Category Archives: All Cases

C.M., et al., v. United States

Posted on by

C.M., et al., v. United States, No. 2:19-cv-05217-SRB (D. Ariz., filed Sept. 19, 2019)

On September 19, 2019, five asylum-seeking mothers and their children filed a lawsuit for money damages for the trauma they suffered when torn apart under the Trump Administration’s family separation policy. Each family was fleeing persecution in their country of origin. Instead of finding safety in the United States, the government forcibly took the children from their mothers and then left them in the dark about where they were taken and when—if ever—they would see each other again. The mothers and their children suffered greatly during the separations, which in some cases lasted for months. For example:

  • An eight-year-old girl is still unable to sleep unless her mother holds her.
  • A seven-year-old boy separated from his mother for more than two months refuses to talk about his time in a New York shelter and is reluctant to eat.
  • A 14-year-old boy refuses to discuss the separation or his time in detention and experiences outbursts of inexplicable anger.
  • A six-year-old girl has nightmares about her experience and often screams out to her mother in the night seeking protection from people who might separate them again.
  • An eight-year-old boy shows constant signs of fear when he is apart from his mother, especially when his mother takes him to school.

On February 11, 2019, the families filed administrative claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). When the government failed to respond, they brought suit. The complaint charges the government with intentionally inflicting emotional pain and suffering on these families in order to deter other Central Americans from seeking asylum in the United States. The complaint also alleges negligence.

On March 30, 2020, the district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss, finding that neither the due care exception nor the discretionary function exception to liability under the FTCA barred the claims. The government moved the court to certify its order for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Briefing on that motion was completed on June 19, 2020. On July 6, 2020, the court denied the government’s motion. Discovery is ongoing. The court has resolved several discovery disputes in Plaintiffs’ favor, including rejecting the government’s claim that records and deposition testimony related to the government’s 2017 planning to separate families was unrelated to the 2018 family separations. On July 14, 2022, the Court denied the government’s motions to consolidate policy-level discovery in C.M. with related family separation cases in the district.

On December 14, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions arising from the Defendant’s production of thousands of documents after the close of fact discovery resulting in Plaintiffs’ inability to review them to determine who to depose or what to cover during the vast majority of the fact depositions. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part in August 2023.

Plaintiffs and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment on March 9, 2023. Oral arguments were heard June 13, 2023. On October 24, the court denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs’ claims were not barred under the discretionary exception to FTCA liability and that those claims were not institutional torts not authorized under the FTCA. The court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that Defendants did owe Plaintiffs a duty of care. On April 10, 2024, the parties gave joint notice of conditional settlement and stipulated to stay the litigation deadlines. On July 2, 2024, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of the minors’ settlement. On October 17, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted on October 22.

Documents:

Counsel: The American Immigration Council | the National Immigrant Justice Center | Arnold & Porter | the National Immigration Litigation Alliance | Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin.

Contact: Emma Winger | American Immigration Council | 202-507-7512 | ewinger@immcouncil.org

Press: Maria Sacchetti, Lawyers for migrants say U.S. officials slowed family reunifications, The Washington Post, June 8, 2022.

Note: Other cases involving family separation in the District of Arizona are:

  • M.S.E. v. United States, 2:22-cv-1242 (D. Ariz., filed July 25, 2022);
  •  E.C.B. v. United States, 2:22-cv-915 (D. Ariz., filed May 27, 2022);
  • J.P. v. United States, 2:22-cv-683 (D. Ariz., filed Apr. 25, 2022);
  • F.R. v. United States, 2:21-cv-339 (D. Ariz., filed Feb. 25, 2021);
  • B.A.D.J. v. United States, 2:21-cv-215 (D. Ariz., filed Feb. 8, 2021); 
  • E.S.M. v. United States, 4:21-cv-00029 (D. Ariz., filed Jan. 21, 2021);
  • Fuentes-Ortega v. United States, 2:22-cv-449 (D. Ariz., filed Nov. 17, 2020).

Other cases involving family separation filed in the District of New Mexico include:

  • A.E.S.E v. United States, 2:21-cv-569 (D.N.M., filed Jun. 18, 2021);
  • S.E.B.M. v. United States, 1:21-cv-95 (D.N.M., filed Feb. 5, 2021).

Lovell v. United States

Posted on by

Lovell v. United States of America, No. 1:18-cv-01867 (E.D.N.Y., filed Mar. 28, 2018)

On November 27, 2016, Tameika Lovell was returning from Jamaica and traveling through John F. Kennedy Airport when U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officers selected her for a “random search.” Officers took her to a secured area and conducted a physically invasive and traumatic search of her body, including a body cavity search, for which she later sought medical and psychological treatment.

Ms. Lovell filed a federal tort claim with CBP on May 10, 2017, but it was subsequently denied. On March 28, 2018, Ms. Lovell filed this action seeking damages under Bivens and alleging violations of her Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The complaint alleges that CBP’s search of Ms. Lovell was carried out in in violation of the Fourth Amendment and was conduct that “shocked the conscience” in violation of the Fifth Amendment. She further alleges that the search was not random but instead based on her race, and that CBP unlawfully singles out females and persons of color for searches. Furthermore, Ms. Lovell alleges that the United States and CBP condone employees’ intentional violations of the National Standards on Transportation, Escort, Detention, and Search, the agency’s written standards for searches. Ms. Lovell seeks compensatory and punitive damages against CBP.

On August 3, 2022, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety on the basis that the Supreme Court’s decision in Egbert v. Boule foreclosed Ms. Lovell’s Bivens action against the named CBP officers. Alternatively, the court held that that the officers would be entitled to qualified immunity for their actions.

Press Coverage:

Counsel: The Sanders Firm, P.C.
Contact: Eric Sanders | 212-652-2782

Boule v. Egbert

Posted on by

Boule v. Egbert et al., Nos. 2:17-cv-00106-RSM (W.D. Wash., filed Jan. 25, 2017), 18-35789 (9th Cir., filed Sept. 20, 2018), and 21-147 (U.S. June 8, 2022)

A U.S. citizen filed a Bivens action for damages he suffered when a U.S. Border Patrol agent unlawfully entered his property in violation of the Fourth Amendment, refused to leave when told to do so, and knocked him to the ground. The district court granted the agent’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment claim. Although the court found that the agent had violated the Fourth Amendment, it nevertheless held that the case presents a new context for Bivens and that special factors existed which counseled against extending Bivens. In particular, the court found that the case implicated national security issues because the plaintiff’s property—where the incident occurred—is located right on the United States side of the U.S.-Canada border. The court indicated that the risk of personal liability would cause Border Patrol agents to hesitate and second guess their daily decisions about whether and how to investigate suspicious activity near the border.

The plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and the American Immigration Council filed an amicus in support of the appeal. In August 2019, the Ninth Circuit stayed proceedings in this case pending issuance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hernandez v. Mesa. Following the Supreme Court’s February 25, 2020, decision in Hernandez, the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay and heard oral arguments.

On November 20, 2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court’s summary judgment for defendants and holding that Bivens remedies were available in the circumstances of this case.

On May 20, 2021, the Ninth Circuit denied a sua sponte request from an active judge on the Ninth Circuit for rehearing en banc. The Ninth Circuit simultaneously amended its opinion to include additional analysis to support the original holding that Bivens remedies are available in the circumstances of this case, including a more thorough discussion of the lack of alternative remedies.

Egbert then appealed to the Supreme Court. In November 2021, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on two specific issues: (1) whether Bivens extends to First Amendment retaliation claims; and (2) whether Bivens extends to Fourth Amendment claims involving immigration enforcement. However, the Supreme Court denied Egbert’s request to consider overruling Bivens.

The Supreme Court issued a decision on June 8, 2022, reversing the Ninth Circuit. The Court held that Mr. Boule could not bring his First or Fourth Amendment claims against Agent Egbert. With respect to the Fourth Amendment claim, the Court came to this conclusion by answering one central question: “whether there is any rational reason (even one) to think that Congress is better suited to ‘weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed.’” According to the Court, a lawsuit against Border Patrol agents at the border necessarily implicates national security concerns. Because of that, only Congress could allow such a lawsuit. The Court made this finding even though this case involved a low-level officer engaged in routine law enforcement activity against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil on his own property.

The Court also found a Bivens remedy inappropriate because U.S. Border Patrol has a grievance process. The Court said it did not matter that this process did not allow Mr. Boule monetary damages, that it could not be appealed, or, as the dissent points out, that it offers “no meaningful protection of the constitutional interests at stake.”

The Court declined to extend a Bivens remedy to Mr. Boule’s First Amendment retaliation claim, stating that it could significantly expand litigation against federal agents.

Counsel: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr; Breean L. Beggs, Paukert and Troppmann; Gregory Boos and W. Scott Railton, Cascadia Cross-Border Law

Contact: Gregory Boos | Cascadia Cross-Border Law | 360.671.5945 | gdboos@cascadia.com

FTCA Administrative Complaint against CBP and Border Patrol for False Arrest at a Greyhound Bus Station

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaint against CBP and Border Patrol for False Arrest at a Greyhound Bus Station

Sosa Segura v. United States of America, No. 2:19-cv-00219-SAB (E.D. Wash., filed Jun. 25, 2019) 

On June 20, 2018 the ACLU of Washington and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project filed a claim under the FTCA on behalf of Andres Sosa Segura, who was unlawfully seized and detained by Border Patrol agents at an intermodal transit station in Spokane, Washington.

Mr. Sosa, a resident of Washington, traveled regularly to Montana for work. On his return trip from Montana, after disembarking a bus at the Spokane station to make a transfer, Mr. Sosa was approached by Border Patrol agents who began to interrogate him about his legal status. Mr. Sosa had been the only Latinx-appearing passenger on the bus. He asserted his right to remain silent and showed the agents a “know your rights” card. Upon viewing the card, one of the agents called Mr. Sosa “illegal,” and both agents positioned their bodies so he could not leave, even once putting their hand on their gun as though to imply the use of force if Mr. Sosa did not comply.

The agents continued to question Mr. Sosa and to threaten him with deportation, even after he disclosed he had already been released from immigration detention and had an ankle monitor. They eventually drove him to a detention facility an hour away from the bus station and continued to detain him for several hours while they verified he had been released from immigration detention on bond. Eventually, Mr. Sosa was driven back to the Spokane bus station and released, though he had already missed all buses back to his home. The complaint letter asserts that Mr. Sosa experienced humiliation, emotional distress, and other damages during the time he was falsely arrested and falsely imprisoned.

On June 25, 2019, Mr. Sosa filed a complaint in federal district court, as CBP failed to issue a final disposition on the administrative complaint within the required six-month period. The government filed a subsequent motion to dismiss, which was denied on November 22, 2019. Mr. Sosa filed for partial summary judgment on September 23, 2020, which was denied on November 17, 2020. A bench trial set for January 19, 2021, has been postponed due to the pandemic, and is now scheduled for June 2021. In March 2021, the government reached a settlement agreement with Mr. Sosa which included an award for damages.

In the course of discovery, the government agreed to lift a confidentiality designation on certain information produced, including deposition excerpts from an officer confirming that CBP no longer requires agents to possess “actionable intelligence” prior to performing security checks at transportation hubs like bus stations. That requirement came into place during the Obama administration, but was lifted after Trump’s election. In addition, the confidentiality designation was lifted on an internal CBP memo from January 2020 detailing Border Patrol’s interpretation of its statutory authority to engage in “suspicionless and consensual encounters” at public bus or train stations.

Counsel: ACLU of Washington | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

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

Press:

FTCA Administrative Complaint against CBP for Unlawfully Deportation of an Individual in Removal Proceedings

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaint against CBP for Unlawfully Deportation of an Individual in Removal Proceedings

Reyes Luna v. United States of America, No. 2:20-cv-1152 (W.D. Wash., filed Jul. 28, 2020)

On October 12, 2018, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project filed an FTCA Administrative Complaint on behalf of an individual who was wrongfully arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and deported in October of 2016. Already in removal proceedings, Reyes Luna was picked up by CBP while traveling in Texas and wrongfully deported to Mexico, in spite of having paperwork on his person which showed he already had a pending case in immigration court.

In December of 2014, Mr. Luna, who had lived in the United States for over 15 years, was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) after an arrest, after which the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) moved to reinstate a prior order of removal. In 2015, he passed a reasonable fear interview when an asylum officer found a significant possibility that he would be eligible for protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) due to his status as a target of two cartels. Accordingly, his case was referred to an Immigration Judge for withholding of removal proceedings and he was able to bond out of detention. After a competency hearing, Mr. Luna was found to be a Franco-Gonzalez class member due to his neurocognitive history and as such, was appointed counsel in his immigration proceedings.

While awaiting his next hearing, Mr. Luna traveled to Hidalgo, Texas to visit family. Border Patrol agents detained him as he was walking back from a gathering, assuming he was traveling with another larger group that had been walking nearby. The agents transported him to a detention center and refused to listen when he asserted he was already in removal proceedings and wished to speak to his lawyer. He spent at least two full days and nights in a detention center, constantly insisting to officers on speaking to his attorney, to no avail. Officers demanded that he sign a form agreeing to deportation, even at one time falsely telling him his next court hearing had been “cancelled.” The officers kept the immigration court documents Mr. Luna showed them and forcibly removed him to Mexico.

While in Mexico, Mr. Luna was forced to flee for his life and remained in hiding until his immigration attorney was able to make arrangements for his return to the U.S. with agency officers. He was finally allowed to present himself at the border in January of 2017. The claim filed affirms he suffered significant, foreseeable, and direct emotional and financial harm as a result of the unlawful activity of ICE and CBP.

In July 2020, NWIRP filed a complaint in federal district court, after the government issued a notice denying Mr. Luna’s claim under the FTCA. In September 2020, the defendant moved to change venue and partially dismiss Mr. Luna’s claims.

On February 22, 2021 the District Court issued an order denying the motion to change venue and granting the partial motion to dismiss the abuse of process and negligence claims. Mr. Luna’s claims for false arrest and false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress remain at issue. The defendant filed an answer to the complaint on March 8, 2021. The plaintiff opted to dismiss all claims, and the case was dismissed on November 3, 2021.

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

Contact: Aaron Korthuis | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | aaron@nwirp.org

 

FTCA Administrative Complaint on behalf of US Citizen deported by CBP

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaint on behalf of US Citizen deported by CBP

In September of 2018, Julio Cesar Ovalle filed an administrative complaint against the Department of Homeland Security under the Federal Tort and Claims Act for being unlawfully seized and wrongfully deported last June. Mr. Ovalle, 24, is a U.S. citizen who was born in Los Angeles.

Ovalle, a resident of San Antonio, was stopped by a Border Patrol agent on June 11, 2018 while walking along Portanco Road toward his neighborhood. The agent asked for his “papers,” and refused to believe Ovalle’s assertions of his citizenship. Ovalle told the officer he had a passport and other documentation at home, but the agent did not listen and instead took Ovalle’s phone and transported him to the Border Patrol station in Cotulla. Ovalle was deported the next day to Nuevo Laredo.

In Mexico, Ovalle was kidnapped by cartel members and held for ransom with a group of about 80 other immigrants, including recent deportees. Ovalle’s family called Laredo police, who referred them to the FBI. Ovalle was eventually released at one of the international bridges in Nuevo Laredo, and returned to the U.S.

Counsel: Javier Espinoza Garcia | Espinoza Law Firm, PLLC

Press coverage:

Bressi v. Napier

Posted on by

Bressi v. Napier, No. 4:18-cv-00186 (D. Ariz., amended complaint filed July 2, 2018) and No. 22-15123 (9th Cir., filed Jan. 27, 2022)

On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff Terry Bressi filed an amended complaint against Pima County Sheriff, Mark Napier, and other county defendants alleging that they violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights when Sheriff’s deputies arrested him at a Border Patrol checkpoint in April 2017 after refusing to answer Border Patrol’s citizenship questions. Bressi has also lodged a federal notice of claim against the Border Patrol based on the same incident.

Bressi, who has traveled the same route since 1993 from his Tucson home to his rural worksite west of Tucson, has contended many times with the abuses and excesses of the Border Patrol. For example, Mr. Bressi previously sued another local police agency when a deputy illegally detained him at a Border Patrol checkpoint. See Bressi v. Ford, 575 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 2009).

On April 10, 2017, Bressi was returning home from work when he passed through the Border Patrol checkpoint. Consistent with his personal opposition to the existence of interior checkpoints, Bressi refused to answer the Border Patrol’s questions. Shortly after, a Pima County Sheriff’s deputy – who was stationed at the checkpoint under a federal grant program called Operation Stonegarden – took over the interaction with Bressi and insisted that he answer the Border Patrol’s questions. Eventually, the deputy arrested Bressi and placed him in handcuffs, purportedly because Bressi had “obstructed” the highway.

This lawsuit alleges that the deputy retaliated against Bressi for exercising his First Amendment right not to answer Border Patrol’s questions. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that the pervasive presence of local law enforcement at the Border Patrol checkpoint materially altered the nature of the checkpoint itself, rendering the whole checkpoint unconstitutional under the long-standing Fourth Amendment principle that permanent checkpoints are permitted only for limited immigration-related purposes and not for the “general interest in crime control.” The federal defendants answered the complaint on October 2, 2019. The Pima County defendants moved to dismiss the case.

On April 17, 2020, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part. Although the court dismissed Bressi’s claim that defendants improperly retaliated against him for exercising his First Amendment right not to speak during an immigration stop, Bressi’s Fourth Amendment claims regarding the constitutionality of the checkpoint and his arrest survived.

Discovery continued through June 2021. On June 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Plaintiff’s claim that the checkpoint violates the Fourth Amendment and on June 17, 2021, Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment. On January 10, 2022, the district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendants. Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  On February 24, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, finding the evidence showed that the checkpoint was a permissible exercise of immigration enforcement authority and that Bressi’s arrest was supported by probable cause.

Documents:

Counsel: Ralph E. Ellinwood PLLC

Contact: Ralph E. Ellinwood | Ralph E Ellinwood Attorney at Law PLLC | ree@yourbestdefense.com

Resources:

AIC v. DHS

Posted on by

American Immigration Council et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., No: 1:17-cv-02142 (D.D.C., filed Oct. 17, 2017)

This lawsuit involves the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) failure to conduct an adequate search for and disclose records responsive to Plaintiffs’ 2012 and 2017 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, which sought documents pertaining to DHS’ policy and/or practice of permitting Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to provide interpretation services to local law enforcement and to respond to 9-1-1 calls. Most documents that Defendants did produce in response to the FOIA requests were unjustifiably redacted.

Due to Defendants’ deficient and unlawful FOIA responses over a five-year period, on October 17, 2017, Plaintiffs filed suit against DHS under the FOIA seeking to compel the production of records concerning (1) the use of CBP personnel to provide interpretation and/or translation services to local, state, or other federal law enforcement agencies, and (2) the participation of CBP personnel in 911 dispatch activities.

Ultimately, the parties reached settlement on the merits and on attorneys’ fees and the case was dismissed in June 2019. Records available at link below.

Counsel: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | American Immigration Council | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

Contact: Kristin Macleod-Ball | AIC | kmacleod-ball@immcouncil.org

Records available at:

Kazazi v. CBP

Posted on by

Kazazi et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection et al., No. 1:18-MC-51 (N.D. Ohio, filed May 31, 2018)

This lawsuit challenges U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) unlawful seizure of Plaintiffs’ life savings. On October 24, 2017, while one of the Plaintiffs, Rustem Kazazi, a U.S. citizen, was in route to Albania, CBP seized the $58,100 that he was carrying to purchase a retirement home in Albania and assist family members in need. CBP neither arrested nor charged Mr. Kazazi or his family members with any crime. Later, CBP sought to justify the seizure by alleging that the money was involved in a smuggling/drug trafficking/money laundering operation—an unfounded allegation that CBP did not record when it confiscated the money nor one that CBP is willing to defend in court.

The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (CAFRA) requires the government to return seized property or begin civil forfeiture or criminal proceedings within 90 days of the government’s notice of the owner’s suit. CBP’s 90 days expired on April 17, 2018, and it did not fulfill any of the CAFRA requirements within that time period. As a result, CBP became legally obligated to return the property promptly to Plaintiffs. Given that CBP failed to do so, Plaintiffs filed suit on May 31, 2018.

After they did, CBP immediately capitulated and returned about 99% of the money it had seized. The parties later resolved their dispute concerning the additional $770 seized and filed a stipulated dismissal on November 19, 2018. On March 1, 2019, the court awarded $43,280.13 in attorneys’ fees and costs to Petitioners.

Press Release:

Counsel: BakerHostetler LLP | Institute for Justice

Contact: Andrew H. Ward | Institute for Justice | ahward@ij.org

Nwaorie v. CBP, et al.

Posted on by

Nwaorie v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, et al., No: 4:18-cv-1406 (S.D. Tex., filed May 3, 2018); 19-20706 (5th Cir., filed Oct. 8, 2019)

On May 3, 2018, the Institute for Justice filed a class-action lawsuit challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) policy or practice of demanding that owners of seized property sign “hold harmless” agreements for the return of their property, and thereby waive certain constitutional and statutory rights.

On October 31, 2017, CBP seized approximately $40,000 cash from the named Plaintiff, Anthonia Nwaorie, a U.S. citizen, while she was trying to board an international flight to Nigeria. Ms. Nwaorie intended to use more than $30,000 of the funds she had saved up from her work as a nurse to start a medical clinic in Nigeria for women and children.

In December 2017, Ms. Nwaorie, in compliance with the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA), submitted a claim, requesting judicial forfeiture proceedings. When CBP failed to file a forfeiture complaint within 90 days, it became statutorily required to return the seized property.

However, instead of doing so, in April 2018, CBP mailed Ms. Nwaorie a letter, which conditioned the return of her seized cash on her signing a hold harmless agreement. If she did not sign the agreement to waive her statutory and constitutional rights and to indemnify the government for any claims brought by others related to the seized property, CBP threatened to initiate forfeiture proceedings against her. After filing the lawsuit, CBP finally sent her a check in the amount confiscated.

On July 23, 2018, Defendants moved to dismiss all claims, arguing that they are moot and barred by sovereign immunity. On August 27, Plaintiff filed her opposition to Defendants’ motion. Defendants filed a reply in support of their motion on September 4, and Plaintiff filed a surreply on October 3. As of October 2018, the motion is pending.

In May 2019, a magistrate judge recommended dismissal, finding that sovereign immunity barred the claims, and alternatively, the government’s return of Ms. Nwaorie’s money rendered her claims moot. The magistrate judge also recommended dismissal of Nwaorie’s constitutional claims, finding that CBP had a rational basis to subject her to additional searches because of the large amount of money she was carrying.

The plaintiff filed an objection to the magistrate’s memorandum and recommendations. • Unfortunately, the district court judge affirmed the magistrate judge’s recommendations and dismissed the case in August 2019. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision that Ms. Nwaorie lacked standing, failed to state a claim, and was barred by sovereign immunity. Ms. Nwaorie filed a petition for panel rehearing, followed by a petition for rehearing en banc, both of which were denied by the Fifth Circuit.

Press Releases:

Counsel: Institute for Justice

Contacts: 

Dan Alban | Institute for Justice | dalban@ij.org

Anya Bidwell | Institute for Justice | abidwell@ij.org