Hearing set for ACLU lawsuit seeking lawyer access to immigrants in Sheridan prison

[pnwmom]

Source: KATU TV

SHERIDAN, Ore. – A federal hearing is expected Monday morning on the ACLU of Oregon’s emergency suit that demands lawyers’ access to undocumented immigrants being detained at a federal prison in Sheridan.


ACLU officials filed the emergency temporary injunction last week, claiming the U.S. immigration and homeland security departments have unconstitutionally denied access to the 121 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees being held at the medium security facility.

Immigration attorneys want access to talk with the before they're interviewed by federal authorities.

The ACLU of Oregon said it thinks federal immigration officials will start formal interviews with the detainees this week.

Read more: http://katu.com/news/local/hearing-set-for-aclu-lawsuit-seeking-lawyer-access-to-immigrants-in-sheridan-prison

[Cold War Spook]

1. It would be nice

if we were told if any of the detainees had asked for a lawyer. If they had, then yes. If no, then does the ACLU have (I have no idea what the word is) standing? in this?

[Princess Turandot]

2. They have a plaintiff, a woman whose spouse is being held there...

Per the ACLU of Oregon's press release:

Another plaintiff is Luis Javier Sanchez Gonzalez, who appears in the case through is partner Xochitl Ramos Valencia, one of the detained immigrants being held at Sheridan prison. Sanchez Gonzalez and his partner have two young children, ages one and five. Their family was separated at the border when they sought asylum at a port of entry. Ramos Valencia has not been able to speak to her partner since they were separated and she says their children are wrecked with sadness since their father was ripped from them.

The detainees are not allowed outside contact with anyone, which makes it impossible for them to exercise the Constitutional rights afforded to them.

In a similar suit, a federal judge in California issued a temporary restraining order just a few days ago, that requires that the detainees be given access to attorneys. There's a hearing today for arguments on the lawsuit.

[Gothmog]

3. This is from an earlier ruling of this court

Here is some from the first ruling that came down on June 6 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/district-court-judge-rules-that-trump-administration-child-separations-would-be-unconstitutional.html

From Sabraw’s ruling (emphasis added):

For Plaintiffs, the government actors responsible for the “care and custody” of migrant children have, in fact, become their persecutors. … These allegations sufficiently describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child, and is emblematic of the “exercise of power without any reasonable justification in the service of an otherwise legitimate governmental objective[.]” Such conduct, if true, as it is assumed to be on the present motion, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency. At a minimum, the facts alleged are sufficient to show the government conduct at issue “shocks the conscience” and violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to family integrity. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ due process claim is denied.

As Sabraw noted, he is still poised to rule on whether or not separated families will be certified as part of the ACLU’s requested class action lawsuit, and to determine if a preliminary injunction will be issued to halt a practice he describes as “brutal, offensive, and [failing] to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency.” In other words, the class action question is still open, but his view that such a practice is shockingly cruel for constitutional purposes, does not seem to be in doubt.

The ACLU attorney who argued the case, Lee Gelernt, described the ruling to me as a powerful initial victory for his clients.

“This is an enormous ruling, there’s no question about it, because the major dispute between us and the government was whether there was a constitutional right [for] families … to remain together in these circumstances,” Gelernt told me.

The court has essentially said that the practice alleged in the suit—and reportedly taking place all across our border for the past month—is a gross violation of the U.S. constitution. Now it has merely to determine whether the practice is actually taking place.

[pnwmom]

4. Whoa. I hadn't seen that. Thanks!

[Gothmog]

5. ACLU urges injunction against separating immigrant families

I have been following this case for a while. I hope that the ACLU is successful https://www.politicususa.com/2018/06/25/aclu-urges-injunction-against-separating-immigrant-families.html

(Reuters) – The American Civil Liberties Union on Monday urged a federal judge to issue a preliminary injunction to block the Trump administration from routinely separating unauthorized immigrant parents from their children.

In a filing with the U.S. District Court in San Diego, the ACLU said an injunction was needed because President Donald Trump’s June 20 executive order to end separations contained “loopholes,” even when children’s welfare might be endangered.

An injunction would also require families to be reunified within 30 days, unless the parents were unfit or were housed in adult-only criminal facilities. The government could appeal.

A spokeswoman for U.S. Attorney Adam Braverman, whose office represents the government, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The filing came after U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw on June 6 said forced separations could be unconstitutional, and rejected the government’s bid to dismiss the ACLU’s lawsuit.