more arrests.

Documents:

Counsel: Brian M. Boynton, Jennifer B. Lowery, Sarah E. Harrington, H. Thomas Byron III, Michael Shih, and Sean Janda | U.S. Dep’t of Justice

Contact: Department of Justice

Press:

Uriel J. Garcia, Supreme Court rejects Texas effort to force Biden administration to change deportation policy, The Texas Tribune, Jun. 23, 2023.

Two Vermont residents challenge legality of warrantless search by Border Patrol in Vermont state court

Posted on by

On August 12, 2018, Brandi Lena-Butterfield and Phillip Walker-Brazie were stopped by Border Patrol agents conducting a “roving patrol” in a Vermont town near the Canadian border. The agents asked for consent to conduct a search of the vehicle, which Lena-Butterfield and Walker-Brazie denied. The agents then conducted a search of the vehicle anyway, believing they had probable cause to proceed, and encountered small amounts of marijuana and hallucinogenic mushrooms that they believed to be in excess of state limits. They called the Vermont State Police, and charges were bought against both individuals by the Orleans County State’s Attorney’s Office.

Vermont’s constitution provides stronger protections for individual privacy than federal law and calls for a warrant or probable cause with urgent circumstances in order for law enforcement to conduct searches. As the Border Patrol agents did not comply with Vermont state protections, counsel for plaintiffs argue that the evidence seized cannot be used in state-level criminal prosecution.

The ACLU-VT is appealing the criminal charges against Walker-Brazie and Lena-Butterfield to the Vermont Supreme Court. In November 2019, a superior court judge in Orleans County ruled in favor of ACLU-VT’s request to file an interlocutory appeal, which allows them to ask for a ruling from the Supreme Court before the lower court case is complete. The justices heard arguments on December 15, 2020.

Press:

Counsel: American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont

Contact: Jay Diaz | ACLU-VT

Council on American-Islamic Relations-Washington v. CBP

Posted on by

Council on American-Islamic Relations-Washington v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 2:20-cv-217 (W.D. Wash., filed Feb. 12, 2020)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations–Washington (CAIR-WA) filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington challenging CBP’s refusal to reveal the directive issued to CBP officers to detain and interrogate Iranian-Americans, among others, who were returning to the United States in early January 2020. CBP has repeatedly denied that they issued any such directive. In light of CBP’s denials, on January 8, 2020, CAIR-WA filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), asking the agency to produce any directives or instructions provided to CBP officers regarding the detention and interrogation of individuals of Iranian heritage, as well as any responses from CBP headquarters regarding the operation. Because CBP failed to respond pursuant to FOIA, CAIR-WA filed a lawsuit in federal district court seeking to ensure that CBP remains accountable for taking such actions.

The complaint alleges that on January 4, 2020, dozens of persons of Iranian heritage, including U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, returned to the Unites States after visiting British Columbia. But rather than allowing them to return, CBP officers at the Blaine Port of Entry in Blaine, Washington, detained these individuals based on their Iranian heritage for several hours, and in some cases, through most of the night of January 4 and into the morning hours of January 5, 2020. CBP officials repeatedly denied that they were detaining Iranian-Americans and denied that orders had been given to target such individuals for additional questioning. According to a statement issued by CBP’s press secretary on January 5, 2020, “Social media posts that CBP is detaining Iranian-Americans and refusing their entry into the U.S. because of their country of origin are false. Reports that DHS/CBP has issued a related directive are also false.”

However, dozens of individuals reported their detention at the Blaine Port of Entry, discrediting CBP’s denials that individuals of Iranian heritage were detained. Most recently, media outlets have also reported the existence a leaked memorandum issued by CBP’s Seattle Field Office, which directed officers at the border to detain and question individuals based solely on their place of birth.

Under FOIA, CBP had twenty days to respond to CAIR’s request. Despite the statutory obligation, CBP neglected to provide a response within the timeline, much less provide a copy of the directive that CBP refused to acknowledge. The initial complaint asked the Court to order CBP to immediately provide all documents and records relating to the detention and interrogation that occurred, targeting persons of Iranian heritage (as well as those from Libya and Palestine).

On April 15, 2020, counsel for CBP provided counsel for CAIR a redacted and incomplete FOIA response. On April 30, 2020, counsel for CAIR was provided a supplemental response to the FOIA request, still far short of the responsive records identified by the agency. On May 1, 2020, CAIR amended the complaint to add claims challenging CBP’s continued delay in producing responsive records, and in July 2020, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

On October 5, 2020, the court granted summary judgment in favor of CAIR-WA and ordered defendants to conduct an adequate search of the emails of even the highest level CBP officials. Significantly, the Court ordered CBP to include in its search the email of then-Acting CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan. The Court also required CBP to provide to the Court unredacted copies of additional documents that CBP refused to release, in order to determine whether they must also be released to the public. Those documents include the previously-leaked directive ordering the detention of all Iranians entering at the border, regardless of their lawful status. In doing so, the Court observed that the “release of the directive that mandated the detention of individuals based on national origin may be appropriate” given that exemptions to FOIA “should not shield the disclosure [of] records of illegal activity.” Notably, as the Court observed in its decision, CBP has not contested that its actions in ordering the detention of Iranians at the border was unlawful.

On December 14, 2020, after in camera review of responsive documents, the Court issued an order compelling the disclosure of improperly withheld portions of a directive that had unlawfully directed CBP personnel to detain all Iranians at certain U.S. Ports of Entry along the northern border in January 2020.

The newly released emails unequivocally demonstrate that CBP detained United States citizens, lawful permanents residents, and others based solely on their national origin for many hours at the Blaine Port of Entry.

Press:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/border-officials-were-overzealous-stopping-iranian-americans-at-washington-canada-border-cbp-chief-says/

https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/b/outsidenews/posts/emails-reveal-illegal-cbp-actions-at-border

NWIRP Press Release

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

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

Clear, et al. v. CBP

Posted on by

Clear, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:19-cv-07079 (E.D.N.Y., filed Dec. 18, 2019)

The American Civil Liberties Union and CUNY Law School CLEAR Project filed a FOIA lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in December 2019 over its Tactical Terrorism Response Teams (TTRT), which plaintiffs argue are discriminatory against individuals from the Middle East.

The complaint alleges that CBP is deploying secret teams across at least 46 airports and other U.S. ports of entry which target, detain, and interrogate innocent travelers. Frequently TTRT officers request that travelers unlock their electronic devices and subject them to search. While TTRTs operate largely in secret, CBP has publicly admitted the teams are explicitly targeting individuals who are not on any government watchlist and whom the government has never identified as posing a security risk. Former CBP Commissioner and form acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, has indicated TTRT officers may rely on their “instincts” or hunches to target travelers.

On February 21, 2021, the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment on all claims. The motions have been fully briefed and oral argument was held on April 26, 2021. On March 31, 2022, the Court indicated that it would partially grant and partially deny each party’s summary judgment motion. A written order was published on November 2, 2022, in which the court directed CBP to release all non-exempt and segregable information requested by Plaintiffs.

Additionally, the ACLU of Northern California has filed an administrative complaint on behalf of an individual who was detained and interrogated by a TTRT.

CBP’s Public Statements about TTRTs:

Press:

Counsel: American Civil Liberties Union

Contact: Scarlet Kim | American Civil Liberties Union Foundation | ScarletK@aclu.org

E.L.A. and O.L.C. v. United States of America

Posted on by

E.L.A. and O.L.C. v. United States of America, No. 2:20-cv-1524 (W.D. Wash., filed Oct. 10, 2020)

On October 9, 2019, an asylum-seeking father, Mr. L.A., and his son, O.L., filed administrative claims for six million dollars in damages for the trauma they suffered when torn apart under the Trump administration’s family separation policy. The family endured nine months of forced separation in 2018 while the father was unlawfully deported to Guatemala, in spite of expressing a credible fear of persecution in that country. On October 15, 2020, after the government neglected to make a final disposition on the administrative claims, Mr. L.A. and his son filed a lawsuit in the Western District of Washington, having exhausted all possible administrative remedies.

While in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), at a youth facility called Lincoln Hall in New York, then-17-year-old O.L. was medicated without his parent’s consent in order to “calm” him and dissuade thoughts of escaping from the facility. A Lincoln Hall staff member physically assaulted and insulted O.L.; rather than discipline the offending staff member, facility staff simply transferred O.L. to a different part of the facility. Additionally, Lincoln Hall was an abusive and sexualized environment. On two separate occasions, staff completed an ORR Serious Incident Report or “Sexual Abuse SIR,” listing O.L. as a victim of sexualized staff actions. During one incident, a staff member showed O.L. and other children in the facility a pornographic video on his phone. In another incident, a staff member dropped a nude photo of herself in front of O.L.

Both Mr. L.A. and his son endured dehumanizing conditions while being held in a hielera prior to and immediately after separation. Mr. L.A. reported freezing temperatures, very limited food, and limited access to drinking water other than from a bathroom sink. At one point, he was packed in a cell with fifteen other men, with no beds and a shared toilet without privacy. As the men were not permitted to shower or brush their teeth, the smell in the cell was horrible. Officers left bright fluorescent lights on at all times, conducted roll-calls even at nighttime, and provided only Mylar emergency blankets for sleeping; as a result, Mr. L.A. reports experiencing sleep deprivation.

Mr. L.A. and his son spoke briefly on the phone only twice while they were detained and before Mr. L.A. was deported. Mr. L.A. was devastated to learn his son had been transported across the country to New York, while he remained detained in Texas. After being detained separately for more than one month, Mr. L.A. received word from officers that he would be reunited with his son. However, they were not reunited; and Mr. L.A. was instead put on a plane and deported to Guatemala.

Both Mr. L.A. and his son report prolonged and lasting effects from their forced separation. Mr. L.A. still experiences nightmares, anxiety, and depression, and also survived an attempt on his life after his removal to the country from which he sought asylum. O.L. reports experiencing anxiety and depression in the wake of his detention and time spent separated from his father.

The claim letter charges the government with intentionally inflicting emotional pain on the family and punishing them for seeking asylum in the United States. The claims were filed against the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. They are brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows individuals to sue the United States for injuries resulting from unlawful conduct of federal officers.

On January 19, 2021, Defendant moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas and to dismiss two of Plaintiffs’ four claims (abuse of process and negligence). On June 3, 2022, the district court denied Defendant’s motion to transfer the case to Texas, but granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss the abuse of process and negligence claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of claims on June 17, 2022. On October 19, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider. On November 14, 2022, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, arguing that the claim is barred by the discretionary function and due care exceptions to the FTCA and that there is no private analogue. On May 15, 2023, the court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss, and Defendant filed their answer to the complaint on June 30, 2023. The parties entered into a stipulated protective order similar to those in other family separation litigation on August 4, 2023.

The parties reached a settlement agreement and filed a stipulated motion of dismissal in March 2024, and the case was dismissed on March 6, 2024.

Documents:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Morgan, Lewis, & Brockius, LLP

Contact: Matt Adams | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | 206.957.8611 | matt@nwirp.org

Note: Other cases involving family separation in the Western District of Washington include:

  • S.M.F. and A.R.M. v. United States of America, 2:22-cv-1193 (W.D. Wash., filed Aug. 26, 2022)

Gonzalez Recinos et al. v. McAleenan et al.

Posted on by

Gonzalez Recinos et al. v. McAleenan et al., No. 1:19-cv-00138 (S.D. Tex. filed Aug. 16, 2019).

This lawsuit was brought as a writ of habeas corpus by individuals detained by CBP in various facilities within the Rio Grande Valley Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol.

The lawsuit alleges that CBP has subjected petitioners to inhumane treatment and harsh conditions in these facilities by: packing them into overcrowded cells for lengthy periods, where they are denied adequate food, water, medical attention, and sanitation facilities, providing inadequate food and water, unsanitary toilets, showering and bathing facilities, and no access to phones, beds, or medical assistance. Petitioners are also alleging that it is CBP’s pattern or practice to deny access to family members and legal counsel.

Plaintiff-petitioners filed an amended petition on July 20, 2019, and a motion for preliminary injunction on August 12. The district court held a hearing on that motion on September 6, 2019. In October of 2019, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction under the rationale that granting the requested relief would impose a substantial burden on CBP. The parties then stipulated to dismiss the case.

Counsel: Elisabeth (Lisa) Brodyaga, Refugio del Rio Grande; Jaime M. Diez, Jones and Crane; Thelma O. Garcia, Law Office of Thelma Garcia; Luis Campos, John Becker & Wesley D. Lewis, Haynes and Boone, LLP; Efrén C. Olivares, Texas Civil Rights Project

Contact: Lisa Brodyaga | Refugio del Rio Grande | 956-421-3226 | LisaBrodyaga@aol.com

A.I.I.L. et al. v. Sessions et al.

Posted on by

A.I.I.L. on behalf of herself and her minor children, J.A.H.I. and M.E.H.I., et al., No. 4:19-cv-00481 (D. Ariz., filed Oct. 3, 2019); 4:23-cv-01383 (S.D. Tex.)

This lawsuit seeks damages on behalf of thousands of traumatized children and parents who were forcibly torn from each other under the Trump administration’s illegal practice of separating families at the border.

Leading child welfare organizations, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and medical professionals have publicly denounced the forced separation of children from their parents, citing the long-lasting, detrimental effects on children’s emotional growth and cognitive development. Separated parents, meanwhile, face an increased risk of developing mental health disorders, with trauma linked to severe anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts.

Plaintiffs cited in the complaint include families from Guatemala and Honduras who were separated along the border in Arizona for up to 16 months. In addition to damages, the lawsuit seeks the creation of a fund to pay for professional mental health services for affected families.

The lawsuit, A.I.I.L. v. Sessions, cites violations of the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure of children); the Fifth Amendment due process clause (fundamental right to family integrity; right to a hearing; right to adequate health care); and equal protection (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin).

Defendants include officials from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Health and Human Services (HHS)/Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

On February 14, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint, asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and qualified immunity. Briefing on that motion is complete. On July 22, 2020, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to include their administratively exhausted Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) claims. Defendants requested that the court defer a decision on Plaintiffs’ motion to amend pending the court’s decision on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On August 31, 2020 the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to amend and denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

On September 3, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. In February 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and on qualified immunity grounds.

On May 20, 2021, Plaintiffs sought a stay of the action to facilitate further settlement discussions in hopes of resolving their FTCA claims against the United States. The individual Defendants objected to the stay of the individual-capacity claims. The court lifted the abeyance on January 7, 2022.

On March 31, 2022, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims except for the FTCA claims of four of the five Plaintiff families. With respect to the FTCA claims, the court held, among other things, that those claims were not barred by the discretionary function or due care exceptions to the FTCA. With respect to the dismissed constitutional claims brought under Bivens, the court held, among other things, that special factors counseled against extending Bivens to a new context that challenged high level policy decisions. On July 14, 2022, the court denied the government’s motions to consolidate policy-level discovery in A.I.I.L. with related family separation cases in the district.

On July 15, 2022, the individual Defendants filed a Rule 54(b) motion for the entry of a final judgment as to the claims against the individual defendants. On March 31, 2023, the court denied the motion, finding that the dismissed individual claims and the pending FTCA claims raised related issues of fact and law and that two appeal tracks would complicate the case and burden Plaintiffs.

On April 11, 2023, the court transferred the claims of two of the named plaintiffs to the Southern District of Texas, where their separation occurred.

On March 6, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for court approval of the settlements of minor Plaintiffs’ claims. The settlements involved payment of stipulated amounts to the individual plaintiffs.

Documents:

Counsel: Christine Wee, ACLU of Arizona; Lee Gelernt, Anand Balakrishnan, Daniel Galindo, Stephen Kang, & Spencer Amdur, ACLU Immigrant Rights’ Project; Geoffry R. Chepiga, Jacqueline P. Rubin, Emily Goldberg, Hallie S. Goldblatt, Steven C. Herzog, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; Alexander A. Reinert, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Contact: Lee Gelernt | ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project | lgelernt@aclu.org

Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Dep’t of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 1:19-cv-02578 (D.D.C., filed Aug. 27, 2019)

In United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), the Supreme Court unanimously held that warrantless GPS tracking violates the Fourth Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. In a 2018 California criminal case, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) disclosed that it is their policy and practice to install tracking devices on vehicles at the border without a warrant. An ICE official stated in a declaration that the policy did not violate the Jones ruling, but the court disagreed.

Neither agency submitted the actual policy to the court, so the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with ICE and CBP. EFF asked the agencies to produce records pertaining to “[p]olicies and/or procedures regarding the use of GPS tracking devices on vehicles crossing the border” and “[t]raining manuals and/or training materials on the use of GPA tracking devices on vehicles crossing the border.” Four months after EFF made the request, ICE notified EFF that the agency would withhold all relevant documents because of an exemption that protects “law enforcement sensitive information” that might alert people of government agents attempting to place tracking devices on their vehicles at the border. CBP did not take any action in response to the request, so in August 2019, EFF filed a federal lawsuit to enforce the FOIA and obtain the relevant records.

From December 2019 through April 2020, ICE and CBP made a small series of productions.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Briefing on the motions for summary judgment was completed in May 2021.  On March 21, 2023, the court entered a minute order denying both motions for summary judgment without prejudice and ordering the parties to file a joint status report on the progress of the case. As of a joint status report filed August 9, 2023, the parties continue to meet and confer to evaluate the possibility of settlement.

Counsel: David L. Sobel, Saira Hussain, Jennifer Lynch, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Contact: David L. Sobel | Electronic Frontier Foundation | 415-436-9333 | sobel@eff.org