Category Archives: All Cases

FTCA Administrative Complaint of Honduran Family Denouncing the Hieleras (dated July 18, 2015)

Posted on by

John Doe and Jane Roe v. United States, 3:16-cv-856 (Mid. Dis. Nash. Filed May 12, 2016)

Claimants—a husband and wife—fled to the United States from their native Honduras in 2013 in an attempt to escape severe violence. In the six months preceding their trek north, Claimant Wife’s family had been targeted by a criminal organization, which murdered her brother outside the family business, beat her mother into a coma, and raped her 12-year-old cousin. Fearing for their safety, Claimant Wife (then nearly eight months pregnant) and Claimant Husband fled for the United States, taking their two-year-old son with them. After crossing the border, the family turned themselves in to CBP officers at the Weslaco Station in the Rio Grande Valley Sector and requested asylum. In July 2015, they filed an administrative complaint against the United States for the serious mistreatment they suffered while in CBP custody. They raise claims of negligence, gross negligence, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The family was taken to a detention center referred to as a “hielera” (“freezer” or “icebox”), where they were stripped of extra layers of clothing and their baby supplies (including diapers) were confiscated. The cell was so cold that Claimant Wife’s fingers turned color and her teeth chattered. Claimant Wife and the couple’s toddler were placed in a female-only cell with about 65 other people, including about 40 children ranging in age from newborn to 18. They were fed cold burritos and bologna sandwiches, but the youngest children could not eat them as they could not yet eat adult food. Claimants’ toddler son developed severe diarrhea but Claimant Wife was not provided with adequate supplies to clean him, such that the diarrhea leaked through the boy’s diapers.

CBP failed to provide Claimant Wife, her son, and the rest of the women and children in their cell with a bed, warm clothes, blankets, adequate edible food and potable water, and enough toilet paper or other cleaning supplies. The lights were on the entire time the family was in detention. Those who requested even the slightest accommodation were ridiculed, mocked, and even yelled at by CBP officers. As a result of these conditions, Claimant Wife and her child were unable to sleep more than a few minutes at a time. Children cried incessantly about the cold and lack of food and water.

Experiencing severe stomach pain and concerned about having to give birth in those filthy conditions, Claimant Wife begged for medical treatment. She was eventually taken to a nearby hospital, where the medical staff determined that she was in the process of dilation and informed CBP in writing that Claimant Wife was not medically able to travel. The staff also instructed Claimant Wife and (upon information and belief) CBP staff that she should be released from detention so as to prevent preterm labor and minimize the risk of medical harm to her and the baby, but CBP returned Claimant Wife to detention instead.

Over the next day, the family attempted to obtain information about their release and were only released after successfully convincing a CBP officer to check the doctor’s release order. Previously, CBP officers had told Claimant that she should not have her baby in detention, threatening her with prolonged detention and her husband’s deportation back to Honduras if she did so. When Claimants asked for medical treatment for their young son, who was visibly ill and dehydrated form diarrhea, they were told that if the officers took him to get medical attention, it would take longer for the family to be released. The officers also made clear to the family that they did not qualify and could not apply for asylum.

After nearly 72 hours in the freezing hielera without access to adequate food, water, hygiene, necessities, blankets, bedding, warmth, sleep, and medical care, CBP released the family by leaving them at a bus station in the middle of the night.

Claimants filed an administrative FTCA complaint on July 18, 2015, and suit in federal district court in May 2016. On August 19, 2016, the government filed a motion to dismiss the case. On October 26, 2017, the Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged injuries caused by the Defendant’s misconduct.

On January 23, 2018, the case was resolved following a voluntary dismissal of the action.

Counsel: R. Andrew Free | Barrett, Johnston, Martin & Garrison, LLC

Contact: R. Andrew Free | (615) 244-2202 | Andrew@ImmigrantCivilRights.com

Rodriguez v. Swartz

Posted on by

Rodriguez v. Swartz, No. 14-02251 (D. Ariz., filed Sept. 8, 2014)

This civil rights case involves the brazen and lawless killing of a sixteen-year-old boy, J.A., by U.S. Border Patrol Agent Lonnie Swartz. On the night of October 10, 2012, J.A., a Mexican national, was peacefully walking along a street in his hometown of Nogales, Sonora, Mexico. The street on which he was walking, Calle Internacional, runs parallel to the border fence. At approximately 11:30 pm, Agent Swartz, standing on the U.S. side of the fence, opened fire. An autopsy report shows that J.A. was fatally hit with ten bullets. At the time of the shooting, no official was under any threat by J.A. or anyone else standing near him — much less in immediate danger of deadly or serious bodily harm. J.A. death was senseless, unjustified, and unlawful. Plaintiff Araceli Rodriguez filed this Bivens action for monetary damages for the killing of her youngest son, alleging claims under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

On July 10, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Disagreeing with the en banc Fifth Circuit, Chief Judge Raner C. Collins held that Rodriguez’s Fourth Amendment claim could proceed and that Agent Swartz was not entitled to qualified immunity.

In mid-September 2015, the Department of Justice charged Swartz criminally with second degree murder. Following several postponements, the Swartz criminal trial began in Tucson on March 22, 2018.  The jury found Swartz not guilty of second-degree murder on April 23, 2018, after hearing several weeks of testimony from Nogales Police Department officers, Border Patrol agents, forensics experts, and Swartz himself.  The same jury failed to arrive at a unanimous decision as to the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, leaving open the door for a future criminal prosecution of the lower-level offense.  On May 12, 2018, the U.S. Attorney Office in Tucson announced that it would re-try Swartz on the lesser charge. Swartz was subsequently acquitted of involuntary manslaughter on November 21, 2018.

In the civil case, Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit. Briefing was completed as of June 1, 2016 and oral argument held on October 21, 2016. The panel indicated its intent to hold its decision pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of Hernandez v. United States, which was decided on June 26, 2017.

On August 7, 2018, the Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Kleinfeld with a dissent from Judge M. Smith, affirmed the District Court’s decision denying Defendant qualified immunity, reasoning that “J.A. had a Fourth Amendment right to be free from the unreasonable use of deadly force by an American agent acting on American soil, even though the agent’s bullets hit him in Mexico.” The Court extended a Bivens remedy, finding that Plaintiff had no other adequate alternative remedy and that no “special factors” counseled hesitation in extending such a remedy. The Court did not reach the Fifth Amendment arguments but stated that, if the Fourth Amendment did not apply because J.A. was in Mexico, the Fifth Amendment’s “shock the conscience” test may still apply.

Unfortunately, on May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for a second time in Hernandez v. United States, sub nom. Hernandez v. Mesa, and the court stayed Rodriguez pending the outcome of Hernandez. On February 25, 2020, the Supreme Court issued a second decision in Hernandez, holding that the Hernandez family could not rely on Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) to bring their claims. This outcome essentially foreclosed the possibility of a Bivens remedy in Rodriguez as well. As a result, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Rodriguez, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s 2018 opinion, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit for consideration in light of Hernandez. On April 7, 2020, the Ninth Circuit likewise vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the proceedings. Following the remand, the case was dismissed and is now closed.

Documents:

Press:

Doe v. Wolf

Posted on by

Doe v. Wolf, No. 4:15-cv-00250-DCB (D. Ariz., filed June 8, 2015) and Nos. 20-15741, 20-15850 (9th Cir., filed Apr. 20 & May 1, 2020)

Three individuals filed a class action suit challenging detention conditions in the Tucson Sector of the U.S. Border Patrol. The complaint alleges that the Tucson Sector Border Patrol holds men, women, and children in freezing, overcrowded, and filthy cells for days at a time in violation of the U.S. Constitution and CBP’s own policies. Detained individuals are stripped of outer layers of clothing and forced to suffer in brutally cold temperatures; deprived of beds, bedding, and sleep; denied adequate food, water, medicine and medical care, and basic sanitation and hygiene items such as soap, sufficient toilet paper, sanitary napkins, diapers, and showers; and held virtually incommunicado in these conditions for days.

The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU of Arizona, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Morrison & Foerster LLP represent the plaintiffs and class. Plaintiffs seek to compel the Tucson Sector to bring its detention facilities in line with Constitutional standards, including limiting the time a person may be detained in holding cells to a few hours, providing adequate food, water, and medical care, beds and bedding, access to showers and hygiene supplies, and maintaining appropriate capacity limits and temperature controls, among other reforms.

Subsequent to filing the suit, Plaintiffs sought and were granted expedited discovery, and thus were able to inspect 4 of the 8 Border Patrol facilities at issue, and were given copies of CBP video recordings of the holding cells and agency logs from these same 4 facilities dating back to the filing of the complaint. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a motion for sanctions over Defendants’ failure to fully comply with the expedited discovery order, which the Court granted in part.

On December 4, 2015, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. Defendants’ moved to seal much of the evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ motion, and thus block public exposure to photographs and other revealing evidence.  On January 28, 2016, Phoenix Newspapers Inc., the parent corporation to the Arizona Republic, moved to intervene in the suit for the limited purpose of opposing Defendants’ Motion to Seal.  The Court granted the Arizona Republic’s motion and unsealed numerous documents.

In early 2016, the Court certified a class consisting of all detainees who now or in the future will be detained by the Border Patrol in the Tucson Sector. The Court also denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the constitutional claims but did dismiss Plaintiffs’ APA claim.

In late 2016, following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction which held, among other things, that forcing a detainee to sleep on a concrete floor with no bedding was a violation of his or her constitutional rights. The Court ordered Border Patrol to provide sleeping mats to all individuals detained for 12 hours or more; afford individuals a means to clean themselves; provide them with toothbrushes and toothpaste; monitor cell conditions to ensure that they were sanitary and that toilets and sinks were in working condition; and adopt an enhanced medical screening form to use with all detained individuals. Both parties appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On December 22, 2017, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision in its entirety.

Plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment was denied on March 15, 2019, with the Court ruling that all issues are best resolved at trial.

Following a seven-day trial in January 2020, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ request for a permanent injunction finding that the conditions in detention facilities in Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector violate the U.S. Constitution. Under the court’s ruling, migrants may not be detained in these facilities for more than 48 hours, unless Border Patrol provides for their “basic human needs.” In addition to the requirements imposed under the preliminary injunction, further requirements imposed by the court after 48 hours include providing:

  • a bed with a blanket;
  • access to food that meets acceptable dietary standards and potable water; and
  • a medical assessment by a medical professional.

The court also clarified that the opportunity to shower, by definition, does not mean mere access to a “paper-shower” or “shower-wipe” and that Border Patrol must ensure that overcrowding in the detention cells does not result in migrants having to sleep in the toilet areas. On April 17, 2020, the court issued an order for permanent injunction specifying the exact terms governing how the court’s ruling will be implemented.  Defendants were given ninety days to fully comply with the court’s order.

Both parties subsequently filed notices of appeal to the Ninth Circuit. In November 2020, prior to any briefing, the parties stipulated to voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the government’s cross-appeal. In January 2021, the parties also stipulated to voluntary dismissal with prejudice of the Plaintiffs’ cross-appeal.

Counsel: The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU of Arizona, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Morrison & Foerster LLP

Contact: Mary Kenney | National Immigration Litigation Alliance | (617) 819-4681 | mary@immigrationlitigation.org

Resources:

Alba Quinonez Flores v. United States of America

Posted on by

Alba Quinonez Flores v. United States of America
No. 1:14-cv-03166 (E.D.N.Y. Filed May 20, 2014)

Filed under the Federal Tort Claims Act, this suit seeks damages for the physical and psychological injury Ms. Quinonez Flores suffered at the hands of CBP while she was detained in holding cells, known as hieleras (iceboxes), in CBP’s Rio Grande Valley Sector. The complaint alleges that CBP negligently placed Ms. Quinonez Flores in detention conditions that they knew or should have known posed a substantial risk of harm, failed to oversee the agents who managed the day-to-day operations of the detention facilities, and that their acts and omissions constituted the intentional infliction of emotional distress. For more information regarding this case, see Texas, FTCA Administrative Complaints.

On December 30, 2014, Defendants moved to transfer venue, arguing that venue was not proper in the E.D.N.Y. because Plaintiff was not lawfully present in the U.S. The court denied Defendants’ motion on June 12, 2015.

Thereafter, CBP offered to settle the case for $80,000. On February 4, 2016, after Plaintiff accepted the offer, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the suit.

Counsel: Law Office of David K.S. Kim, PC; Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger; Americans for Immigrant Justice

Contact: Ira Kurzban | Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger | 305-444-0060 | ira@kkwtlaw.com

Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Johnson, et al.

Posted on by

Lopez-Venegas, et al. v. Johnson, et al. No. 2:13-cv-03972 (C.D. Cal., filed June 4, 2013)

Filed by the ACLU and Cooley LLP on behalf of eleven Mexican nationals and three immigration advocacy organizations, this class action lawsuit challenged deceptive tactics used by Border Patrol agents and ICE officers to convince noncitizens to accept “voluntary return.” Each individual plaintiff had significant family ties in the United States and lacked any serious criminal history. Thus, they could have asserted strong claims to remain in the United States if they had been granted a hearing before an immigration judge.

The complaint alleged that Border Patrol agents and ICE officers have a pattern and practice of pressuring undocumented immigrants to sign what amount to their own summary expulsion documents. In recent years, this “voluntary return” procedure has been used to summarily expel hundreds of thousands of noncitizens from Southern California. Because of the coercive and deceptive tactics immigration officers employ, voluntary return regularly results in the involuntary waiver of core due process rights. An individual who signs for voluntary return forfeits his or her right to a hearing before an immigration judge and is usually expelled from the United States within a matter of hours.

Through the lawsuit, the individual plaintiffs sought to return to the United States and to receive a fair hearing before an immigration judge. The organizational plaintiffs, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center, and the San Bernardino Community Service Center, sought systemic reforms to the voluntary return process throughout Southern California.

Following more than a year of litigation, including intensive discovery and the deposition of key government officials, the government agreed to significant reforms of the voluntary return system in Southern California. Under a settlement reached by the parties, government officials must:

  • Provide detailed information – in writing, orally, and through a 1-800 hotline – regarding the consequences of accepting voluntary return to noncitizens asked to choose between voluntary return and a hearing before an immigration judge;
  • Cease “pre-checking” the box selecting voluntary return on the forms the immigration agencies provide to noncitizens;
  • Permit noncitizens to use a working phone, provide them with a list of legal service providers, and give them two hours to reach someone before deciding whether to accept voluntary return;
  • Provide lawyers meaningful access to clients detained by Border Patrol or ICE;
  • Cease pressuring or coercing individuals to accept voluntary return;
  • Allow some of the hundreds of thousands of Mexican nationals who have been subject to unlawful voluntary returns to reunite with their families in the United States; and
  • Allow ACLU attorneys to monitor compliance with the settlement agreement for three years.

Additional information on the class settlement is available here.

90 class members were identified under the settlement, and 82 of those individuals successfully returned to the United States. Others decided not to return, or could not be located. Monitoring of compliance of the settlement is ongoing. The ACLU of San Diego and their partners conducted visits to Border Patrol stations covered by the settlement in March 2017 to monitor compliance.

Press:

Counsel: ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties; ACLU Foundation of Southern California; ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; Cooley LLP

Vazquez-Mentado v. Buitron, et al.

Posted on by

Vazquez-Mentado v. Buitron, et al., 5:12­-cv-­00797 (N.D. N.Y., filed Nov. 6, 2012)

Mr. Gerardo Vazquez-Mentado, a naturalized U.S. citizen, filed this suit in federal district court in the Northern District of New York based on his unlawful arrest by Border Patrol agents. He brought a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act for false arrest and false imprisonment and a second claim under Bivens for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

On September 29, 2009, Mr. Vazquez, a resident of Oswego, New York, was driving into the city of Oswego. His wife and two children were with him in the family van. He was pulled over by Border Patrol agents who demanded his ID. He then presented his New York state driver’s license. After the agents accused him of being undocumented, Mr. Vazquez responded that he was a U.S. citizen. The Border Patrol agents ignored him, and instead placed him in handcuffs and transported him, with the help of the Oswego Police Department, to the Border Patrol station. He was released only after his wife returned to the station with his U.S. passport and Certificate of Naturalization, approximately 90 minutes after he was first stopped.

Mr. Vazquez first filed a complaint in federal court on May 14, 2002. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 28, 2012. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 6, 2012. Defendants then filed a renewed motion to dismiss on December 7, 2012. After briefing by the parties, the federal court issued an order on May 28, 2013, denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the FTCA claim as well as the Bivens claim as to the two arresting agents, and granting Mr. Vazquez leave to further amend the complaint to include additional allegations needed to maintain the Bivens claim against the supervising officer.

After subsequent filings, including a second amended complaint, a motion to dismiss by the supervisor officer, and summary judgment motions by the arresting officers, the parties entered into settlement negotiations which culminated in a settlement approved by the court on November 10, 2014.

Brown, et al. v. CBP and DHS – FOIA Class Action Against CBP

Posted on by

Brown, et al. v. CBP and DHS, 15-cv-01181-JD (N.D. Cal.)

On March 12, 2015, fourteen plaintiffs, including three immigration attorneys and eleven noncitizens filed a complaint with class allegations in federal district court in the Northern District of California against Defendant U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), seeking redress for CBP’s failure to comply with the statutory timelines under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Plaintiffs challenge a pattern or practice that has resulted in the agency having a backlog of over thirty thousand unanswered requests under FOIA. On April 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against both CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, as well as a motion to certify a nationwide class.

On May 18, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to allege any actionable claim under the FOIA, lacked standing, and did not identify a discrete CBP policy or practice. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on June 1, 2015. On September 17, 2015, the court denied CBP’s motion to dismiss in its entirety.

The court held a hearing on the pending motion for class certification on October 7, 2015, but did not rule on the motion. Instead, the court requested that the parties engage in discovery and file amended briefs on class certification following this discovery.

During the course of the lawsuit, CBP implemented new procedures for handling FOIA requests and added staff. In light of this, the parties reached a settlement and, On October 5, 2016, the district court dismissed the case pursuant to this settlement.  At the time of the settlement, CBP’s backlog had been reduced to approximately 3,000 FOIA requests, most of which were complex, and CBP generally was responding to new requests within 20 days. In the settlement, CBP committed to continuing its efforts to timely process FOIA requests.  Additionally, the agency committed to increased transparency about its performance; CBP will now post monthly FOIA statistics to its website, including the total number of FOIA requests pending, how long they have been pending, how many new requests are received each month, and how many are processed.

Contact: Stacy Tolchin | stacy@tolchinimmigration.com

Mendiola v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

Mendiola v. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Western Regional Office

In this individual right of action appeal before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Western Regional Office, Border Patrol Agent Froylan Mendiola challenged his removal from the Border Patrol and the agency’s efforts to require him to undergo a Fitness-for-Duty examination in retaliation for his protected activity as a whistleblower.  Mr. Mendiola, a sixteen-year Border Patrol veteran with a consistently excellent work performance record, reported incidents of racial profiling which he witnessed at the Murrieta Border Patrol Station in early 2012.  He was retaliated against as a result.

In a lengthy decision, the Board explains why Mr. Mendiola’s whistleblowing activities are protected, and details how Border Patrol took systematic steps to retaliate against Mr. Mendiola as a result.

Counsel: Anne Richardson | Hadsell Stormer | 866.457.2590

ACLU San Diego et al. v. DHS et al. (SoCal Roving Patrols FOIA)

Posted on by

American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties et al v. Department of Homeland Security et al., No. 8:15-cv-00229-JLS-RNB (C.D. Cal., filed Feb. 20, 2015)

This is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) case challenging defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP)’s failure to respond to Plaintiffs’ request for information regarding U.S. Border Patrol’s interior enforcement / “roving patrol” operations in Southern California.

There is little publicly-available information regarding the extent or impact of Border Patrol roving patrol operations, or regarding Border Patrol agents’ respect for regulatory or constitutional limitations on their authority. In Southern California, Border Patrol agents are present throughout a number of both major metropolitan and rural areas a considerable distance from the U.S.-Mexico border, including Fallbrook, CA (seventy miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border), Laguna Beach, CA (almost ninety miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border), and Long Beach, CA (over 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border).

Because Border Patrol does not release stop data or other information related to roving patrol operations, Plaintiffs filed a FOIA request with Defendants in July 2014, seeking records related to U.S. Border Patrol’s “roving patrol” operations in the San Diego and El Centro Sectors, including relevant agency policies, stop data, and complaint records.

DHS entirely ignored the request. CBP sent the ACLU a series of contradictory emails, none of which were legally adequate responses under the FOIA itself or DHS regulations. In February 2015, Plaintiffs filed suit in the Central District of California to compel Defendants to release the requested records. On June 23, the Court issued a scheduling order requiring Defendants to produce all responsive records on or before November 2, 2015.

On January 27, 2017, the Court heard arguments on the parties’ respective Motions for Summary Judgment. On February 10, 2017, the Court issued an order denying both Motions for Summary Judgment, and additionally requiring (1) that the government provide specified documents to the Court for in camera review, and (2) that both parties submit supplemental briefing. The parties submitted supplemental briefing on April 5, 2017, and subsequent replies on April 19, 2017.

On August 18, 2017, the Court heard additional arguments on the parties’ Motions for Summary Judgment. On November 6, 2017, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in party both Motions for Summary Judgment, and additionally requiring the government to submit specified documents to the Court for in camera review. On April 19, 2018, the Court issued a supplemental order granting in part and denying in part both of the parties’ motions. The Court entered a final judgment in the case on May 11, 2018. Neither party will appeal the order, and the parties reached a settlement on costs and fees in November 2018. Productions are now completed, and ACLU hopes to publish the documents sometime in 2019.

Related documents:

Counsel: ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties | ACLU of Southern California | University of California, Irvine School of Law Immigrant Rights Clinic

Contact:  Mitra Ebadolahi | ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties | mebadolahi@aclusandiego.org

ACLU of Arizona et al. v. Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, DHS et al. – CBP Child Abuse FOIA Litigation

Posted on by

ACLU of Arizona et al. v. Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, DHS et al., Nos. 15-00247 (D. Ariz., filed Feb. 11, 2015) and 18-15907 (9th Cir., filed May 18, 2018)

This lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) challenges the failure of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and several of its component agencies to produce records related to the abuse and mistreatment of children in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its sub-agency, the U.S. Border Patrol. The ACLU affiliates sought the requested records to shed light on longstanding allegations of abusive treatment of children by Border Patrol, including prolonged detention in degrading and inhumane conditions. They also sought information on how the subcomponent agencies within DHS that are responsible for investigating and responding to complaints of abuse by agency personnel—including both the Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) and the Office of the Inspector General—have handled complaints related to Border Patrol’s abuse of children.

When the government failed to produce any requested records within the statutorily-allotted time period, Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a court order compelling production.

After lengthy production delays by the agencies, the parties cross moved for summary judgment. Finally, in August 2017, the District Court ordered the government to conduct supplemental searches. The Court also ordered the government to release the names of  CBP officials and Border Patrol agents credibly alleged to have mistreated children in their custody.

The government moved for reconsideration of the District Court’s ruling that certain DHS officials’ names should be released. In March 2018, the District Court denied the government’s motion for reconsideration and again ordered the agency to release the names of agents accused of misconduct. The government appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit. Briefing was completed in February 2019 and oral argument was held in San Francisco on May 16, 2019. The case was subsequently sent to mediation.

In October 2020, the parties reached a settlement that required the Defendant agencies to re-review production documents and re-produce them to Plaintiffs with the previously-redacted names of certain individuals who had been named in connection with an allegation of abuse against a minor in DHS custody replaced with unique alpha-numeric identifiers. The agencies must re-review and re-produce the documents in accordance with the settlement on a rolling basis through April 2022. Under the settlement, the District Court retains jurisdiction over the settlement to resolve any claims of a material breach of the settlement. Following entry of the stipulated settlement agreement, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the pending appeal.

Using the CRCL productions from this lawsuit, the ACLU and the University of Chicago Law School International Human Rights Clinic published a report in May 2018 highlighting some of the egregious abuses reported by children and calling out the lack of meaningful response from DHS’ oversight agencies. The CRCL productions that form the report’s evidentiary basis are attached as an appendix to the report itself. The rest of the productions from this lawsuit were published in summer 2019 (see below).

Related Documents:

Counsel: ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties & Cooley, LLP