Author Archives: NWIRP

Amadei, et. al. v. Nielsen

Posted on by

Amadei, et al. v. Nielsen, et al., No. 1:17-cv-05967 (E.D.N.Y., filed Oct. 12, 2017)

On October 12, 2017, the ACLU, along with Covington & Burling, LLP, filed suit against Customs and Border Protection over the February 22, 2017 search by CBP of passengers of a Delta Airlines flight that arrived at JFK. After the flight landed, CBP officers stood outside the plane and required every disembarking passenger to provide identification, even though the flight was a domestic flight. The ACLU brought suit on behalf of passengers on the plane who allege that this demand for identification violated their rights under the Fourth Amendment. The plaintiffs seek declaratory relief that the February 22, 2017 search was unconstitutional, as well as injunctive relief preventing CBP from conducting similar searches of passengers disembarking from domestic flights.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the agency action was not final and that Plaintiffs lacked standing. The parties completed briefing on the motion on April 20, 2018. On December 13, 2018, the court denied the government’s motion and allowed the case to proceed. Following discovery, the parties agreed to settle the case.

Under the terms of the settlement, CBP will circulate a new policy directive to ports of entry nationwide clarifying that CBP does not have a policy or practice of checking the identification of deplaning domestic passengers. If CBP officers do seek to conduct document checks of deplaning domestic passengers in the future, they must make clear through their words and actions that participation is voluntary and request that airline personnel announce over the airplane’s public address system that participation in voluntary. The officers must also provide an unimpeded path for passengers to exit the airplane and explain, if asked, that passengers who decline to participate will face no law enforcement consequences as a result.

Press:

Serrano v. CBP

Posted on by

Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al., Nos. 2:17-cv-00048 (W.D. Tex., filed Sept. 6, 2017) and 18-50977 (5th Cir., filed Nov. 21, 2018)

On September 6, 2017, the Institute for Justice brought a class action suit against Customs and Border Protection over the agency’s practice of engaging in civil forfeiture of vehicles at ports of entry on the U.S.-Mexico border. The plaintiff, Gerardo Serrano, was detained in 2015 when crossing into Mexico at the Eagle Pass, Texas port of entry. After CBP officers found a small amount of pistol ammunition in his truck, they seized the vehicle. CBP held his truck for over two years without ever filing a civil forfeiture action in court against him, despite requiring him to post thousands of dollars for a bond purportedly to allow him to challenge the seizure. Because the agency never filed a forfeiture action, Mr. Serrano was given no opportunity to have his day in court and challenge CBP’s seizure.

His complaint alleges that CBP seizes hundreds of vehicles owned by American citizens each year and refuses to hold prompt post-seizure hearings at which the owners can challenge the seizure. The class action suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief requiring CBP to hold prompt post-seizure hearings, as well as compensation for Mr. Serrano. In October 2017, CBP returned Mr. Serrano’s truck without subjecting it to a forfeiture action. On December 13, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss the suit. The parties completed briefing on January 19, 2018.

On July 23, 2018, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which he advised granting Defendants’ motions to dismiss.

On September 28, 2018, the district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations and issued an order denying class certification and granting all motions to dismiss. Mr. Serrano appealed the district court decision to the Fifth Circuit on November 21, 2018.

In April 2019, the plaintiff filed his opening brief with the Fifth Circuit. Several amicus briefs were filed in support. The government’s answering brief was filed in August 2019. As of October 2019, those briefs are still pending. The government filed a notice of supplemental authority regarding Cantu v. Moody 933 F.3d 414 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2019) on January 28, 2020. The court heard oral argument on February 4, 2020. On February 26, 2020, the plaintiff filed a notice of supplemental authority regarding the Supreme Court’s decision in Hernandez v. Mesa.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision on September 16, 2020, holding (1) that CBP’s seizures of property without prompt judicial hearings on remission do not violate the Due Process Clause and (2) that Serrano failed to state a Bivens claim, as his complaint did not plausibly allege that CBP agents violated clearly establish law by seizing his truck and keeping it for 23 months without providing him with a post-seizure hearing.

On December 1, 2020, Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Certiorari. On March 2021, Respondent filed a brief in opposition and Petitioners filed their reply. On April 19, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the cert petition.

Fifth Circuit Pleadings:

Supreme Court:

Counsel: Anya Bidwell & Robert Everett Johnson | Institute for Justice

Merchant v. Mayorkas (formerly Alasaad v. Nielsen)

Posted on by

Merchant v. Mayorkas (formerly Alasaad et al. v. Nielsen et al., No. 1:17-cv-11730-DJC  (D. Mass., filed Sept. 13, 2017), Nos. 20-1077, 20-1081 (1st Cir., filed Jan. 28, 2020), No. 20-1505 (Sup. Ct., filed Apr. 23, 2021)

On September 13, 2017, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, along with the ACLU and the ACLU of Massachusetts, brought suit against Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), challenging those agencies’ practices of seizing travelers’ electronic devices without a warrant or individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. The organizations filed on behalf of 10 U.S. citizens and one lawful permanent resident who had smartphones and other electronic devices seized when they arrived at the U.S. border. Many of the plaintiffs had their devices confiscated for extended periods of time. Plaintiffs seek the return of their devices, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the government to seek a warrant or have probable cause that a crime was committed prior to seizing a traveler’s cellphone. On December 15, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

On May 9, 2018, the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the government’s digital device search policies substantially burden travelers’ First Amendment rights.

Defendants filed an answer on June 1, 2018. Since then, the parties have been proceeding through the discovery process. In Spring 2019, the parties cross-moved for summary judgment, with plaintiffs arguing that CBP’s policy authorizing warrantless, suspicionless searches of electronic devices violates the First and Fourth Amendments and are seeking an injunction. Oral argument was held in July 2019. In November 2019, the court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court allowed in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, denying the request for injunctive relief but allowing the request for declaratory relief. The district court then entered a judgment stating that border authorities may only search a traveler’s electronic device if they have reasonable suspicion that the device contains digital contraband. Defendants appealed the order, and Plaintiffs cross-appealed in January of 2020. Briefing on the cross-appeals was ongoing through July, and in August 2020, Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic, the Brennan Center for Justice, Constitutional Accountability Center, The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Knight First Amendment Institute, and a number of other civil rights, immigration, privacy, and free speech organizations filed briefs as amicus curiae.

On February 9, 2021, the First Circuit issued its decision, holding that neither a warrant nor reasonable suspicion are required for CBP agents to conduct a basic search of electronic devices, and that neither a warrant nor probable cause is required to conduct an advanced search. It also held that CBP agents can retain an electronic device after a traveler crosses the border.

On April 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, asking the Court to clarify what level of suspicion (i.e., probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or none) is required to search a traveler’s electronic devices, and the scope of that search. The petition further asks the Supreme Court to impose a minimum requirement of reasonable suspicion for any such search conducted at the border. The Constitutional Accountability Center, the Center for Democracy & Technology, the Brennan Center for Justice, and TechFreedom submitted amicus briefs in support of the Plaintiff-Petitioners. On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.

Documents:

Counsel:  Electronic Frontier Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts

FTCA Administrative Complaint Against Border Patrol Re: Two Sisters Sexually Assaulted by CBP Officer in Texas

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaint Against Border Patrol Re: Two Sisters Sexually Assaulted by CBP Officer in Texas

In July 2016, two sisters — then 19 and 17 years old — lost their way while traveling to the United States from Guatemala, and encountered CBP officers after crossing the Texas-Chihuahua, Mexico, border. They asked for help and were taken to a CBP field office in Presidio, Texas. Once there, the sisters were led by a federal officer into a closet-like room one at a time, told to remove all their clothes, and sexually assaulted. The victims report that they continue to suffer severe emotional distress as a result of the assault.

The sisters reported the abuse shortly after it occurred to another CBP officer in the field office where they were held, and an investigation was launched by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General. The sisters were interviewed twice and asked to draw a depiction of the closet. Federal authorities have not pursued criminal charges against the officer, nor is it clear whether the officer has faced any disciplinary actions for his assaults on the sisters.

On March 22, 2017, the ACLU of Northern California filed two administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act with the federal government on behalf of each of the sisters.

Media:

Counsel:  ACLU of Northern California

Contact: Angélica Salceda | asalceda@aclunc.org | (415) 621-2493

Alton Jones v. United States of America, et al.

Posted on by

Alton Jones v. United States of America, et al., No. 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG (S.D. Cal., filed Aug. 8, 2016)

In August 2014, Alton Jones, a U.S. citizen who served as a Navy SEAL from 1977 to 1990, was assaulted by Border Patrol agents while out for a run at the Border Field State Park / Tijuana Estuary. He was tackled to the ground and then detained, first at the State Park and then at the Imperial Beach Border Patrol Station, where he was held without charge or explanation overnight. All told, he spent seventeen hours in Border Patrol custody before being released. He was never charged with any offense.

On August 8, 2016, the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties’ Border Litigation Project filed a federal complaint in the Southern District of California on Mr. Jones’s behalf, alleging violations of Mr. Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights. Additionally, under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Mr. Jones submitted an administrative complaint to the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, claiming $3 million in damages for false imprisonment, battery by a peace officer, assault, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the California Bane Act.

On October 20, 2017, CBP denied Mr. Jones’s administrative tort claim. On February 3, 2017, because his administrative claim was denied, the Border Litigation Project filed an amended complaint to add Mr. Jones’s tort claims. On April 7, 2017, Defendants filed an answer to Mr. Jones’s amended complaint. On April 10, 2017, Defendants filed a counterclaim against Mr. Jones, alleging assault.

Discovery commenced in May 2017 and concluded in April 2018. On January 12, 2018, Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the government’s counterclaim, which the government opposed. On May 2, 2018, Defendants filed a combined motion for summary judgment as to all claims brought against them and on their counterclaim against Plaintiff. On May 16, 2018, Defendants, DHS and CBP, filed another motion for summary judgment, this time seeking to dismiss the FOIA claim. Plaintiff opposed both motions. On November 15, 2019, the court dismissed in part and granted in part both motions for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the constitutional claims against the CBP officers, finding that the CBP agents had probable cause to arrest Mr. Jones due to his presence in a restricted area and his failure to heed repeated warnings to leave. The court allowed several of the FTCA claims to proceed. Notably, Jones’ claim for battery survived summary judgment due to Jones’ testimony that officers hit him, supported by documented evidence of injuries. His claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, based on his allegation that the agents locked him in a patrol car with the heat turned on and the windows rolled up (in August desert sun), also was allowed to proceed. The defendants won summary judgment on their counterclaim against Jones for negligence in causing injury to one of the officers.

The parties settled in March 2019, agreeing to drop the claims against each other without either party paying compensation.

FTCA Administrative Complaints Challenging Abuses from CBP Roving Patrols

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaints Challenging Abuses from CBP Roving Patrols

When conducting enforcement operations within the United States, CBP regularly sends its officers on “roving patrols.” These patrols, conducted many miles away from the U.S. Border, often lead to the detention and interrogation of U.S. citizens without reasonable suspicion of any crime. Many of the U.S. citizens detained by CBP were targeted because of their ethnicity, and CBP officers have subjected citizens to verbal and physical abuse while checking their citizenship status. Collected here are examples of complaints that the ACLU has filed against CBP to address the continued violation of U.S. citizens’ rights at the hands of CBP.

2013 Office of the Inspector General Complaint

On October 9, 2013, the ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU Border Litigation Project  submitted an administrative complaint to the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) concerning unlawful conduct of Border Patrol agents during roving patrols in Southern Arizona.  The complaint was submitted on behalf of 5 U.S. citizens who detail very serious incidents of verbal or physical abuse when their vehicles were stopped without reasonable suspicion by Border Patrol agents.  In at least two of the incidents, young children were traveling in the vehicles.

The complaint calls for the investigation of these incidents; a comprehensive review of complaints involving CBP roving patrols to determine whether Border Patrol agents are complying with their obligations under agency guidelines, the U.S. Constitution, and international law; and recommendations from OIG and CRCL regarding significant changes in CBP training, oversight, and accountability mechanisms necessary to address the problems and prevent further abuses.

2014 Office of the Inspector General Complaint

On January 15, 2014, the ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU Border Litigation Project submitted an administrative complaint to DHS Office of Inspector General and DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties concerning abuses committed by Border Patrol agents at interior vehicle checkpoints in southern Arizona.  The complaint was submitted on behalf of 15 U.S. citizens, aged 6-69 years old, and detailed 12 incidents in which their rights were violated when they were stopped at 6 checkpoints over a period of a year and a half.

The complaint calls for the investigation of all of the incidents identified; a comprehensive review of all complaints regarding Border Patrol checkpoints over the past five years; a thorough review of Border Patrol checkpoint policies and practices to ensure that operations are in fact limited to briefly verifying citizenship and that agents are receiving guidance regarding the limits of their authority; and a review of all policies and procedures related to service canines, in light of widespread reports of “false alerts” by the dogs.

2015 Federal Tort Claims Act Administrative Complaint

On May 19, 2015, the ACLU of Arizona filed two claims with the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) on behalf of an Arizona woman seeking monetary damages for egregious and repeated rights violations by U.S. Border Patrol agents.

The first claim arises out of an incident on May 21, 2013, in which Border Patrol agents stopped Clarisa Christiansen and her two young children without cause while the family was driving home from school.  After Ms. Christiansen demanded an explanation, the agents threatened to deploy a Taser and then threatened to cut her out of her seatbelt with a knife.  The agents subsequently slashed a rear tire and left Ms. Christiansen and her children stranded on a hot desert road with a flat tire and no explanation.

In October 2013, the ACLU submitted a complaint to DHS oversight agencies on behalf of Ms. Christiansen and four others who were subjected to unlawful “roving patrol” stops by Border Patrol.  More than a year and a half later, those agencies have yet to respond.

The second claim was filed in response to years of unauthorized and unlawful entries by Border Patrol agents onto the family’s private property west of Tucson.  On a weekly basis, Border Patrol helicopters buzz the family’s home at extremely low altitudes, causing dwellings to shake, and often disrupting the family’s sleep with deafening noise and bright lights.  Agents have also repeatedly entered the Christiansens’ property on foot and on motorized vehicles, despite numerous posted “No Trespassing” signs.

Federal law currently grants Border Patrol authority to enter onto private property within twenty-five miles of the border “to prevent illegal entry.”  Agents are further empowered to conduct interior enforcement within 100 miles of any national boundary, an area that encompasses most of the U.S. population.  As in Ms. Christiansen’s case, agents routinely ignore the legal limits of their authority in the course of these operations.

Counsel: ACLU of Arizona

Lawsuits Filed against CBP Challenging President Trump’s Travel Ban

Posted on by

On January 27, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States.” This executive order called for an immediate halt to entry for any immigrant or nonimmigrant from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, as well as an immediate 120-day halt to all entries by refugees and an indefinite suspension with respect to Syrian refugees. Many individuals who were in the air at the time the executive order was signed were detained by CBP upon arrival in the United States, including lawful permanent residents and individuals with valid visas for entry.

Individuals detained by CBP were held for extremely long times (over 24 hours in some cases), denied access to their families, prevented from talking to attorneys, and on some occasions pressured into signing documents renouncing their right to enter the United States and forcibly deported. Large numbers of attorneys soon arrived at airports across the United States to provide assistance, and multiple individuals filed habeas corpus petitions seeking the release of people detained by CBP.

During the weekend of January 28-29, 2017, courts in California, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia, and Washington issued temporary restraining orders blocking the executive order from going into effect and ordering that CBP release individuals from detention.

Subsequently, numerous other lawsuits were filed challenging the travel ban. A complete and up-to-date list of cases, as well as case status information, can be found on the University of Michigan Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse website. On June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the travel ban, and reversed and remanded the 9th Circuit decision in Hawaii v. Trump. Since this decision, many of the travel ban lawsuits have been stayed.

For more detailed information on developments immediately following the executive order, as well as three sample habeas corpus petitions for individuals detained at airports, please see Challenging President Trump’s Ban on Entry, a practice advisory published by the American Immigration Council.

 

Complaint Against CBP Abuses Following President Trump’s Travel Ban

Posted on by

On February 6, 2017, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic filed a letter with the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General (OIG), detailing the systemic abuses and violations of the rights of individuals lawfully entering the United States through airports in the days following the issuance of President Trump’s January 27, 2017 executive order (“Executive Order”). This Executive order suspended entry into the United States for individuals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The complaint to OIG contains 26 declarations from both noncitizens—including long-term LPRs—and attorneys about abuses at the hands of CBP. As the declarations discuss, both new arrivals with valid visas and long-time U.S. residents were detained for excessive periods, denied access to attorneys even after a court ordered CBP to provide access to counsel, and pressured into giving up their valid visas. The organizations conclude by calling on CBP to end its policy of detaining immigrants without allowing them access to counsel.

On January 18, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General released a report following a year-long investigation into the events immediately following the implementation of the first travel ban on January 27, 2017. Although the Office of Inspector General was unable to substantiate any individual claims of misconduct against CBP officers at ports of entry within the United States, the OIG found that CBP had violated two separate court orders when it was “aggressive in preventing affected travelers from boarding aircraft bound for the United States.

Ashcroft v. Abbasi

Posted on by

Ashcroft v. Abbasi, Nos. 15-1358, 15-1359 & 15-1363

The Supreme Court has accepted certiorari to determine, among other issues, whether a Bivens damages remedy is available to noncitizens who were arrested on civil immigration charges and thereafter subjected to the most restrictive conditions of administrative segregation that exist in the federal prison system. Although they were detained in the weeks following the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, they were not actually suspected of terrorism. Nonetheless, under orders from then-Attorney General Ashcroft and others, they were treated as if the FBI had reason to believe they had ties to terrorist activity, simply because they were (or appeared to be) Arab or Muslim, and were encountered – even coincidentally – in the course of a terrorism investigation.

In its decision below, the Second Circuit held that, with respect to their 4th Amendment claims, their detention did not present a new “context” for a Bivens action and that allowing these claims to go forward would not extend Bivens. The Solicitor General sought certiorari from this decision. While the case does not involve CBP agents or officers, it is included here because the Supreme Court’s decision could impact the extent to which Bivens remains an available remedy in cases that do involve CBP agents.

On January 18, 2017, this case was argued in front of the Supreme Court. On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision. The Court held that Bivens did not extend to respondents’ claims and reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision with respect to the respondents’ 4th Amendment claim.

The Court reasoned that if there is a meaningful difference between a case and a previous Bivens case “then the context is new.” After giving a non-exhaustive list of possible meaningful differences, the Court determined that the claims at issue in this case bore “little resemblance” to past Bivens claims. Since the Court concluded that the case presented a “new Bivens context,” it went on to determine whether “special factors” counseled against recognizing a Bivens remedy.

The Court found that at least three special factors counseled against extending Bivens. These special factors were (1) that respondents’ claims would lead to an inquiry into sensitive national security issues; (2) that Congressional refusal to “extend to any person the kind of remedies that respondents seek,” despite its knowledge of the conditions at the detention facility at issue, was a telling indication of its intent not to allow damages remedies; and (3) that other remedies were available to respondents’ besides damages, including injunctive relief and possibly a writ of habeas corpus. In the presence of these factors, and despite its professed sympathy for the respondents, the Court determined that it is better for Congress to undertake “the proper balance” between deterring constitutional violations and allowing government officials to make national security decisions.

Counsel: Rachel A. Meeropol | Center for Constitutional Rights

Maria Fernanda Rico Andrade v. United States of America, et al.

Posted on by

Maria Fernanda Rico Andrade v. United States of America, et al., No  2:15-cv-00103 (S.D. Texas, filed Feb. 27, 2015)

On November 3, 2011, Gerardo Lozano Rico, an unarmed Mexican national, was driving along a rural road in Texas when his car was pulled over by two United States Border Patrol agents. After being pulled over, several passengers in Mr. Lozano’s car began to flee and the two Border Patrol officers attempted to apprehend them. After one agent smashed the driver’s side window of the car with a baton, Mr. Lozano attempted to drive away from them. In response, the two agents fired approximately 15 shots into the vehicle, killing Mr. Lozano. The two agents who fired the shots claimed that they had fired in self-defense because the vehicle was coming in their direction.

In June 2014, Maria Fernanda Rico Andrade, Mr. Lozano’s mother, filed an administrative complaint against the Border Patrol, which was denied in August 2014. On February 27, 2015, Ms. Rico filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Texas. The complaint alleges an unconstitutionally excessive use of force and a pattern and practice of border patrol agents who, by placing themselves in front of moving vehicles, intentionally expose themselves to additional risk which creates a justification for the use of deadly force. The complaint also alleges the fatal shots fired by the agents were from the side and the rear, occurring after the car had already passed them and making the decision to use force unreasonable.

On October 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On March 27, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment.

On July 12, 2017, the court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss on Plaintiff’s FTCA and Bivens claims and struck as moot Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the FTCA claims and that the statute of limitations on the FTCA and Bivens claims had run.

In August 2017, Plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the decision, which Defendants opposed. On September 18, 2017, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

Counsel: Robert C. Hilliard | Singleton Law Firm, APC; Hilliard Munoz Gonzales, LLP

Contact: Robert C. Hilliard | bobh@hmglawfirm.com | (361) 882-1612