Latest news with #U.S.CustomsandImmigrationEnforcement
Los Angeles Times
29-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Chokeholds, bikers and ‘roving patrols': Are Trump's ICE tactics legal?
An appellate court appears poised to side with the federal judge who blocked immigration agents from conducting 'roving patrols' and snatching people off the streets of Southern California, likely setting up another Supreme Court showdown. Arguments in the case were held Monday before a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, with the judges at times fiercely questioning the lawyer for the Trump administration about the constitutionality of seemingly indiscriminate sweeps by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement agents. 'I'm just try ing to understand what would motivate the officers ...to grab such a large number of people so quickly and without marshaling reasonable suspicion to detain,' said Judge Ronald M. Gould of Seattle. Earlier this month, a lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order that has all but halted the aggressive operations by masked federal agents, saying they violate the 4th Amendment. The Justice Department called the block that was ordered by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong 'the first step' in a 'wholesale judicial usurpation' of federal authority. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Yaakov M. Roth argued Monday. 'We don't think that happened, and we don't think it's fair we were hit with this sweeping injunction on an unfair and incomplete record.' That argument appeared to falter in front of the 9th Circuit panel. Judges Jennifer Sung of Portland and Marsha S. Berzon of San Francisco heard the case alongside Gould — all drawn from the liberal wing of an increasingly split appellate division. 'If you're not actually doing what the Distinct Court found you to be doing and enjoined you from doing, then there should be no harm,' Sung said. Frimpong's order stops agents from using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location or employment as a pretext for immigration enforcement across Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. The judge found that without other evidence, those criteria alone or in combination do not meet the 4th Amendment bar for reasonable suspicion. 'It appears that they are randomly selecting Home Depots where people are standing looking for jobs and car washes because they're car washes,' Judge Berzon said. 'Is your argument that it's ok that it's happening, or is your argument that it's not happening?' Roth largely sidestepped that question, reiterating throughout the 90-minute hearing that the government had not had enough time to gather evidence it was following the Constitution and that the court did not have authority to constrain it in the meantime. Arguments in the case hinge on a pair of dueling Golden State cases that together define the scope of relief courts can offer under the 4th Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 'It's the bulwark of privacy protection against policing,' said professor Orin S. Kerr of Stanford Law School, whose work on 4th Amendment injunctions was cited in the Justice Department's briefing. 'What the government can do depends on really specific details. That makes it hard for a court to say here's the thing you can't do.' In policing cases, every exception to the rule has its own exceptions, the expert said. The Department of Justice has staked its claim largely on City of Los Angeles vs. Lyons, a landmark 1983 Supreme Court decision about illegal chokeholds by the Los Angeles Police Department. In that case, the court ruled against a blanket ban on the practice, finding the Black motorist who had sued was unlikely to ever be choked by the cops again. 'That dooms plaintiffs' standing here,' the Justice Department wrote. But the American Civil Liberties Union and its partners point to other precedents, including the San Diego biker case Easyriders Freedom F.I.G.H.T. vs. Hannigan. Decided in the 9th Circuit in 1996, the ruling offers residents of the American West more 4th Amendment protection than they might have in Texas, New York or Illinois. In the Easyriders case, 14 members of a Southland motorcycle club successfully blocked the California Highway Patrol from citing almost any bikers they suspected of wearing the wrong kind of helmet, after the court ruled a more narrow decision would leave the same bikers vulnerable to future illegal citations. 'The court said these motorcyclists are traveling around the state, so we can't afford the plaintiff's complete relief unless we allow this injunction to be statewide,' said professor Geoffrey Kehlmann, who directs the 9th Circuit Appellate Clinic at Loyola Law School. 'In situations like this where you have roving law enforcement throughout a large area and you have the plaintiffs themselves moving throughout this large area, you necessarily need to have that broader injunction,' Kehlmann said. Frimpong cited Easyriders among other precedent cases in her ruling, saying it offered a clear logic for the districtwide injunction. The alternative — agents sweeping through car washes and Home Depot parking lots stopping to ask each person they grab if they are a plaintiff in the suit — 'would be a fantasy,' she wrote. Another expert, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law, said the Los Angeles Police Department chokehold case set a standard that litigants 'need to show it's likely it could happen to you again in the future.' But, he added: 'The 9th Circuit has said, here's ways you can show that.' The tests can include asking whether the contested enforcement is limited to a small geographic area or applied to a small group of people, and whether it is part of a policy. 'After the injunction here, the secretary of Homeland Security said 'we're going to continue doing what we're doing,'' Berzon said. 'Is that not a policy?' Roth denied that there was any official policy driving the sweeps. 'Plaintiffs [argue] the existence of an official policy of violating the 4th Amendment with these stops,' Roth said. 'The only evidence of our policy was a declaration that said, 'Yes, reasonable suspicion is what we require when we go beyond a consensual encounter.'' But Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU of Southern California, part of a coalition of civil rights groups and individual attorneys challenging cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens swept up in chaotic arrests, argued that the federal policy is clear. 'They have said, 'If it ends in handcuffs, go out and do it,'' he told the panel. 'There's been a wink and a nod to agents on the ground that says, 'Dispatch with the rigors of the law and go out and snatch anybody out there.'' He said that put his organization's clients in a similar situation to the bikers. 'The government did not present any alternatives as to what an injunction could look like that would provide adequate relief to our plaintiffs,' Tajsar said. 'That's fatal to any attempt by them to try to get out from underneath this injunction.' The Trump administration's immigration enforcement tactics, he said, are 'likely to ensnare just as many people with status as without status.' The Justice Department said ICE already complies with the 4th Amendment, and that the injunction risks a 'chilling effect' on lawful arrests. 'If it's chilling ICE from violating the Constitution, that's where they're supposed to be chilled,' Chemerinsky said. A ruling is expected as soon as this week. Roth signaled the administration is likely to appeal if the appellate panel does not grant its stay.
UPI
18-07-2025
- UPI
Iranian LSU students released after 'ruse' arrest
1 of 3 | Two Iranian graduate students in Louisiana have been released from U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement custody after their lawyers took issue with ICE agents using a 'ruse' to lure them outside to be arrested. File Photo courtesy of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement July 18 (UPI) -- Two Iranian graduate students in Louisiana have been released from U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement custody after lawyers took issue with ICE agents using a "ruse" to "lure" them outside to be arrested. The couple was released this week and all proceedings against them dropped after their lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the procedure surrounding the June 22 arrest at an off-campus apartment in Baton Rouge, La. ICE agents enlisted the help of the Louisiana State Police to convince Pouria Pourhosseinhendabad and Parisa Firouzabadi they were there to speak to the mechanical engineering students about a hit-and-run reported the two had reported weeks earlier. When the married couple stepped outside to show police their vehicle, they were taken into custody and later challenged the detention in immigration court. Pourhosseinhendabad and Firouzabadi are both doctoral students at Louisiana State University, having arrived in the United States in 2023. Both are legally allowed to remain in the country, although Firouzabadi's student visa was not formally renewed. "There's a significant problem with how the two of them were arrested, because there were no exigent circumstances that required any type of Ruse," ACLU of Louisiana Legal Director Nora Ahmed told WBRZ-TV in an interview. Ahmed said ICE agents at the time came only with an administrative warrant that does not require a person to permit law enforcement entry into a dwelling. She said the federal officials could easily have obtained the necessary judicial warrant that would have made the arrest permissible. "So, it appears that there was some type of desire not to get that judicial warrant to enter the home, but they could have done that because there were no exigent circumstances that required them to enter the home," Ahmen said. Pourhosseinhendabad and Firouzabadi were arrested after an anonymous tip to ICE, The Illuminator reported. Court documents uploaded weeks after the arrest show the reason for the detention as visa-related, noting that Firouzabadi was deportable because of a lack of renewal. Pourhosseinhendabad's visa remains current. The two were held in separate detention centers in Mississippi. The arrest came a day after U.S. warplanes attacked three Iranian military sites linked to enriched uranium. Days later, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security warned of a "heightened threat environment" because of the attacks on Iran. "There's still a visa revocation charge on her (Firouzabadi) updated document, but we no longer see any suggestion of espionage or sabotage," Ahmed told WBRZ-TV. "That's also deeply concerning because it would suggest that there was bombing, arrest, an attempt at justification, and then a review as to whether those charges could stand, and then a retraction of that, but it takes days for any of that to occur."
USA Today
09-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Fireworks and AR-15s used in July 4 ambush on ICE agents, leading to 10 arrests
A group of at least 10 people attacked an ICE detainment facility in Texas, leaving one cop with a gunshot wound to the neck. Newly unveiled court filings reveal what went into the attack. Ten people have been charged in connection with a coordinated attack on a U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) facility in Texas that left a police officer with a gunshot wound to the neck, Justice Department officials announced July 8. The group launched the attack on the Prairieland Detention Center outside of the Dallas-Fort Worth area on July 4, according to federal court filings. They dressed in "black military-style clothing" and started by launching fireworks at the facility, the U.S. Attorney's Office said. Attackers came wearing body armor, two-way radios and AR-style rifles, prosecutors said. They fired dozens of rounds at the facility and left after covering buildings and cars with graffiti slogans including "traitor" and "ICE Pig." "Make no mistake, this was not a peaceful protest," said Nancy E. Larson, the acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas where the case was filed. "This was an ambush on federal and local law enforcement officers. This increasing trend of violence against law enforcement will not be tolerated in the Northern District of Texas." The Independence Day attack near Alvarado, Texas comes amid a 700% increase in assaults on immigration agents, according to White House officials. Recent attacks include an accused Tren de Aragua gang member throwing a female ICE agent to the ground and choking her in Nebraska, according to court documents. Attacks on immigration officials also come as President Donald Trump ramps up a mass deportation campaign that has seen masked agents leave suspects terrified around the country. Administration officials say bold tactics are needed to repel what they call an "invasion" of immigrants. An Alvarado Police Department officer was shot in the neck in the attack and flown to a nearby hospital, said the city's police chief Teddy May. He is "recovering nicely," said May, adding he was grateful no one else was hurt. "Sometimes we get lucky and we'll take it," the top cop told USA TODAY. "When you hear someone was treated and released, you can think it must not have been much but I will tell you that was far from the case— that was a substantial wound he received and he was lucky that he could get it taken care of so quickly." The 10 accused in the attack near Alvarado, Texas are: Cameron Arnold; Savannah Batten; Nathan Baumann; Zachary Evetts; Joy Gibson; Bradford Morris; Maricela Rueda; Seth Sikes; Elizabeth Soto; and Ines Soto. They are all Texas residents, court filings show. Charges against them are three counts of attempted murder of a federal officer and three counts of using a firearm in committing a violent crime. Attorneys for the group could not be reached. An attack on Independence Day The attack started at around 10:30 p.m. and ended with attackers firing around 30 rounds at the Alvarado officer called to respond to the scene and two officers working at the federal facility, court filings say. They began by firing fireworks at the facility and spray painting graffiti on at least one building connected to the facility and two cars, according to a federal complaint. Investigators found multiple AR-style rifles on the attackers, two-way radios and a dozen sets of body armor. Authorities believe there were 12 attackers. Alvarado police chief May declined to comment on the investigation into additional assailants. Morris, one of 10 arrested, told police he met the group online and agreed to drive some from Dallas to "make some noise" at the facility, according to the Justice Department. Police also found fliers on the group reading "Fight ICE terror with class war" and "Free all political prisoners," authorities said. They also found a device used to block cell phone signals known as a Faraday bag. The device is "commonly used by criminal actors to try to prevent law enforcement from tracking location information," court documents say. A Federal Bureau of Investigation search of one of the attackers' apartments uncovered "anti-government propaganda," authorities said. Among the fliers was one titled "Organizing for attack! Insurrection anarchy." "Violence, threats of violence, and attempts of vandalism at our ICE Facilities will not deter our officers at ICE from fulfilling their duties," said Josh Johnson, a director at the immigration agency's Dallas office. "This type of vigilante lawlessness is emblematic of the dangers federal, state, and local law enforcement officials face every day." What to know about the facility? The facility at the center of the attack is located about 40 miles southwest of Dallas and is among the Department of Homeland Security's newest, according to Chavez & Valko, an immigration law firm based in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. It is one of four immigration detainment facilities in Texas and was built to house over 700 detainees, according to a fact sheet published by the law firm. Immigration officials did not respond to requests to comment. An unprecedented spike in violence The Fourth of July attack in Texas comes as White House officials say there's been a 700% increase in assaults on immigration agents. Administration officials declined to answer USA TODAY's questions about the numbers underlying the increase, including the number of injuries and their severity. However, DHS told FOX News there have been 79 agent assaults since Trump took office, through June 30, compared with 10 assaults during the same period a year ago. Many of the attacks have happened as immigration authorities deploy new tactics to carry out the president's sweeping mass deportation plan, including masked agents detaining people outside Home Depot and immigrants showing up for mandatory court appointments. Policing experts say the aggressive approach is provoking unnecessarily dangerous encounters. Bystander videos have captured agents wrestling suspects to the ground on crowded streets and chasing them through farm fields. One widely circulated video showed an agent grabbing a U.S. citizen by the neck in a Walmart parking lot as he resisted being taken; federal prosecutors charged the man with assault after he allegedly punched an agent. Trump, who has promised to deport 1 million immigrants this year, ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents "to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest mass deportation program in history." Mounting resistance to ICE agents But there's growing pushback from the public. Recent immigration sweeps in the Los Angeles area sparked widespread protests and small riots downtown, as people threw rocks at law enforcement and set patrol vehicles on fire, and federal agents responded with tear gas and pepper spray. In some cases, federal agents are getting into shoving matches with crowds trying to film or stop what they consider to be overzealous detentions, especially when the masked agents refuse to identify themselves. "The aggressive police tactics being employed by the federal government are causing the issue," said longtime police supervisor Diane Goldstein, who now directs the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, which has spent decades working to develop trust between the public and police. She added: "Their direction and their leadership is directly putting them in a horrific situation." Contributing: Lauren Villagran and Trevor Hughes
Miami Herald
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
Reversing course, Key West City Commissioners agree to cooperate with ICE agreement
Key West city commissioners on Tuesday night reversed course from a vote last week to declare an agreement with U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement void — instead opting to cooperate with the agency in the Trump administration's mass deportation effort. The decision angered the dozens of people who packed City Hall, urging commissioners to either stick with their initial vote to end the agreement with ICE or wait until a judge decides if municipalities must comply with such agreements. The city of South Miami filed a lawsuit in Leon County court in March against the DeSantis administration seeking a judge's opinion on whether the city is required to take part in so-called 287(g) agreements, named after a section in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. READ MORE: Key West City Commissioners vote to end police agreement with ICE. What's next? Key West City commissioners voted 4-2 not to wait for the judge's decision before voting on the ICE cooperation agreement. The vote to void the agreement with ICE last week sparked international headlines and a vow from the DeSantis administration to punish the Southernmost City if it didn't change course. On Tuesday, more than 100 people packed City Hall. Most urged commissioners to stick with their original decision, while wearing shirts that read, 'Be Brave.' A man and woman sang the Woody Guthrie song, 'Deportee (Plane Wreck at Los Gatos),' a protest song Guthrie wrote about a 1948 plane crash that killed almost 30 migrant farm workers on a deportation flight from California to Mexico. Lucy Hawk read a letter on behalf of 133 residents of Bahama Village, which has a large Haitian migrant community, pleading with commissioners to reject the 287(g) agreement. 'These people are very proud of what you did last week, and we hope you honor that,' Hawk said. Last Tuesday, the commission voted 6-1 to void the agreement, which allows police officers to stop, question and detain undocumented immigrants, arguing it was not enforceable because it was approved in March by the police chief and not the city manager by way of elected officials. However, following pressure from Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier — including threats to remove elected and unelected officials from office — three of the six commissioners, as well as Key West Mayor Danise Henriquez, voted to stay in the agreement. 'I'm voting with my head, and not my heart,' said Commissioner Donald Lee, the former Key West Police chief who last week voted to void the agreement when said the opposite, that he was 'voting with my heart' yet hoping that wouldn't get the city in trouble with the state. As people stormed out of the meeting, Commissioner Lissette Cuervo Carey, who voted last week to stay in the agreement and maintained her stance Tuesday, criticized the crowd's reaction. 'It appears that we are 'one human family,' ' she said, referencing the city's motto,' Unless we have a difference of opinion.' Commissioners Monica Haskell and Mary Lou Hoover voted to maintain the city's objection to entering into the 287(g) agreement. Commissioner Samuel Kaufman, who supported ending the agreement last week, wasn't present because he was out of town, but sent a statement criticizing Henriquez for calling the special meeting without enough time for him to change his travel plans. When the commission voted to end the agreement last week, Uthmeier, who sent a letter to the city the next morning threatening to take action against the city, including removing from office those who voted for the resolution. In Florida, law enforcement departments that operate county jails must enter partnerships with the federal government so their officers can carry out limited immigration agent functions. State statutes do not explicitly require local and municipal police departments to join these agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as the 287(g) program. But DeSantis and his administration have pressured local officials, arguing that their police departments must join to comply with the state's sanctuary city laws, which prohibit local governments from limiting collaboration with ICE. Uthmeier's office has also threatened local officials in Orlando and Ft Myers with removal from office if their local governments don't agree to have their police departments join 287(g) agreements. During the June 30 meeting, commissioners supporting the voiding of the 287(g) agreement argued Key West is not a so-called sanctuary city, meaning that if someone is arrested and police find out he or she is undocumented, police inform federal immigration authorities. City officials also said police regularly support and protect ICE and other federal agencies that operate in Key West, but officers have not taken part in immigration enforcement. Police Chief Sean Brandenburg said last week that he signed the agreement with ICE in March because he was told by law enforcement colleagues in other municipalities that if he didn't, he faced removal of office by the governor. But, he said Tuesday that his officers have never actively participated in ICE raids and don't plan to. 'We are not conducting raids of any kind,' he told commissioners. Berbeth Foster, senior staff attorney at the Community Justice Project, a racial justice and human rights legal nonprofit in Miami, told the commissioners Tuesday that municipalities are not required to join into 287(g) agreements in Florida. 'It is clear in the legal language in the statute,' Foster said. Hours before the hearing, Key West Mayor Danise Henriquez, who voted along with the majority of the City Commission to void the agreement with ICE last week, stressed she did so only because the city's charter required the agreement to be signed by the city manager, not the police chief. Henriquez said that she supported the majority vote because she thought a new a new 287(g) agreement should be written up that 'could be considered and, if approved, properly executed by the City Manager in accordance with local legal requirements.' 'Let me be clear: I have no intention of breaking state law or undermining lawful immigration enforcement. My sole aim is to do things the right way — transparently, legally, and in the best interest of the City of Key West,' Henriquez said in the statement.
USA Today
27-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Mahmoud Khalil's case, his free speech rights and the legal battle ahead: What to know
Though Mahmoud Khalil was released from federal custody on June 20, his legal counsel says the fight with President Donald Trump's administration is far from over and continues to raise key free speech issues. The administration said it intended to appeal New Jersey U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz' ruling to release Khalil from U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement custody. He was being held at a Louisiana detainment facility for more than three months following his March 8 detention. Farbiarz said on June 20 that there was no evidence that Khalil, a Columbia University graduate, would be a flight risk or danger to the community if he was released. The administration has cited a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 in its effort to deport Khalil, a lawful permanent resident who was born in Syria. The clause allows the secretary of state to remove individuals from the country if they have reason to believe the person's actions or presence undermines foreign policy interests. Earlier in June, Farbiarz said the application of the provision to Khalil's case violated his First Amendment right to free speech. Trump has referred to Khalil as a 'radical, foreign, pro-Hamas student.' Khalil's lawyers have said there is no evidence he supports the organization, which the federal government has long designated as a terror group. David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, said he doesn't think international students or visa holders should 'take any comfort from (Khalil's release) at all." While Khalil's case garnered publicity and resources for his defense, Keating said that may not be the case for others if the Trump administration targets student protesters at a larger scale. The administration's actions thus far stand to have a 'pretty stark' chilling effect on students, he said, adding that they may prompt some to reconsider their plans to study in the U.S. 'I think we're sending a really bad lesson about freedoms in America,' Keating said. 'We should be a beacon of freedom to the world, and I think one way to do that is to let even temporary visitors express their political views.' White House says Khalil's case is 'not about free speech' The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) similarly believes the 'fight for free speech is far from over,' according to FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick. The organization filed an amicus brief in support of Khalil that said Secretary of State Marco Rubio having the authority to deport non-citizens based on his sole assessment 'places free expression in mortal peril.' Farbiarz ruled against granting Rubio such authority earlier in June, saying that the government's actions were chilling Khalil's right to free speech and negatively impacting his career and reputation, which "adds up to irreparable harm." White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told USA TODAY that Khalil's case was 'not about 'free speech.'' 'This is about individuals who don't have a right to be in the United States siding with Hamas terrorists and organizing group protests that made college campuses unsafe and harassed Jewish students,' Jackson said, adding that the administration 'expect(s) to be vindicated on appeal' and 'look(s) forward to removing Khalil from the United States.' While Fitzpatrick said individuals who disagree with the administration's stance and actions toward Khalil can write to Congress or attend rallies to make their voices heard, the fate of student protesters like Khalil ultimately lies in judges' hands. 'Realistically, a lot of this is going to have to be resolved in the courts,' he said. 'There's only so much activism can do on that front.' ACLU lawyer says Khalil's case has 'McCarthyite overtones' The American Civil Liberties Union, which is part of Khalil's legal counsel, was 'overjoyed' by his release, but the organization said its celebration is tempered by the reality of the long legal road ahead. 'I'd say this is a victory in a critically important battle, but it's a long war and we intend to fight it all the way through,' ACLU attorney Brian Hauss told USA TODAY. Hauss noted that the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed noncitizens' right to First Amendment protections in 1945's Bridges v. Wixon decision. The case surrounded the government's attempt to deport a man based on his alleged affiliation with the Communist Party. There are 'similar McCarthyite overtones' in Khalil's case, Hauss said, referencing the senator who spearheaded the government's anticommunist crusade. While it's 'certainly possible' that a deportation case involving student protesters could end up at the Supreme Court, which has reversed long-standing rulings such as Roe v. Wade in recent years, Hauss said he's optimistic the court would rule in their favor given its rulings upholding the First Amendment in recent years. 'For the Supreme Court to step back from those freedoms would be truly surprising, and I hope I'm not surprised,' he said. Another high-profile case related to Khalil's surrounds Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was arrested in Boston in March after writing a pro-Palestinian opinion article that criticized the school's response to the Israel-Gaza war in its student newspaper. A federal judge in Vermont ordered Ozturk to be released in May. Contributing: Hannan Adely and Michael Loria BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
