Tag Archives: Children

K.O. and E.O. Jr., v. United States

Posted on by

K.O. and E.O. Jr., v. United States, No. 4:20-cv-12015 (D. Mass., filed Nov. 9, 2020)

Plaintiffs nine-year-old K.O. and her older brother, seventeen-year-old E.O. Jr., were forcibly separated by CBP agents from their mother upon entry to the United States, during the Trump administration’s “Zero Tolerance Policy.” Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), among other federal agencies. The Plaintiffs allege claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, asserting common law claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, false arrest, assault and battery, negligent supervision, tortious interference with parent-child relationship, and loss of consortium.

On May 19, 2018, plaintiffs K.O. and E.O., along with their mother, entered the U.S. at the southern border to seek asylum from violence and persecution in Guatemala. They were apprehended by a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent and forcibly separated from their mother. The mother was never charged with a crime. CBP agents also called the father and told him his children were in custody, separate from their mother, and would be placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).

As the father began the ORR reunification process, the children were reunited and placed back into an ICE facility where they were detained in separate cells that faced each other. They spent two days there and were not allowed to speak with each other. They only had access to thermal blankets. Plaintiffs allege that there was no supervision, no support for children as young as two or three years of age, and the guards physically and verbally abused the children. After two days, ICE agents told the children their mother had been deported. The children were then transferred to ORR facilities in Michigan and were once again separated from each other. One child was placed in an ORR foster care home and the other was placed in an ORR group home. The children were eventually reunited with their father on June 19, 2018. Meanwhile, the mother remained detained in Texas and was unable to contact her husband. After she passed her credible fear interview, she was released on June 28, 2018. The children were separated from their father for 31 days, and their mother for 38 days.

Similarly, Plaintiff C.J., was eleven years old when CBP separated him from his father after travelling to the United States to seek asylum from persecution in Guatemala. They were separated for a total of 36 days. In addition to the trauma from the forcible separation, C.J. was assaulted by another child while he was detained in an ORR facility. 

Plaintiffs seek damages and to establish a fund for the mental health treatment of all class members that were forcibly separated from their parents.  

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on November 9, 2020. On February 28, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to Western District of Texas or in the alternative dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court held that change of venue was not warranted and denied the motion to transfer. The court also granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. All claims brought by the parents in their personal capacities were dismissed. Any claims of negligent supervision or negligence in causing the family separation were dismissed. All other claims remain.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 11, 2022. On May 10, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to transfer or alternatively a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 9, 2023, the court reiterated its decision denying the transfer and granting and denying in part the motion to dismiss.

Documents:

Counsel: Todd & Weld LLP, Demissie & Church, The Law Offices of Jeff Goldman, Nixon Peabody LLP, Lawyers for Civil Rights

Contact:  Iván Espinoza-Madrigal, Lawyers for Civil Rights, iespinoza@lawyersforcivilrights.org

P.J.E.S. v. Wolf and J.B.B.C. v. Wolf

Posted on by

P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-02245 (D.D.C., filed Aug. 14, 2020)
J.B.B.C. v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-01509 (D.D.C., filed June 9, 2020)

A recent series of cases have challenged the government’s invocation of rarely-used public health laws to restrict immigration by unaccompanied children and asylum seekers.

On March 20, 2020, President Trump announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would issue an order “to suspend the introduction of all individuals seeking to enter the U.S. without proper travel documentation” across the northern and southern borders. Would-be border crossers were to be “immediately return[ed]” to their country of origin “without delay.” To justify the order, the Administration invoked 42 U.S.C. § 265, a rarely-used provision dating back to 1893, which gives federal public-health authorities the ability to “prohibit . . . the introduction of persons or property” from designated places where “by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.” This restriction has come to be known as “Title 42.”

On March 20, 2020, CDC issued an interim final rule and an order directing the “immediate suspension of the introduction” of certain persons, including those seeking to enter the United States at ports of entry “who do not have proper travel documents,” “whose entry is otherwise contrary to law,” and “apprehended near the border seeking to unlawfully enter the United States.” Reports indicate that although CDC objected to the order, saying that there was no valid public-health justification for it, White House officials overrode those objections. Though CDC initially limited the order to thirty days, it has since extended the order indefinitely. On October 13, CDC issued final rules concerning its regulatory authority under § 265. CDC then issued a revised order pursuant to those rules. In February 2021, the Biden administration called for a review of the CDC order to determine if it was still needed or if modifications should be made, but on August 2, 2021, CDC issued a new order once again indefinitely extending application of Title 42.

The CDC order and regulations apply to unaccompanied children (who are entitled to special safeguards under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA)) and people seeking asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. The ACLU, along with a number of ally organizations, have filed a series of lawsuits on behalf of unaccompanied children challenging their expulsion under the CDC’s directives, the two most significant of which are discussed below.

J.B.B.C.

J.B.B.C. v. Wolf challenged the unlawful expulsion of a sixteen-year-old Honduran boy pursuant to Title 42. J.B.B.C. was being held in a hotel awaiting expulsion when the ACLU and others filed a complaint and request for a temporary restraining order. Based on J.B.B.C.’s arguments that the Title 42 Process was not authorized by § 265, and that the CDC order conflicted with various Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provisions, Judge Carl Nichols issued a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from expelling J.B.B.C. Defendants then voluntarily took J.B.B.C. out of the Title 42 Process and transferred him to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) custody.

Another child similarly subject to expulsion under Title 42, E.Y., was later amended into the case. Hours after he was added, Defendants similarly took him out of the Title 42 Process. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed J.B.B.C.

P.J.E.S.

On August 14, 2020, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Texas, the Texas Civil Rights Project, Oxfam America, and the ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia filed P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, a nationwide class action challenging the application of the Title 42 Process to unaccompanied children. On August 20, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for a classwide preliminary injunction. The district court judge then referred the case to a magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending that Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be provisionally granted and that the motion for classwide preliminary injunction be granted. The magistrate judge concluded that Title 42 does not authorize summary expulsions and that if it were in fact read to permit expulsion of unaccompanied minors, it would conflict with statutory rights granted to them under the TVPRA and the INA.

On November 18, 2020, the court adopted the report, provisionally granting Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class and motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants moved for reconsideration on their request to stay the preliminary injunction and appealed the order to the DC Circuit. On December 3, the court denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

On December 12, 2020, Defendants filed a notice advising the court that approximately 34 class members had been expelled from the United States, in contravention of the court’s injunction. These 34 were in addition to another 32 unaccompanied children expelled the same day the court granted the preliminary injunction.

On January 29, 2021, a motions panel of the D.C. Circuit stayed the P.J.E.S. preliminary injunction pending appeal and expedited the appeal.

In February 2021, CDC published a Notice of Temporary Exception from Expulsion of Unaccompanied Noncitizen Children under Title 42, and on July 16, 2021, CDC issued an order formally excepting unaccompanied minors from Title 42.  

On March 2, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued an order holding Defendants’ appeal of the preliminary injunction in abeyance pending further order of the court. The district court likewise granted the parties’ joint motion to hold the case in abeyance. On October 17, 2022, the D.C. Circuit issued an order terminating the abeyance, vacating the preliminary injunction, and remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether all or part of the case has become moot.

Note: Two other cases involving the treatment of unaccompanied minors under Title 42 include G.Y.J.P. v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-01511 (D.D.C., filed June 9, 2020) and Texas Civil Rights Project v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-02035 (D.D.C., filed July 24, 2020).

Documents:

J.B.B.C. v. Wolf:

P.J.E.S. v. Wolf:

Counsel: ACLU Foundation of Texas; ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project; Texas Civil Rights Project; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Oxfam America; ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia

Contact: Stephen Kang, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project | skang@aclu.org

Press:

FTCA Suit on Behalf of U.S.-Citizen Child Held by CBP for 30 Hours

Posted on by

J.A.M., et al., v. United States of America, et al., No. 3:22-cv-00380 (S.D. Cal., filed Mar. 21, 2022)

The family of a 9-year-old girl and 14-year-old boy filed a damages suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act after the children, both U.S. citizens, were held in custody at the San Ysidro Port of Entry – the boy for more than 12 hours and his sister for more than 30 hours. The complaint recounts how J.A.M. and her brother O.A.M. were falsely imprisoned in San Ysidro and coerced into making false confessions about the girl’s identity. Officers insisted to the children that the girl was actually their cousin, who is not a U.S. citizen.

J.A.M. and her brother O.A.M. were on their way from Tijuana to school in San Diego with a family friend. Though both children presented officers with valid U.S. passports, a CBP officer sent them to secondary inspection, then to a holding area. According to the children, CBP officers interviewed them about other young relatives their age and then pressured them to sign false statements claiming that J.A.M. was actually their cousin. The children said they were told that O.A.M. would be taken to jail for smuggling if they did not sign. CBP allegedly intended to have the Mexican consulate interview J.A.M. to verify her identity, but claimed an appointment was not available until the following morning.

Upon learning her children had not made it out of the port of entry, their mother, Ms. Medina Navarro, left the medical facility where she was awaiting surgery to inquire at the port of entry for her children. At first, officers denied having the children in custody. More than 12 hours after her children were first taken into custody, Ms. Medina Navarro received a call that C.B.P. had her son in custody with a girl who was not her daughter, and was told she could come pick up her son. Though Ms. Medina Navarro took additional documents to prove the identity of her daughter, officers did not release J.A.M. to her mother until after J.A.M.’s interview with the Mexican consulate the following day, 33 hours after she was first taken into custody.

The family filed administrative Federal Tort Claims Act complaints. CBP denied the claims in full on September 29, 2021, and the family filed suit on March 21, 2022. The government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or motion for summary judgment, which was denied on July 21, 2022, and subsequently filed an answer to the complaint on August 4, 2022. On September 28, 2022, the court held a case management conference where settlement negotiations broke down. Discovery is currently underway with depositions occurring in January and February 2023.  

Counsel: Law Offices of Joseph M. McMullen

Contact: Joseph Mark McMullen ǀ (619) 501-2000 ǀ joe@imm-legal.com

Press: Lawsuit alleging border officials falsely imprisoned 9-year-old U.S. citizen girl passes legal hurdle

Huisha-Huisha v. Gaynor

Posted on by

Huisha-Huisha, et al. v. Gaynor, et al., No. 1:21-cv-0100 (D.D.C., filed Jan. 12, 2021); 21-05200 (D.C. Cir., filed Sep. 17, 2021); 22-05325 (Sup. Ct., filed Dec. 19, 2022)

On January 21, 2021, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Texas, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Legal Education and Legal Services, Oxfam America, and the ACLU of the District of Colombia filed Huisha-Huisha, et al. v. Gaynor, et al., a class action on behalf of noncitizens who arrive in the United States as a family unit of at least one child and that child’s parent or legal guardian and are subject to Title 42. The named plaintiffs are three parents and their minor children who sought asylum in the United States. In January 2021, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all noncitizens who “(1) are or will be in the United States; (2) come to the United States as a family unit composed of at least one child under 18 years old and that child’s parent or legal guardian; and (3) are or will be subjected to the Title 42 Process.” Plaintiffs also filed a series of emergency motions to stay the removal of the named petitioners. In February, the district court granted the stays of removal over the government’s objections.

On February 5, 2021, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from applying the Title 42 Process to members of the putative class. On February 23, 2021, the district court granted the parties’ joint motion to hold in abeyance the motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction. The case was held in abeyance until August 2, 2021, while the parties attempted to engage in settlement negotiations. On August 2, the parties jointly filed a motion to reset the briefing schedule on Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction, indicating their intent to resume litigation, and Plaintiffs filed their reply in support of their motions on August 11, 2021.

The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and a preliminary injunction on September 16, 2021, enjoining Defendants from applying the Title 42 process, including the CDC’s August 2021 order, to class members. The court agreed that the government’s policy was not authorized by statute and that class members would face “real threats of violence and persecution” if returned to their home countries. The government appealed the order to the D.C. Circuit the following day. On September 30, 2021, the D.C. Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal, and as such, the preliminary injunction did not go into effect.

On March 4, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction in part, holding that the government may expel Plaintiffs, but only to places where they will not be persecuted or tortured. As a result, the preliminary injunction is now in effect. The court of appeals remanded the case to the district court to decide in the first instance whether the Title 42 expulsion rule is arbitrary and capricious.

On remand, Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a motion for partial summary judgment. On November 15, 2022, the district court issued an order holding that the U.S. government acted arbitrarily and capriciously in instituting the Title 42 policy and enjoined Defendants from continuing to apply the policy. The court granted Defendants’ request to stay the injunction until December 21, 2022.

On November 21, 2022, the states of Arizona, Louisiana, Texas, and 12 other states filed a motion to intervene with the district court. Shortly after, on December 7, Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s final judgment. Given the appeal, the district court deferred on the motion to intervene, and Arizona, et al. filed a motion to intervene with the D.C. Circuit, along with a motion to stay the trial court’s decision pending appeal. The D.C. Circuit denied the motion to stay on December 9, 2022, and deferred the ruling on the motion to intervene.

On December 19, 2022, Arizona, et al. filed an application to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay pending certiorari along with a petition for a writ of certiorari. That same day the Supreme Court stayed the D.C. Circuit Court’s decision to end Title 42 and ordered the parties’ responses be filed on December 20, 2022. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 27, 2022 to determine whether the state applicants may intervene to challenge the district court’s summary judgment order.  The Supreme Court’s review is limited to the question of intervention by the states.

The parties filed their briefs and the Supreme Court scheduled oral arguments for March 1, 2023. On January 30, 2023, the White House issued a statement of administration policy ending the COVID national emergency and public health emergency declarations on May 11, 2023. On February 16, 2023, the Supreme Court removed the case from the February 2023 argument calendar.

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Foundation of Texas; ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project; Texas Civil Rights Project; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Oxfam America; ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia

Contact: Stephen Kang, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project | skang@aclu.org

Additional Links:

Texas Civil Rights Project v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Texas Civil Rights Project et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:20-cv-02389 (D.D.C., filed Aug. 27, 2020)

In March 2020, the Trump Administration began carrying out summary expulsions pursuant to Title 42 § 265 of the U.S. Code and the CDC’s  implementing regulations. The Administration removed noncitizens without travel documents apprehended at the border – including unaccompanied minors and asylum seekers – without any legal process under the ruse of mitigating the spread of COVID-19. In late July 2020, news began breaking that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had been contracting with private contractors to detain immigrant children as young as one in hotels along the U.S.-Mexico border prior to carrying out such summary expulsions, regardless of whether the child had tested positive for COVID-19 or not. While detained in these hotels, children, including unaccompanied minors, were unable to contact family members, denied access to counsel, and denied any legal process before being removed to countries where many feared persecution.

In response, the Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) submitted three Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), DHS, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to obtain more information about the government’s treatment of unaccompanied children who have crossed the border in recent months. Specifically, the organizations sought records encompassing (1) the standards use to determine whether unaccompanied and undocumented children are immediately expelled or allowed to apply for humanitarian relief; (2) statistics on how many children have been expelled and to where; (3) the secret locations where DHS detains children prior to Title 42 expulsion; and (4) the identity of the companies that DHS had contracted with to transport and detain children. Plaintiffs received no response to their requests.

On August 27, 2020, TCRP and ICAPfiled this suit seeking to compel CBP, ICE, and DHS to conduct a reasonable search and produce records responsive to their FOIA request. Defendants filed their answer on October 8, 2020, and the parties have filed periodic status reports as production in response to the FOIA request continues.

Documents:

Counsel: Robert D. Friedman, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Georgetown University Law Center

Contact: Robert Friedman, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Georgetown University Law Center | rdf34@georgetown.edu

Additional Links:

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)

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. The motion has been fully briefed and remains pending before the court as of November 2022.

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

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 Defendants’ 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 has not ruled on Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions.

Documents:

Counsel: The American Immigration Council, the National Immigrant Justice Center, Arnold & Porter, the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and 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, Wash. Post. (June 8, 2022, 12:07 AM).

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).