Federal government violated agreement in family separation immigration case, judge rules 

An asylum seeker at the perimeter wall reaches out for donations File photo by Chris Stone Times of San Diego Judge Dana M Sabraw of the U S Southern District of California has issued a preliminary ruling to enforce a settlement mandating the administration to provide no-cost legal diagnostic and robustness services for families separated at the dividing line In April the ACLU filed a motion to enforce the agreement after the Trump administration abruptly notified the Acacia Center for Justice Acacia that they do not intend to renew the legal services contract according to the initial filing The Acacia Center based in Washington D C led the Legal Access Services for Reunified Families project which assisted members of the class-action lawsuit through a infrastructure of legal amenity providers This matter being heard in San Diego comes amid President Donald Trump s deportation campaign that has led to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement arresting over immigrants in the last five months It pertains to the second settlement reached in the family separation development Ms L v ICE Details of the settlement The settlement reached in December at issue in the current motion followed years of discussion between the plaintiffs and President Joe Biden s Interagency Task Force on the Reunification of Families It is applicable to families who were separated by the federal executive at the U S -Mexico limit between January and January during the first Trump administration The ACLU estimated that children and their parents will be covered by the agreement According to an archived fact sheet by the Department of Homeland Shield the settlement provides behavioral strength services for a period of three years and certain medicinal and housing assistance for a -month eligibility period The settlement also required the federal authorities to streamline immigration processing of class members asylum proposes and barred officers from re-establishing zero-tolerance policies within the next eight years At the crux of the current legal proceedings is the settlement s stipulation to provide immigration legal services free of charge for the entire term of the settlement The settlement specified that the Department of Justice s Executive Office for Immigration Review or EOIR would provide class members with not only legal advice and pro bono placement but inform non-citizens of their rights assist with document preparation and provide transportation stipends and new tools The intention was to address the particular demands of Ms L Settlement class members The motion to enforce The ACLU motion regarding the settlement alleges that the termination of legal services for any time or even a decrease in the level of services would be a clear breach of the terms of the agreement The motion argues that their concerns have only increased with the federal regime s termination of multiple legal services including the Immigration Court Help Desk When demanded about how the EOIR would replace such services the ruling body stated that they would provide the services it is required to provide pursuant to the Settlement agreement In response to the motion to enforce attorneys for the DOJ argued that the settlement does not require the federal executive to contract with a third party to provide legal services or require giving advance notice of changes To date Plaintiffs have still not been informed as to how services will be provided in the absence of the contract the ACLU motion stated Class members have relied on the legal services structure to access basic rights under the settlement and in the absence diminishment or any delay in continuation of services will face harm The motion further described how legal services provided to families separated at the dividing line are of critical importance due to the complexities of the immigration system Courtroom disputes over settlement The initial argument referred to whether or not the settlement agreement required the federal establishment to provide re-parole services Parole is granted to allow non-citizens to temporarily stay in the U S typically for humanitarian reasons or purposes of vital population benefit Acacia provided assistance with parole renewals The federal governing body contends they do not need to do so due to re-parole not being explicitly mentioned in the original settlement Sabraw at the Tuesday hearing questioned whether the EOIR can adequately serve the crucial existing caseload particularly given the fact that Acacia provided assistance to individuals Attorneys for the DOJ answered by stating that they won t be lighting speed but sufficient under the contract Attorneys for the ACLU commented that they received reports of class members contacting the EOIR for assistance and not receiving a response Sabraw also inquired DOJ attorneys to consider the very real issue of fear in the public and the resulting reluctance to contact the federal administration for assistance The ACLU repeatedly alleged that the federal regime has yet to connect a single class member with a pro-bono attorney arguing that providing those services through EOIR is illusory They requested for a one-year extension of the contract with Acacia noting that deadlines to file for asylum are upcoming in December The hearing also concerned ICE s detention of class members Attorneys for the DOJ although first unsure later clarified that ICE does have a list of individuals who qualify under the settlement terms Sabraw questioned why ICE would detain members despite being aware of their status The DOJ stated that there was no provision precluding ICE from detaining class members Sabraw subsequently noted that ICE should be careful due to the special protection afforded to class members I don t see the administration saying we ll suspend all the deadlines in the settlement so that people are not coming up on asylum deadlines in December nor are they saying that we won t arrest and deport and separate you if this all isn t handled attorneys for the ACLU stated Sabraw granted the motion to enforce the settlement at the outset of the hearing saying a preponderance of evidence supports the claim that the federal administration has breached its contract He ll offer specifics on the enforcement and prospective renewal of Acacia s contract when he issues a final ruling early next week Family separation in the first Trump administration Tuesday s hearing was the latest in a series of legal clashes over immigration that date back to Trump s first administration In the ruling body communicated its implementation of a zero tolerance immigration agenda The procedures demanded that all border-crossing parents including those seeking asylum be separated from their children as a tactic to deter people from seeking refuge in the United States Ms L a credible asylum-seeker from the Democratic Republic of Congo who was forcibly separated from her -year-old daughter was one of thousands of individuals impacted by the administration s family separation procedures Ms L s daughter was removed from her custody at the San Ysidro Port of Entry and taken to Chicago But Ms L did not know where her daughter was sent Nor did she know when or if she would see her again according to the initial lawsuit filed by the ACLU against ICE and DHS Months after the filing the ACLU moved to grant class certification to all adult parents in immigration custody who had been separated from their minor child while being detained with the exception of parents deemed unfit or a danger to the child Sabraw granted approval for class certification for the purposes of the first settlement In June the court also approved a preliminary injunction halting family separations and requiring reunification According to Plaintiffs the practice of forcible separation was applied indiscriminately and separated even those families with small children and infants various of whom were seeking asylum the court wrote Plaintiffs noted reports that the practice would become national procedures Latest events confirm these charges The court s decision detailed the highly destabilizing nature of family separations writing that the policies put children at increased peril for both physical and mental illness and cause psychological distress anxiety and depression well after eventual reunification Extraordinary relief is requested the court wrote and is warranted under the circumstances