Family sues over US detention in what may be first challenge to courthouse arrests involving kids
A mother and her two young kids are fighting for their release from a Texas immigration detention center in what is believed to be the first lawsuit involving children challenging the Trump administration's policy on immigrant arrests at courthouses.
The lawsuit filed Tuesday argues that the family's arrests after fleeing Honduras and entering the U.S. legally using a Biden-era appointment app violate their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure and their Fifth Amendment right to due process.
'The big picture is that the executive branch cannot seize people, arrest people, detain people indefinitely when they are complying with exactly what our government has required of them,' said Columbia Law School professor Elora Mukherjee, one of the lawyers representing the family.
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment.
Starting in May, the country has seen large-scale arrests in which asylum-seekers appearing at routine court hearings have been arrested outside courtrooms as part of the White House's mass deportation effort. In many cases, a judge will grant a government lawyer's request to dismiss deportation proceedings and then U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will arrest the person and place them on 'expedited removal,' a fast track to deportation.
Mukherjee said this is the first lawsuit filed on behalf of children to challenge the ICE courthouse arrest policy. The government has until July 1 to respond.
There have been other similar lawsuits, including in New York, where a federal judge ruled earlier this month that federal immigration authorities can't make civil arrests at the state's courthouses or arrest anyone going there for a proceeding.
The Texas lawsuit was filed using initials for the children and 'Ms. Z' for the mother. Their identities have not been released because of concerns for their safety.
For weeks in the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, the mother has watched her 6-year-old son's health decline, Mukherjee said. He recently underwent chemotherapy treatment for leukemia and because of his arrest missed his check-in doctor's appointment, Mukherjee said.
'He's easily bruising. He has bone pain. He looks pale,' Mukherjee said, adding that he has also lost his appetite. 'His mom is terrified that these are symptoms that his leukemia situation might be deteriorating.'
The mother, son and 9-year-old daughter fled Honduras in October 2024 due to death threats, according to the lawsuit. They entered the U.S. using the CBP One app and were paroled into the country by the Department of Homeland Security, which determined they didn't pose a danger to the community, Mukherjee said. They were told to appear at a Los Angeles immigration court May 29.
President Donald Trump ended CBP One for new entrants on his first day in office after more than 900,000 people had been allowed in the country using the app since it was expanded to include migrants in January 2023.
During the family's hearing, the mother tried to tell the judge that they wished to continue their cases for asylum, Mukherjee said. Homeland Security moved to dismiss their cases, and the judge immediately granted that motion.
When they stepped out of the courtroom, they found men in civilian clothing believed to be ICE agents who arrested the family, Mukherjee said. They spent about 11 hours at an immigrant processing center in Los Angeles and were each only given an apple, a small packet of cookies, a juice box and water.
At one point, an officer near the boy lifted his shirt, revealing his gun. The boy urinated on himself and was left in wet clothing until the next morning, Mukherjee said.
They were later taken to the processing center, where they have been held ever since.
'The family is suffering in this immigration detention center,' she said. 'The kids are crying every night. They're praying to God for their release from this detention center.'
Their lawyers have filed an appeal of the immigration judge's May decision, but they're at risk of being deported within days because the government says they are subjected to expedited removal, Mukherjee said.
The arrests of the family were illegal and unjustified, said Kate Gibson Kumar, an attorney for the Texas Civil Rights project who is also representing the family.
'The essential question in our case is, when you have these families who are doing everything right, especially with young children, should there be some protection there?' Gibson Kumar said. 'We say 'yes.''
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
34 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump says he's ending trade talks with Canada over its 'egregious Tax' on technology firms
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Friday that he's suspending trade talks with Canada over its plans to continue with its tax on technology firms, which he called 'a direct and blatant attack on our country.' Trump, in a post on his social media network, said Canada had just informed the U.S. that it was sticking to its plan to impose the digital services tax, which applies to Canadian and foreign businesses that engage with online users in Canada. The tax is set to go into effect Monday. 'Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period,' Trump said in his post. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said his country would 'continue to conduct these complex negotiations in the best interests of Canadians. It's a negotiation.' Trump's announcement was the latest swerve in the trade war he's launched since taking office for a second term in January. Progress with Canada has been a roller coaster, starting with the U.S. president poking at the nation's northern neighbor and repeatedly suggesting it would be absorbed as a U.S. state. Carney visited Trump in May at the White House, where he was polite but firm with Trump. Trump last week traveled to Canada for the G7 summit in Alberta, where Carney said that Canada and the U.S. had set a 30-day deadline for trade talks. The digital services tax will hit companies including Amazon, Google, Meta, Uber and Airbnb with a 3% levy on revenue from Canadian users. It will apply retroactively, leaving U.S. companies with a $2 billion U.S. bill due at the end of the month. The Republican president earlier told reporters that the U.S. was soon preparing to send letters to different countries, informing them of the new tariff rate his administration would impose on them. Trump has imposed 50% tariffs on steel and aluminum as well as 25% tariffs on autos. He is also charging a 10% tax on imports from most countries, though he could raise rates on July 9, after the 90-day negotiating period set by him would expire. Canada and Mexico face separate tariffs of as much as 25% that Trump put into place under the auspices of stopping fentanyl smuggling, though some products are still protected under the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement signed during Trump's first term.
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
University of Virginia president resigns facing DOJ pressure: Report
University of Virginia's president has resigned amid a Department of Justice probe into the school's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, according to reports from the New York Times. Ryan's resignation will be effective 'no later than August 15,' a person familiar with the matter told the Times. University board members had alleged the school was not in compliance with President Trump's January executive order barring DEI practices at institutions that receive federal funding. Harmeet K. Dhillon, the head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote a letter to Ryan on April 28 saying the office had received complaints the university's administration had failed to follow Trump's directive. The Times reported that the DOJ wrote another letter on June 17 saying, 'Time is running short, and the department's patience is wearing thin.' The school and Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment on the matter. Axios reported earlier on Friday that the Trump administration was trying to push out Ryan. A university spokesperson told the outlet, 'UVA is committed to complying with all federal laws and has been cooperating with the Department of Justice in the ongoing inquiries. The federal government's support of the University is essential to continue the core mission of research, education and clinical care.' Ryan previously served as the dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education prior to joining the University of Virginia in August 2018. Virginia's Democratic senators blasted the Trump administration following news of his departure. 'It is outrageous that officials in the Trump Department of Justice demanded the Commonwealth's globally recognized university remove President Ryan — a strong leader who has served UVA honorably and moved the university forward — over ridiculous 'culture war' traps,' Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said in a statement. 'Decisions about UVA's leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia's well-established and respected system of higher education governance. This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future.' The Trump administration has picked fights with various high-profile universities over diversity programs and their alleged failure to tackle anti-semitism on campus. Columbia University caved to those demands in an attempt to maintain federal funding, while Harvard has so far stood its ground. The Times reported this week that Harvard's leaders are debating how to reach a deal without being seen as capitulating to Trump.
The Hill
34 minutes ago
- The Hill
5 takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling
The Supreme Court handed President Trump a clear victory Friday, stopping judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block his executive order narrowing birthright citizenship. But the cases aren't over yet, as a new phase of the battle commences in the lower courts. Here are five takeaways from the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling. Friday's opinion came from Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump's third appointee to the court who has recently faced a barrage of criticism from the president's own supporters. The heat grew as Barrett this spring ruled against the administration in several emergency cases, including Trump's bid to freeze foreign aid payments and efforts to swiftly deport alleged gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. By tradition, the most senior member of the majority decides who authors the opinion. So, Chief Justice John Roberts would've assigned Barrett as the author soon after the May 15 oral arguments. On Friday, Barrett ultimately wrote for all five of her fellow Republican-appointed justices, being the face of the Trump administration's major win. Barrett rejected the challengers' notion that nationwide injunctions were needed as a powerful tool to check the executive branch. 'Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too,' she wrote. Though the court curtailed nationwide injunctions, the decision leaves the door open for plaintiffs to try to seek broad relief by pursuing class action lawsuits. Within hours, one group of plaintiffs quickly took the hint. A coalition of expectant mothers and immigration organizations suing asked a district judge in Maryland to issue a new ruling that applies to anyone designated as ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's order — the same practical effect as a nationwide injunction. The Democratic-led states suing are also vowing to press ahead. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable, creating administrative chaos for California and others and harm to countless families across our country. The fight is far from over,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said in a statement. And the American Civil Liberties Union brought an entirely new lawsuit Friday seeking to do the same. The efforts could quickly bring the birthright citizenship battle back to the Supreme Court. 'In cases where classwide or set-aside relief has been awarded, the losing side in the lower courts will likewise regularly come to this Court if the matter is sufficiently important,' Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a solo concurring opinion. 'When a stay or injunction application arrives here, this Court should not and cannot hide in the tall grass.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court's leading conservatives, cautioned lower courts against creating a 'significant loophole' to Friday's decision by stretching when plaintiffs can file class action lawsuits. 'Federal courts should thus be vigilant against such potential abuses of these tools,' Alito wrote, joined by Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the chief dissent, arguing that the rule of law is 'not a given' in America and the high court gave up its 'vital role' in preserving it with Friday's opinion. Joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she claimed that the Trump administration sought to tear down nationwide injunctions because it can't prove the president's order narrowing birthright citizenship is likely constitutional. Trump's order made a 'solemn mockery' of the Constitution, she said, and his request to instead curtail nationwide injunctions is obvious 'gamesmanship.' 'Rather than stand firm, the Court gives way,' Sotomayor wrote. 'Because such complicity should know no place in our system of law, I dissent.' Going further than her liberal peers, Jackson wrote in a solo dissent that the court's decision was an 'existential threat to the rule of law' — drawing a harsh rebuke from Barrett, a dramatic exchange between the two most junior justices. Jackson argued that the majority uses legalese to obscure a more basic question at the heart of the case: 'May a federal court in the United States of America order the Executive to follow the law?' 'It is not difficult to predict how this all ends,' Jackson wrote. 'Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.' At another point, she said that 'everyone, from the President on down, is bound by law,' suggesting that the Trump administration's efforts to 'vanquish' universal injunctions amounts to a request for permission to 'engage in unlawful behavior' — and that the majority gave the president just that. The rhetoric in Jackson's opinion amounts to a 'startling line of attack,' Barrett said, condemning her argument as 'extreme.' 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary,' Barrett wrote. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation — in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.' She urged Jackson to 'heed her own admonition' that everyone, from the president down, is bound by law. 'That goes for judges too,' Barrett said. Trump and his allies hailed the ruling as a decisive victory for his administration, promising to move his sweeping second term agenda forward with judges' power significantly curtailed. 'It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said at a press conference Friday afternoon. He specifically slammed 'radical left judges' he said used nationwide injunctions as a tool to 'overrule the rightful powers of the president' to stop illegal immigration. The decision means his administration can now move forward on a 'whole list' of policy priorities that were frozen nationwide by federal judges, he argued, from birthright citizenship to freezing federal funding. 'We have so many of them,' Trump said.
