Trump administration sued for arresting people at immigration courts
A coalition of immigrant advocacy groups – including the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Legal Education and Services (RAICES), National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), Democracy Forward and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCRSF) – filed the suit on behalf of 12 plaintiffs, the majority of whom were seeking protection in the US from anti-LGBTQ+ violence or female genital mutilation.
In May, federal authorities began arresting people at US immigration courts from New York and Arizona to Washington state in what appeared to be a coordinated operation. The following month, New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested while attending immigration court with one migrant. Since then, the supreme court has granted the Trump administration permission to deport migrants to countries they are not from, including to conflict-ridden places such as South Sudan.
'The Trump administration has cast an unconscionably wide net to ensnare people and families who attend immigration court hearings in compliance with their legal obligations, only to face life-threatening imprisonment, swift removal and the prospect of indefinite family separation,' said Faisal Al-Juburi, chief external affairs officer at RAICES. 'The egregious and unprecedented coordination amongst government agencies that we are witnessing not only inflicts irreparable harm upon infants and adults alike for seeking refuge in the US, but also establishes a chilling precedent in which law and order are abandoned in favor of stoking widespread panic and fear – leaving the entire American public at risk, regardless of immigration status.'
The lawsuit asserts that the Trump administration 'stripped people of basic due process rights afforded under US immigration law and the fifth amendment in order to place them in expedited removal proceedings and deport them without hearings', the plaintiffs said in a press release.
All twelve of the plaintiffs were arrested at immigration hearings where they were requesting asylum or other legal protection to remain in the US. All but two remain in detention. One was already deported to Ecuador where he is now living in hiding due to his advocacy for LGBTQ+ rights.
Some of the plaintiffs had lived in the US for years, and have been separated from US citizen family members.
Their legal advocates say that homeland security and the justice department are pivoting away from a longstanding tradition of limiting arrests in immigration courts that could discourage people from appearing at their hearings.
'These directives forsake any notion of immigration courts as a neutral forum, weaponizing them into a trap for immigrants who show up in reliance on the American promise of a fair process before a judge, only to be met instead with handcuffs and shunted into a fast-track deportation process controlled by Ice agents,' said Jordan Wells, senior staff attorney at LCCRSF.
The case was filed in US district court in the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs ask the judge to declare Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and immigration court guidance 'arbitrary and capricious' and vacate those guidelines.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
6 minutes ago
- Telegraph
I was CO of the SAS. Here are four words our Special Forces need to hear from the PM
With war in Europe and new threats to this country around every corner, from autocratic tyrants like Putin, jihadists and deranged activists, we should be supporting and encouraging those who keep us safe not seeking new legal ways to artificially transform their past acts of military necessity into alleged human rights violations. The US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth spoke recently at the US Special Operations Forces (SOF) week outlining his nation's rock-solid support and admiration for those conducting complex counter-terrorist operations alongside their many allies, including the UK. For emphasis, and in recognition of the new threat of state-sponsored 'lawfare' against these guardians of our collective security, he passed on a personal note to their commander from President Trump which simply stated: 'I have your back'. This is exactly the unequivocal message our protectors need to hear as they advance towards a suspected suicide-capable terrorist hiding within a civilian population, without the blessing of perfect intelligence, time and resources. Contrast this to the way that our own leaders – political and military – stand silent as our own Special Forces are pursued by a toxic combination of creative journalists and lawyers, each keen to prove that historical state-directed operations in Northern Ireland, Iraq and Afghanistan were done in ways that should now be presented to the Crown Prosecution Service. This in many cases not due to any new evidence, incidentally – that would be reasonable – but simply because of a crafty interpretation of international laws created far from our sovereign legislature and sponsored by those that have no respect for either the realities of close quarter combat, or our need to defend ourselves. To the general dismay of potential volunteers to our armed forces and of our American allies, our public or parliamentary debate seems to dismiss the blood-stained experience of veterans as unreasonable or even fanciful. Self-effacing descriptions of the realities of combat are dismissed as mere cartoon stories and trumped by the creative opinions of human rights lawyers who seem to value the lives of our enemies ahead of those of our soldiers sent to defeat them. Energetic, combative and very well paid, these legal professionals demonstrate great skill at retrospectively transforming descriptions of close quarter combat into revisionist suggestions of human rights violations and even war crimes. No wonder recruiting numbers are falling or that our soldiers start to hesitate, fearing the long-term legal consequences of taking decisive action in a combat situation. To the many practitioners within the vital transatlantic counter-terrorism alliance it appears that the UK's application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to the British way of war is starting to critically restrict its ability to stop terrorists and other bad actors from attacking our citizens or those of our allies. Can these staunch allies of ours still rely on the UK to deal with these common threats or are we becoming that type of fearful partner that simply prefers others to do the dirty work? To them, have we become nothing but a soft, compromised underbelly to be watched rather than the respected, self-sufficient bastion of old; a vulnerability rather than a strongpoint? Have we become a risky partner in sensitive operations, whose participation in joint operations carries the risk of inviting follow-on lawfare back into the courtrooms of our allies, even the USA? Such are the whispered and worried questions being asked in the global targeting rooms when considering UK potential contributions to today's fight. In the confusing and murky world of counter-terrorism where threats fade in and out of view in an instant, hesitation always leads to failure and death. This is a brutal reality known to both enemies and allies alike; exploited by the former, feared by the latter. There are never any second chances, and this is no place for unreliable, indecisive or gun-shy allies. Recognising this, let us hope that our own national leaders can offer the same reassuring support to our forces as shown by the US President in that simple but powerful promise to his team: 'I have your back'. For without it, they risk allowing the effect of this escalating lawfare to weaken the hand and confidence of our very special guardians just when we need them the most.
Reuters
6 minutes ago
- Reuters
South Korea to prepare mutually agreeable trade package as US tariff deadline looms
SEOUL, July 26 (Reuters) - South Korea will prepare a trade package that is mutually agreeable with the United States ahead of minister-level meetings planned next week and a U.S. tariff-pause deadline of August 1, the presidential office said on Saturday. The package will include shipbuilding cooperation, a sector of high interest to U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who discussed the matter with South Korea's Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan on Friday, it said in a statement. South Korea's Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol and Foreign Minister Cho Hyun will also hold meetings with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and State Secretary Marco Rubio, respectively, next week.
Daily Mail
8 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Harrowing footage captures mom's anguished cries as sitter faces murder charge in death of baby girl
A mother's anguished grief is caught on bodycam footage after she realizes her 10-month-old girl is gravely ill - allegedly murdered by the babysitter. In the footage, Branda Nichelle wails 'Oh, my God' as she is told little Sylvie Zacovic has suffered life-threatening injuries. The sitter, Makenna Rhodes, 22, is now facing murder charges and will go to trial in October. The upsetting scenes unfolded on June 26, 2024, in Pekin, Illinois, when Nichelle broke down outside the home of the babysitter. Rhodes is set to go on trial for murder in the autumn, with bodycam footage unearthed by Body Cam Edition likely to play a central role. Nichelle was seen in the footage racing from her workplace after Rhodes called her to say Sylvie was found unresponsive in her cot, with paramedics and police already gathered at the home. As she approached Rhodes' home, Nichelle began screaming as she was told Sylvie was found in gravely serious condition, unresponsive and being taken to hospital. 'Oh my God, oh my God,' she wailed in the bodycam footage. 'She's just... oh my God.' Rhodes tried to hug her, but Nichelle brushed her off before getting into a police cruiser to get to hospital. Sylvie was pronounced dead 30 minutes later, and police were seen immediately raising suspicions about Rhodes, saying she appeared 'too calm' as the chaos was unfolding. In separate police footage that same day, Rhodes and her boyfriend were seen being interrogated as investigators realized Sylvie's death may not have been a tragic accident. In the interrogation rooms, cops separated Rhodes and her boyfriend, who is not named, to grill them over the fateful morning where Sylvie was found unresponsive. Rhodes denied having any involvement in the infant's death, but repeatedly told investigators that the child had been 'fussy' and refused to sleep. She had a total of four children in her care that day, including her own infant son, and insisted to investigators she had left Sylvie in her boyfriend's care 'for around 10 minutes' before the child was found unresponsive at around 10am that day. But he maintained he had been asleep until Rhodes woke him up in a panic, and after cops accused him of lying, he brought up text messages Rhodes had sent him from inside the police station trying to get their story straight. 'I told (the investigator) you had Sylvie for 10 mins,' Rhodes texted him. He responded: 'I told her I didn't have her or seen her today.' 'Just say you did,' she sent back, to which he responded: 'I'm not lying, Kenna.' With suspicions heightened, police let the young couple leave, but the case took a dark turn just two days later when an autopsy was carried out on Sylvie. A forensic pathologist found that Sylvie's cause of death was asphyxiation, and she suffered abrasions on the inside of her upper lip, injuries consistent with pressure being applied to her face. Rhodes was arrested soon after, and was seen in the bodycam footage repeatedly telling cops she was 'scared' as she was handcuffed and charged with murder. In a probable cause affidavit, Rhodes later admitted to suffocating Sylvie with a 'lovey' - a small blanket attached to a stuffed animal - as she forced a pacifier into her mouth. Rhodes reportedly confessed to holding the blanket against Sylvie's face until she closed her eyes and stopped crying. The young babysitter 'admitted she was overwhelmed,' the affidavit stated, and conceded that her claims that her boyfriend had been with the baby at the time was made up, saying she 'was the only one in the room.' Her boyfriend was never charged with any wrongdoing. Sadness: Sylvie was remembered in a heartbreaking social media post by her mother, who said: 'There are no words for how much I miss her. I will never get to see my baby girl's smile again, hear her laugh, or watch her take her first steps' A judge denied Rhodes bond, keeping her in jail as officials said they were fearful that she posed a threat to her own child. During the investigation, it was also allegedly found that another child in Rhodes' care suffered a broken arm in a separate incident. Rhodes' trial has been set to begin on October 7, and she has pleaded not guilty. If convicted, she faces up to 100 years behind bars. On the one-year anniversary of Sylvie's tragic death, Nichelle shared a heartbreaking tribute to social media, saying the moment she was seen on bodycam footage screaming was 'the worst day of my life.' 'There are no words for how much I miss her. I will never get to see my baby girl's smile again, hear her laugh, or watch her take her first steps,' she wrote. 'A year ago today was the last time I entered her room. Her door has remained closed ever since. 'Sometimes, I forget the room is even there - a space frozen in time. A year ago today was also the last time I held my baby and kissed her. That day, everything changed.' 'I hate that someone else's actions caused this. My daughter is gone because of what someone else did - and all we can do now is hope that justice is served.'
