Judge dismisses part of lawsuit over ‘Alligator Alcatraz' immigration detention center
MIAMI (AP) — A federal judge in Miami issued a split decision in a lawsuit over the legal rights of detainees at the immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as 'Alligator Alcatraz,' dismissing part of the suit and also moving the case to a different jurisdiction.
U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz issued the decision late Monday, writing in a 47-page ruling that claims the detainees at the facility don't have confidential access to their lawyers or to hearings in immigration court were rendered moot when the Trump administration recently designated the Krome North Processing Center near Miami as a site for their cases to be heard.
The judge heard arguments from both sides in a hearing earlier Monday in Miami. Civil rights civil rights attorneys were seeking a preliminary injunction to ensure detainees at the facility have access to their lawyers and can get a hearing.
The state and federal government had argued that even though the isolated airstrip where the facility is located is owned by Miami-Dade County, Florida's southern district was the wrong venue since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier County, which is in the state's middle district.
Judge Ruiz had hinted during a hearing last week that he had some concerns over which jurisdiction was appropriate.
'Much has changed since the complaint's filing,' Ruiz wrote.
Six of the plaintiffs have met with lawyers through videoconference, though they claimed the conferences are not confidential since they are not in an enclosed room and staff is close by and in listening proximity to the detainees.
A subset of detainees alleged they are eligible for bond hearings and their lawyers have been 'unable to access — yet alone identify — the proper court for those hearings."
But Ruiz noted the facts in the case changed Saturday, when the Trump administration designated the Krome facility as the immigration court with jurisdiction over all detainees at the detention center.
Ruiz wrote that the case has 'a tortured procedural history' since it was filed July 16, weeks after the first group of detainees arrived at the facility.
'Nearly every aspect of the Plaintiffs' civil action — their causes of action, their facts in support, their theories of venue, their arguments on the merits and their requests for relief — have changed with each filing,' the judge wrote.
The judge granted the state defendants change of venue motion to the Middle District of Florida, where the remaining claims of First Amendment violations will be addressed.
The state and federal government defendants made an identical argument last week about jurisdiction for a second lawsuit in which environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe sued to stop further construction and operations at the Everglades detention center until it's in compliance with federal environmental laws.
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami on Aug. 7 ordered a 14-day halt on additional construction at the site while witnesses testified at a hearing that wrapped up last week. She has said she plans to issue a ruling before the order expires later this week. She had yet to rule on the venue question.
___
Frisaro reported from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Schneider reported from Orlando, Florida.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
27 minutes ago
- CBS News
Supreme Court clears way for Trump admin. to cancel NIH diversity, gender identity-related grants
Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to proceed with the cancellation of National Institutes of Health research grants tied to issues like gender identity and diversity, equity and inclusion. In a 5-4 decision, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided in part with the majority, and Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the minority, the high court lifted a lower court order that required the NIH to restore hundreds of research grants that had been canceled because they were tied to these issues. The legal challenge from over a dozen states and a coalition of research groups will continue to play out in the lower court. The divided decision from the high court enables the administration to pull back awards that it says do not align with its policy objectives. Since returning to the White House for a second term, President Trump has directed federal agencies to cancel DEI-related grants or contracts and ensure federal funds do not go toward initiatives involving gender identity. The dispute before the Supreme Court arose after the Department of Health and Human Services and the head of NIH issued a series of directives in February that led to the cancellation of grant awards that were connected to DEI or gender identity, as well as research topics including vaccine hesitancy, COVID and climate change. NIH has a $47 billion budget and is considered the world's largest funder of biomedical research. More than 1,700 grants were canceled nationwide, including more than 800 awarded to public universities, state instrumentalities and local governments in 16 states that challenged the move. Lawyers for the Democratic state attorneys general told the Supreme Court in a filing that the sudden cancellation of the grants forced their universities to lay off or furlough employees, cut student enrollment and withdraw admissions offers. The states and research groups challenged the grant terminations in April, arguing the move violated the Constitution and a federal law governing the agency rulemaking process. The plaintiffs sought to block NIH from ending grants and to have funding that had already been axed restored. A federal judge in Massachusetts held a bench trial and ruled in June that the grant terminations were unlawful. The judge, William Young, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan, ordered that the directives from the Trump administration and resulting grant terminations be set aside. Young found that NIH engaged in "no reasoned decision-making" in rolling out the grant terminations, and wrote there was "not a shred of evidence" to back up the administration's claims that DEI studies are used to support discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics. The Trump administration asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to pause the district court's decision, which it declined to do. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the high court for emergency relief last month. In his emergency appeal, the solicitor general argued that the Supreme Court had a chance to "stop errant district courts from continuing to disregard" its decisions. Sauer pointed to an April order from the justices that cleared the way for the Department of Education to halt millions of dollars in teacher-training grants that it said funded programs that involve DEI initiatives. The high court said in that case that the Trump administration was likely to succeed in showing that the federal district court that oversaw the dispute lacked jurisdiction to order the payment of money under federal law. The solicitor general said the judicial system does not rest on a "lower-court free-for-all where individual district judges feel free to elevate their own policy judgments over those of the Executive Branch, and their own legal judgments over those of this Court." But the public health groups warned that even a brief stay of the district court's decision reinstating the grants would invalidate crucial multiyear projects that have already been paid for by Congress, "inflicting incalculable losses in public health and human life because of delays in bringing the fruits of plaintiffs' research to Americans who desperately await clinical advancements." They warned that pulling the grants would do irreversible harm to public health, halting biomedical research that Congress directed NIH to fund. "That, and the obvious harm to those who suffer from chronic or life-threatening diseases and their loved ones, must be balanced against NIH's ill-defined monetary interests and any asserted incursion on its policymaking latitude," the research organizations wrote in a filing. This is a breaking story and will be updated.
Fox News
27 minutes ago
- Fox News
'South Park' voice actor opens up about being a Trump supporter while working on the show
Actress and stuntwoman Janeshia Adams-Ginyard discusses 'South Park' taking political jabs at the Trump administration and Hollywood 'pandering' on 'The Will Cain Show.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Musk's X reaches tentative settlement with former Twitter workers in $500 million lawsuit
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Elon Musk's X has reached a tentative settlement with former employees of the company then known as Twitter who'd sued for $500 million in severance pay. The parties disclosed the deal in a Wednesday court filing asking for a scheduled Sept. 17 hearing in the case to be postponed. The San Francisco federal appeals court on Thursday agreed to postpone the hearing so that both sides could finalize the settlement agreement. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. The proposed class action lawsuit by former Twitter employees Courtney McMillan and Ronald Cooper, who said the company failed to pay them and other fired workers severance they were owed. Musk took over the social media platform in 2022 and let thousands of employees go, eliminating entire teams dedicated to trust and safety, human rights and making the site accessible to people with disabilities. Other lawsuits, including one filed by Twitter executives including former CEO Parag Agrawal, are still pending. The billionaire's approach to gutting Twitter's workforce served as a template for his months-long leadership of President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, as it cut tens of thousands of federal workers earlier this year. An email announcing a 'deferred resignation offer' to federal workers, promising pay through September without having to work, was titled 'Fork in the Road,' echoing a similar email Musk sent to the Twitter workforce in 2022. Musk's drawn-out legal battles with more than 2,000 former Twitter workers were also a precursor to the court battles the Trump administration is now fighting over federal downsizing, though the circumstances are different. The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
