Latest news with #LeeGelernt
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Families separated by Trump's 'zero-tolerance' policy at risk due to lapse in legal services, ACLU argues
Hundreds of parents and children separated under the "zero-tolerance" border policy during President Donald Trump's first term -- who were later reunited and protected by a 2023 settlement -- are at risk of being separated again due to a lapse in legal services, lawyers argue. Under the 2023 court-approved settlement agreement, reached as a result of a class-action lawsuit filed in 2018, the federal government agreed to provide certain services to an estimated 5,000 people -- families and children separated under the 2017-2018 "zero tolerance" policy -- including behavioral health services and immigration legal services. However, the ACLU says a recent decision made by the Trump administration to gut and then abruptly terminate a contract with the Acacia Center for Justice violates that agreement, leaving hundreds of migrants in legal limbo. The nonprofit organization is the main contractor that oversees services provided to separated families, such as helping them apply for parole and other benefits they're "mandated" to receive at the government's expense, the American Civil Liberties Union argues. MORE: In unsealed declaration, Rubio claims disclosing some information about Abrego Garcia case would cause 'significant harm' to national security An estimated 414 migrants who are eligible for benefits are at risk of deportation because their legal status is set to expire by the end of the month if they don't receive the help Acacia was offering them, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt argued during a federal court hearing Friday in the Southern District of California. "If they don't have parole, they're subject to arrest, deportation and re-separation," Gelernt said during the hearing. The Trump administration argues that it wants to provide those services on its own -- through the Executive Office for Immigration Review's Helpdesk, "or a separate similar program" and that it is not prohibited by the 2023 agreement from doing so. An attorney representing the Trump administration said they had already emailed more than 52,000 individuals on their list of pro bono providers to see if they could represent some of the people covered under the settlement. As of May 15, however, only 71 had "expressed interest," so far, according to documents submitted in court. MORE: Trump administration halts funding for legal aid for migrant children "On the record before the court now there's not enough to show a breach, and I can understand why the court is directing the parties to provide more information," the government attorney said. "But again, right now, it is speculation and as the government noted in its response to the plaintiff's motion, they have not provided one class member who has been deprived of services required under the settlement. So again, I think we're getting way ahead by speculating on things that may or may not happen." Gelernt countered by saying even if those 71 providers eventually offer to help, it's not enough to deal with the thousands of cases that are now in limbo because of Acacia's absence. "We spent two years working through this and the government understood that the only way to do this and provide people real, meaningful help was this structure," Gelernt said, referring to the years of negotiation leading to the 2023 settlement. "This can't be a sort of sideshow for the government. They'll get to it when they get to it. Acacia woke up every morning with all its subcontractors, and all day long, worked on this as a full-time matter with their subcontractors." Judge Dana Makoto Sabraw set another hearing for May 30 and asked both sides to provide additional information about what services the government could reasonably provide. MORE: Georgia college student detained by ICE after mistaken traffic stop should self-deport, DHS says "If Mr. Gelernt is correct in his assessment, in his understanding of the full landscape of these class members, the services they need, the services that were provided by Acacia, in his view, that there's simply no way in the real world that 71 or a few more volunteer pro bono attorneys can pick up this caseload that Acacia was addressing, that, too, could lead to a finding of breach of the settlement agreement. But I need additional evidence in order to make those determinations," the judge said. Gelernt said that if the government now seeks to provide these services, affected class members may not trust them enough to reach out. "I don't know whether people will reach out to the government, because it's the same government, obviously, that separated them," he said. Families separated by Trump's 'zero-tolerance' policy at risk due to lapse in legal services, ACLU argues originally appeared on
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Families separated by Trump's 'zero-tolerance' policy at risk due to lapse in legal services, ACLU argues
Hundreds of parents and children separated under the "zero-tolerance" border policy during President Donald Trump's first term -- who were later reunited and protected by a 2023 settlement -- are at risk of being separated again due to a lapse in legal services, lawyers argue. Under the 2023 court-approved settlement agreement, reached as a result of a class-action lawsuit filed in 2018, the federal government agreed to provide certain services to an estimated 5,000 people -- families and children separated under the 2017-2018 "zero tolerance" policy -- including behavioral health services and immigration legal services. However, the ACLU says a recent decision made by the Trump administration to gut and then abruptly terminate a contract with the Acacia Center for Justice violates that agreement, leaving hundreds of migrants in legal limbo. The nonprofit organization is the main contractor that oversees services provided to separated families, such as helping them apply for parole and other benefits they're "mandated" to receive at the government's expense, the American Civil Liberties Union argues. MORE: In unsealed declaration, Rubio claims disclosing some information about Abrego Garcia case would cause 'significant harm' to national security An estimated 414 migrants who are eligible for benefits are at risk of deportation because their legal status is set to expire by the end of the month if they don't receive the help Acacia was offering them, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt argued during a federal court hearing Friday in the Southern District of California. "If they don't have parole, they're subject to arrest, deportation and re-separation," Gelernt said during the hearing. The Trump administration argues that it wants to provide those services on its own -- through the Executive Office for Immigration Review's Helpdesk, "or a separate similar program" and that it is not prohibited by the 2023 agreement from doing so. An attorney representing the Trump administration said they had already emailed more than 52,000 individuals on their list of pro bono providers to see if they could represent some of the people covered under the settlement. As of May 15, however, only 71 had "expressed interest," so far, according to documents submitted in court. MORE: Trump administration halts funding for legal aid for migrant children "On the record before the court now there's not enough to show a breach, and I can understand why the court is directing the parties to provide more information," the government attorney said. "But again, right now, it is speculation and as the government noted in its response to the plaintiff's motion, they have not provided one class member who has been deprived of services required under the settlement. So again, I think we're getting way ahead by speculating on things that may or may not happen." Gelernt countered by saying even if those 71 providers eventually offer to help, it's not enough to deal with the thousands of cases that are now in limbo because of Acacia's absence. "We spent two years working through this and the government understood that the only way to do this and provide people real, meaningful help was this structure," Gelernt said, referring to the years of negotiation leading to the 2023 settlement. "This can't be a sort of sideshow for the government. They'll get to it when they get to it. Acacia woke up every morning with all its subcontractors, and all day long, worked on this as a full-time matter with their subcontractors." Judge Dana Makoto Sabraw set another hearing for May 30 and asked both sides to provide additional information about what services the government could reasonably provide. MORE: Georgia college student detained by ICE after mistaken traffic stop should self-deport, DHS says "If Mr. Gelernt is correct in his assessment, in his understanding of the full landscape of these class members, the services they need, the services that were provided by Acacia, in his view, that there's simply no way in the real world that 71 or a few more volunteer pro bono attorneys can pick up this caseload that Acacia was addressing, that, too, could lead to a finding of breach of the settlement agreement. But I need additional evidence in order to make those determinations," the judge said. Gelernt said that if the government now seeks to provide these services, affected class members may not trust them enough to reach out. "I don't know whether people will reach out to the government, because it's the same government, obviously, that separated them," he said. Families separated by Trump's 'zero-tolerance' policy at risk due to lapse in legal services, ACLU argues originally appeared on
Hindustan Times
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
'Dangerous' migrants require immediate deportation, US government says
May 12 - The Trump administration told the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that "dangerous behavior" from a group of Venezuelan migrants detained by the federal government in Texas justified lifting a court order blocking their immediate deportation. The administration said in a court filing that 23 migrants at a Texas detention facility had "recently barricaded themselves in a housing unit for several hours and threatened to take hostages and harm ICE officers." The Supreme Court last month temporarily blocked the government from deporting dozens of migrants after lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union asked it to intervene on an emergency basis. The administration's Monday filing said the 23 detainees behind the alleged disruption at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas, were moved to the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, on May 4. Lee Gelernt, the ACLU's lead attorney in the case, declined to comment on the government's new filing. White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Spokespeople for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also did not immediately respond to a request for comment. President Donald Trump has invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to swiftly deport accused members of Tren de Aragua, a criminal gang originating from Venezuelan prisons that his administration labels a terrorist group. The administration already has deported to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador more than 200 Venezuelan and Salvadoran men it claims are gang members. The ACLU said the Alien Enemies Act historically has been employed only in wartime, and that the administration had not given the men a realistic opportunity to contest their removal. The Supreme Court blocked the administration on April 19 from removing the detainees from the U.S. until further notice from the court. Trump's administration asked the high court to lift its order later that day. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices in the administration's Monday filing that the government should be allowed to deport at least some of the migrants immediately under other federal immigration laws. The government also said that moving the detainees to other U.S. facilities "creates ongoing risks of prison recruitment and expansion of Tren de Aragua gang activities within the United States."
Hamilton Spectator
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
Venezuelans subject to removal under wartime act have 12 hours to decide on contesting, docs show
BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) — Migrants subject to removal from the U.S. under the contested Alien Enemies Act are getting about 12 hours to decide if they want to contest their removal, according to court documents unsealed Thursday — a window the government contends complies with a Supreme Court decision giving those detained under the act a 'reasonable' time to appeal. Lawyers for people subject to removal say that's far too short a period. 'This is a dramatic turn in these cases,' said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union representing migrants. 'They're not giving any information about how they should do it, how much time they would have to do it, and 12 hours is clearly insufficient for them to reach an attorney and decide what they want to do and how they should do it.' Under the wartime act, the government has sent Venezuelans accused of belonging to the Tren de Aragua from the U.S. to El Salvador's prison known as CECOT . An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said in court documents that people are considered subject to deportation if they don't say they want to challenge their removal within 12 hours after being served with a form about their legal rights. They then have 24 hours to file documents in court. The form is only available in English, though ICE said it's read to people in a language they understand. It tells them they can make a phone call, but doesn't explicitly say they can challenge their removal under the 18th century law. The government had wanted to file the document under seal, claiming the information was law enforcement sensitive, but a judge ordered it be made public. The ACLU says the time period violates the Supreme Court order that allowed the Trump administration to continue deportations under the Alien Enemies Act but required the government to give detainees a 'reasonable time' to argue to a judge that they should not be removed. That high court order has led to multiple new lawsuits across the country, including the Texas one, over the invocation of the act, which has only been used three times before in U.S. history, most recently during World War II. Then, the ACLU says, suspected Nazis were given 30 days to challenge their designation in court. A judge in Colorado on Tuesday ruled that the government had to give at least 21 days notice. In appealing that decision, the Trump administration argued it was providing constitutional due process under the current timeline. 'The notice will allow the noncitizen a reasonable time to indicate and then file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as well as telephone access,' the Justice Department's Tim Ramnitz wrote. Government attorneys previously told a federal judge in Washington that detainees were given a 24-hour notice. The official also explained in his Texas declaration that detainees subject to the Alien Enemies Act are often held for several days before removal, allowing them more time to express intention to file and contest their removal. An earlier version of the form filed in federal court in Washington explicitly said there was no opportunity to ask a judge to intervene. But that was before the Supreme Court intervened.
Winnipeg Free Press
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Venezuelans subject to removal under wartime act have 12 hours to decide on contesting, docs show
BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) — Migrants subject to removal from the U.S. under the contested Alien Enemies Act are getting about 12 hours to decide if they want to contest their removal, according to court documents unsealed Thursday — a window the government contends complies with a Supreme Court decision giving those detained under the act a 'reasonable' time to appeal. Lawyers for people subject to removal say that's far too short a period. 'This is a dramatic turn in these cases,' said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union representing migrants. 'They're not giving any information about how they should do it, how much time they would have to do it, and 12 hours is clearly insufficient for them to reach an attorney and decide what they want to do and how they should do it.' Under the wartime act, the government has sent Venezuelans accused of belonging to the Tren de Aragua from the U.S. to El Salvador's prison known as CECOT. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said in court documents that people are considered subject to deportation if they don't say they want to challenge their removal within 12 hours after being served with a form about their legal rights. They then have 24 hours to file documents in court. The form is only available in English, though ICE said it's read to people in a language they understand. It tells them they can make a phone call, but doesn't explicitly say they can challenge their removal under the 18th century law. During Elections Get campaign news, insight, analysis and commentary delivered to your inbox during Canada's 2025 election. The government had wanted to file the document under seal, claiming the information was law enforcement sensitive, but a judge ordered it be made public. The ACLU says the time period violates the Supreme Court order that allowed the Trump administration to continue deportations under the Alien Enemies Act but required the government to give detainees a 'reasonable time' to argue to a judge that they should not be removed. That high court order has led to multiple new lawsuits across the country, including the Texas one, over the invocation of the act, which has only been used three times before in U.S. history, most recently during World War II. Then, the ACLU says, suspected Nazis were given 30 days to challenge their designation in court. A judge in Colorado on Tuesday ruled that the government had to give at least 21 days notice. In appealing that decision, the Trump administration argued it was providing constitutional due process under the current timeline. 'The notice will allow the noncitizen a reasonable time to indicate and then file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as well as telephone access,' the Justice Department's Tim Ramnitz wrote. Government attorneys previously told a federal judge in Washington that detainees were given a 24-hour notice. The official also explained in his Texas declaration that detainees subject to the Alien Enemies Act are often held for several days before removal, allowing them more time to express intention to file and contest their removal. An earlier version of the form filed in federal court in Washington explicitly said there was no opportunity to ask a judge to intervene. But that was before the Supreme Court intervened.
