District Court Rules that “Arriving Aliens” May Not Be Subjected to Prolonged Detention Without a Hearing To Determine Whether Detention Is Justified

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

SAN DIEGO — A district court today ruled that the Department of Homeland Security may not detain an immigrant for a prolonged period without proving that detention is justified in an individualized hearing. It is the first ruling to find that immigrants classified as “arriving aliens” – a large group encompassing all individuals stopped at the border, including asylum seekers – are entitled to fair hearing protections against arbitrary detention. DHS had argued that it has sole discretion to decide whether to detain or release an “arriving alien” and that the law does not require detention hearings.

The San Diego ACLU brought a habeas petition on behalf of Glorismel Centeno Ortiz in August 2011 after he had languished in immigration detention for three years. The government had held Centeno without a hearing to determine whether his detention was justified by classifying him as an “arriving alien,” a category that can apply even to individuals who have lived in the United States for decades with legal status. The government relies on Cold War-era rulings to justify its position that “arriving aliens” like Mr. Centeno have no due process rights to physical liberty.

Mr. Centeno, an asylum seeker who has lived in the United States since he was 11 years old was released from custody shortly after the ACLU filed the habeas petition. The government then argued that the habeas petition was moot.

Today’s ruling by Chief Judge Irma Gonzalez of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California rejected both the government’s mootness argument and its position that arriving aliens could be detained without so much as an individualized hearing to determine whether their detention is justified.

“Under the court’s ruling, asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution and torture in their home lands should finally receive a fair hearing to determine whether their detention serves any purpose,” said Sean Riordan, staff attorney of the San Diego ACLU. “For too long the government has withheld this kind of minimal due process protection to those who need it most.”

Centeno was brought to Los Angeles by his mother, who was fleeing the violence of the Salvadoran civil war, in which her brother was killed by guerillas. As a teenager, Centeno became entangled with gangs and was convicted of armed robbery and deported to El Salvador, even though his petition for asylum was still pending. Fearing for his life Centeno returned to Los Angeles and obtained counseling from Homies Unidos, an organization that helps young people leave gangs.

Since his return to the United Sates, Centeno has dedicated his life to helping other young men leave the life of gangs. He has lead camping trips and given talks at schools, all the while working as a dishwasher, car mechanic, air conditioning repairman and raising his son. According to a senior staff member at Homies Unidos, Centeno is “one of our most reliable and committed volunteers.”

In 2007, Centeno went to Tijuana to enjoy a night out with friends. When he returned to the border, he was immediately arrested and charged with criminal illegal reentry after deportation. In July 2008, a judge dismissed criminal charges against Centeno, but he remained in detention several more years, until his release in September.
 

The US government requires organizations that receive federal funds to provide language access for limited English proficient (LEP) individuals. If your organization does not have in-house translators and interpreters or qualified multilingual employees, outside vendors may be required to help serve LEP individuals. Even if your organization does have in-house translators, interpreters or qualified multilingual employees, hiring vendors can help your organization cover languages not spoken by your team or when your employees are overextended.

Court Also Certifies Class Action by Latino Drivers and Passengers and Paves Way for Trial on Race Discrimination

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 519-7811, media@aclu.org

PHOENIX – A federal district court today put a halt to the systematic practice by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office of stopping and arresting Latinos based only on suspicion of unlawful presence in the United States and without any evidence of criminal activity, ruling that such detentions violate constitutional guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure.

U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow also ruled that the lawsuit against the sheriff’s office, run by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, should proceed to trial on the separate claim of unconstitutional racial profiling and noted that the plaintiffs have already made a strong showing of intentional race discrimination.

The court also ordered that the case should proceed as a class action. As a result, all Latino drivers and passengers who may be stopped, searched or detained unconstitutionally will have a remedy under today’s order.

At issue in the case are so-called crime saturation patrols and traffic stops done without evidence of criminal activity, which the plaintiffs charge are motivated by racial bias, and result in racially discriminatory treatment. The ruling comes in a 2008 lawsuit filed on behalf of five individuals and the Somos America immigrants’ rights coalition challenging racial profiling by the sheriff’s office.

Plaintiffs have submitted thousands of pages of evidence of racial discrimination, including statistics showing Latino drivers are more likely than non-Latinos to be stopped and detained for traffic violations, and that Arpaio forwarded racially-charged e-mails and citizen complaints to senior staff members, who acted based on those e-mails. The evidence is consistent with the recent DOJ report accusing Arpaio of “unconstitutional policing.”

They are represented by the ACLU of Arizona, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, MALDEF and pro bono co-counsel at the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP.

“We are encouraged by the court’s recognition of the strong evidence showing the MCSO’s pattern and practice of racial profiling and its conducting of operations for reasons that are racially biased,” said Stanley Young of the law firm of Covington & Burling, lead counsel for plaintiffs. “We look forward to a final resolution of these issues, and an additional injunction against the MCSO’s violations of the equal protection clause, after a trial.”

“The court’s injunction on our illegal seizure claim is a significant step toward stopping the sheriff’s office from violating people’s civil rights,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The court’s order makes clear that MCSO violates the Fourth Amendment when it stops and detains merely based on a suspicion that a person is in the United States unlawfully.”

Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona, said: “The Sheriff’s Office has used the excuse of immigration enforcement to systematically violate the civil rights of Latinos in Maricopa County, including U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants.”

Nancy Ramirez, Western Regional Counsel for MALDEF, said: “Today’s ruling enjoining the MCSO from detaining persons based only on knowledge or a reasonable belief that the person is unlawfully present within the United States goes a long way in providing much needed relief to Latinos in Maricopa County who have for too long been subject to Sheriff Arpaio’s racially discriminatory practices. The Court’s injunction reaches the heart of the case in stopping the MCSO from continuing its race-based conduct.”

Lydia Guzman of Somos America, said: “The people of Maricopa County can now breathe a sigh of relief. For far too long, the sheriff has terrorized our community and created a sense of distrust.”

Lawyers on the case include Wang; Daniel Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona; Annie Lai, ACLU of Arizona cooperating attorney, Ramirez of MALDEF; and Young and Andrew Byrnes of Covington & Burling.

For more information on the case, Melendres v. Arpaio, go to: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/35986res20080715.html.

Decision is a Setback to National Effort to Pass Anti-Immigrant Laws

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

CHARLESTON, S.C. ― Major parts of South Carolina’s anti-immigrant law, including a provision that would have forced drivers to prove they were citizens or legal residents at virtually all traffic stops, were blocked today by a federal judge.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups recently argued that the law, scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, was unconstitutional, interferes with federal laws and would cause great harm if implemented.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Gergel also said that sections of the law, including those making it a crime to transport and harbor undocumented immigrants and criminalizing the failure to carry "papers" at all times were also likely to be found unconstitutional.

The coalition filed a lawsuit against the law in October. A hearing seeking a preliminary injunction was held Monday. The U.S. Department of Justice, which also sued South Carolina, also argued the law should be blocked because it will cause irreparable harm and interfere with federal immigration law.

“Today’s ruling blocking key provisions of South Carolina’s anti-immigrant law recognizes that such legislation is unconstitutional and likely to lead to serious civil rights abuses,” said Andre Segura, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project who argued the case in court Monday on behalf of the coalition. “We have already seen the devastating effects of a similar law in Alabama, and are pleased South Carolina will not follow the same destructive path."

South Carolina’s law would have subjected citizens and legal residents to unlawful searches and seizures and interfered with federal power and authority over immigration, Segura said.

The law would require police to demand “papers” demonstrating citizenship or immigration status during traffic stops when they have “reasonable suspicion” that a person lacks immigration status, thereby inviting racial profiling. It also attempted to criminalize South Carolinians for everyday interactions with undocumented individuals, such as driving someone to church, or renting a room, said Victoria Middleton, executive director of the ACLU of South Carolina.

"The court’s ruling means this draconian law will not immediately threaten the safety of innocent people, including victims of domestic violence and human trafficking and even asylum seekers,” Middleton said. “We hope the ruling means families will not be separated, and South Carolina will not be turned into a police state.”

Today’s ruling comes shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court decided to take a case involving parts of Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. The civil rights coalition has pressed to continue with hearings over similar laws in South Carolina, Alabama and other states because they involve claims not before the Supreme Court, and because these laws will cause severe harms if they take effect.

Federal courts have already blocked key provisions of these laws in Arizona, Indiana and Georgia. A federal court in Alabama allowed some parts of the law to take effect, leading to devastating humanitarian consequences. Members of the civil rights coalition also have a case pending against Utah’s anti-immigrant law that has been blocked pending a hearing now scheduled for February.

The coalition in the South Carolina case includes the ACLU, the ACLU of South Carolina, the National Immigration Law Center, MALDEF, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, LatinoJustice PRLDEF and the law firms of Rosen, Rosen & Hagood and the Lloyd Law Firm.

To learn more about the case and read today’s decision, the complaint, as well as the motion for preliminary injunction, go to:
www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/lowcountry-immigration-coalition-et-al-v-...

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

PHOENIX – A week after the U.S. Department of Justice issued a scathing report documenting widespread civil rights abuses by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, the American Civil Liberties Union appeared in court to ask a federal court judge to declare his actions unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Today’s court hearing stems from a 2008 lawsuit filed on behalf of five individuals and the Somos America immigrants’ rights coalition challenging the illegal pattern of racial profiling by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MSCO). The plaintiffs, who include residents detained under Arpaio’s unlawful practices, are at risk for being pulled over simply because they are Latino. They are represented by the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Arizona, MALDEF and pro bono co-counsel at the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP.

“In his zeal to find undocumented immigrants, Sheriff Arpaio has set up policies and practices that systematically violate the civil rights of Latino residents, including countless U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “MCSO’s conduct is illegal and un-American, and the Sheriff and his command staff have created an agency culture that encourages and permits racial bias to take root and spread.”

In April, plaintiffs submitted hundreds of pages of evidence proving their claim of racial discrimination, including statistical evidence showing that Latino drivers are far more likely than non-Latinos to be stopped and detained for traffic violations, and that Arpaio forwarded racially-charged emails and citizen complaints to senior staff members, who acted based on those emails. The evidence is consistent with the recent Department of Justice report accusing Arpaio of “unconstitutional policing.”

“The undisputed evidence demonstrates that Sheriff Arpaio’s ‘immigration’ sweeps are done without evidence of criminal activity, are motivated by racial bias, and result in racially discriminatory treatment,” said Stanley Young of the law firm of Covington & Burling, lead counsel for plaintiffs. “Our clients have come forward to stop these constitutional violations.”

Arpaio’s focus on immigration enforcement has undermined MCSO’s ability to ensure public safety. According to a report by the Goldwater Institute, MCSO deputies failed to act on 42,297 outstanding felony warrants, and recent news stories have exposed MCSO’s failure to investigate rapes and other sexual assaults in El Mirage.

“Sheriff Arpaio’s obsession with ferreting out “illegals” based on racial stereotypes has jeopardized the public safety of everyone in Maricopa County,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. “Latinos are afraid to come forward with information about crimes, and he has created an even greater divide between police and the Latino community.”

"It is time for Sheriff Arpaio's illegal and racially discriminatory policing practices to end,” said Nancy Ramirez, Western Regional Counsel for MALDEF. “The Latino community in Maricopa County is tired of being racially profiled and is demanding relief from the Sheriff's racially biased practices. Today the Court had the opportunity to hear their concerns."

Lawyers on the case include Wang of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project; Daniel Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona; Annie Lai, ACLU of Arizona Cooperating Attorney, Ramirez of MALDEF; and Young and Andrew C. Byrnes of Covington & Burling.

More information on the case, Melendres v. Arpaio, is available online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/35986res20080715.html
 

Ruling Will Help Ensure Due Process for Detainees Unable to Represent Themselves

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

LOS ANGELES - A federal court in California has granted class-action status to a group of unrepresented immigration detainees with mental disabilities, an important step in helping ensure they get access to legal counsel.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed last year on behalf of a group of detainees, including José Antonio Franco Gonzales, a Mexican immigrant with moderate mental retardation who was detained in federal immigration facilities for over four years without a hearing. Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found that the problems identified in the lawsuit are systemic, and there is no mechanism for evaluating whether immigration detainees with mental disabilities are able to represent themselves.

Ahilan Arulanantham, deputy legal director of the ACLU of Southern California, said: "The sad fact is that the government refuses to systematically track the many detainees with mental disabilities who are lost in immigration detention centers, unable to represent themselves or even to understand why they're there. Today's ruling will allow us to shed light on this most vulnerable population within our broken immigration detention system."

About 33,000 immigrants are detained daily and government estimates indicate that over 1,000 of them have mental disabilities. The government has no procedure to resolve their cases, including for individuals who are unable to understand the proceedings against them due to severe mental disabilities. The ruling, which was unsealed by the judge today, applies to cases in Arizona, California and Washington.

"Immigration detainees should not be languishing in custody merely because they are unable to represent themselves," said Judy Rabinovitz, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "Thanks to this ruling, thousands of immigration detainees with mental disabilities who have been forced to defend themselves will finally have a chance to obtain their day in court."

Public Counsel Law Center staff attorney Talia Inlender, who is representing Franco in his immigration proceedings, said: "Imagine being held in jail, sometimes for years, without even a basic understanding of why you are there. That's the reality for too many immigrants with severe mental disabilities. Today, we move a step closer to providing these immigrants and their families with the due process that our law requires and that our conscience demands."

Michael H. Steinberg, of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, who argued the motion before Judge Gee, said: "It is profoundly disturbing that the government continues to pretend that this helpless population needs no assistance. With a class now certified, it will be much more difficult for the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to avoid what is clearly a problem that must be addressed."

The ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, the ACLU of Arizona, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Mental Health Advocacy Services have also been involved in the case and represent the class.

More information about the case can be found here:
www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/franco-gonzales-et-al-v-holder-et-al-firs...

 

Ruling Will Help Ensure Due Process for Detainees Unable to Represent Themselves

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

LOS ANGELES - A federal court in California has granted class-action status to a group of unrepresented immigration detainees with mental disabilities, an important step in helping ensure they get access to legal counsel.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed last year on behalf of a group of detainees, including José Antonio Franco Gonzales, a Mexican immigrant with moderate mental retardation who was detained in federal immigration facilities for over four years without a hearing. Judge Dolly Gee of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found that the problems identified in the lawsuit are systemic, and there is no mechanism for evaluating whether immigration detainees with mental disabilities are able to represent themselves.

"The sad fact is that the government refuses to systematically track the many detainees with mental disabilities who are lost in immigration detention centers, unable to represent themselves or even to understand why they're there," said Ahilan Arulanantham, deputy legal director with the ACLU of Southern California. "Today's ruling will allow us to shed light on this most vulnerable population within our broken immigration detention system."

About 33,000 immigrants are detained daily and government estimates indicate that over 1,000 of them have mental disabilities. The government has no procedure to resolve their cases, including for individuals who are unable to understand the proceedings against them due to severe mental disabilities. The ruling, which was unsealed by the judge today, applies to cases in Arizona, California and Washington.

"Immigration detainees should not be languishing in custody merely because they are unable to represent themselves," said Sean Riordan, staff attorney for the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. "Thanks to this ruling, thousands of immigration detainees with mental disabilities who have been forced to defend themselves will finally have a chance to obtain their day in court."

Public Counsel Law Center staff attorney Talia Inlender, who is representing Franco in his immigration proceedings, said: "Imagine being held in jail, sometimes for years, without even a basic understanding of why you are there. That's the reality for too many immigrants with severe mental disabilities. Today, we move a step closer to providing these immigrants and their families with the due process that our law requires and that our conscience demands."

Michael H. Steinberg, of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, who argued the motion before Judge Gee, said: "It is profoundly disturbing that the government continues to pretend that this helpless population needs no assistance. With a class now certified, it will be much more difficult for the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to avoid what is clearly a problem that must be addressed."

The ACLU of Arizona, the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Mental Health Advocacy Services have also been involved in the case and represent the class.

Click here for more information about the case.
 

Attorneys Argue Law is Harmful; Judge to Rule by End of Year

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

CHARLESTON, S.C. ― The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights groups asked a federal district judge today to block South Carolina’s anti-immigrant law from taking effect because it is unconstitutional, interferes with federal laws and would cause great harm in the state.

The coalition was in court today to seek a preliminary injunction that seeks to block the law pending a final ruling on its constitutionality. The U.S. Department of Justice, which also sued South Carolina over the law, also argued for an injunction. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Gergel said he will rule before the law’s Jan. 1 effective date.

“Across the country, we have been fighting anti-immigrant laws because they are unconstitutional, lead to racial profiling and widespread civil rights abuses,” said Andre Segura, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued in court on behalf of the coalition. “This misguided law should be blocked before it causes great harm and turns South Carolina into a police state.”

The law, SB 20, subjects South Carolinians, including U.S. citizens and legal residents, to unlawful search and seizure and interferes with federal authority over immigration laws. The law requires police to demand “papers” demonstrating citizenship or immigration status during traffic stops when they have “reasonable suspicion” that a person lacks immigration status, thereby inviting racial profiling. It criminalizes South Carolinians for everyday interactions with undocumented individuals, such as driving someone to church, or renting a room to a friend.

“South Carolina must not become like Alabama, whose inhumane anti-immigrant law has created a crisis in the state, separated families and devastated the business community,” said Victoria Middleton, executive director of the ACLU of South Carolina. “This law will hurt all South Carolinians and must be blocked before it wreaks havoc in our state.”

Arizona’s notorious SB 1070 inspired South Carolina’s law, as well as similar laws in Georgia, Alabama, Utah and Indiana. Federal courts have already blocked key provisions of these laws in Arizona, Indiana and Georgia. A federal court in Alabama allowed some parts of the law to take effect, leading to devastating humanitarian consequences, while other provisions have been blocked. Coalition members also have a pending case against Utah’s anti-immigrant law, which the court delayed pending a hearing in February.

The coalition in the South Carolina case includes the ACLU, the ACLU of South Carolina, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Immigration Law Center, MALDEF, the South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, LatinoJustice PRLDEF and the law firms of Rosen, Rosen & Hagood and the Lloyd Law Firm.

To learn more about the case and read the complaint, as well as the motion for preliminary injunction, go to: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/lowcountry-immigration-coalition-et-al-v-....

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

PHOENIX – The U.S. Department of Justice today announced that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has committed a wide range of civil rights violations against Latinos as part of his misguided and overzealous anti-immigrant agenda and ordered the sheriff’s office to immediately end his discriminatory practices or face litigation by the federal government.

Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona of Arizona, issued the following statement:

“For far too long, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has created a culture of fear by declaring open season on Latinos throughout Maricopa County. His agency embodies everything that could and does go wrong when local police waste law enforcement resources targeting people solely because of their race and skin color.

This decision by the Department of Justice to rein in Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is long overdue. It vindicates the complaints by Latinos throughout Maricopa County whose trips to work or the grocery story have resulted in discriminatory traffic stops and interrogations by armed officers and often ended with detentions and jailings for no reason.

We’re hopeful that the DOJ’s actions and existing litigation will finally bring some justice for the racial profiling victims and result in substantive, meaningful changes to these racist MCSO practices and policies that have torn our communities apart. “

The ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and the San Francisco-based law firm of Covington & Burling LLP, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of five individuals and Somos America, a Latino community-based coalition, charging that they or their members were unlawfully stopped and mistreated by Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies because they are Latino. As part of that lawsuit – filed in 2008 – and after extensive discovery and fact-finding, the ACLU submitted more than 200 pages of evidence, including racially charged letters and emails, to demonstrate discriminatory intent on the part of Arpaio himself and some of his highest-ranking officers.

The evidence submitted as part of that case, Ortega Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al., will be the subject of an upcoming hearing at 9:30 a.m. on December 22 before Judge G. Murray Snow, United States District Court, 401 West Washington Street, in downtown Phoenix, in Courtroom #602, 6th Floor. The judge will consider the ACLU’s request for a summary judgment ruling that Arpaio’s practices were unconstitutional and violated plaintiff’s rights.
More information on the case, Ortega Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al., is available online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/35986res20080715.html
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to hear the state of Arizona’s case regarding a dispute over its anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, issued the following statement:

“We are looking forward to a ruling that will put an end to the growing patchwork of state immigration laws, which is contrary to our constitutional values. Our federal system was designed to avoid precisely the kind of chaos that has erupted in Alabama and other states when state legislators get into the business of regulating immigration. And beyond the federal-state issue that the Supreme Court will take up in this case, these state immigration laws hurt everyone’s fundamental civil rights by installing a “show me your papers” police regime – it’s un-American.”

The ACLU is challenging anti-immigrant laws in Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

PHOENIX – The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona today filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of a 28-year-old transgender woman who was intimidated, harassed, and sexually assaulted by a Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) guard while she was in immigration custody at the CCA-owned and operated Eloy Detention Center. CCA is the largest operator of immigration detention centers in the country and detains almost half of the 33,000 people in federal custody on any given day.

The lawsuit, filed against CCA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials, and the City of Eloy, charges that local and federal officials failed to protect Tanya Guzman-Martinez from abusive male staff members at the facility in Eloy, even after being notified about the sexual attack and ongoing harassment by staff and other male detainees.

“Tanya left Mexico to seek refuge from the persecution she suffered because of her gender identity, and was exposed to even greater trauma at the hands of immigration officials who failed to take appropriate measures to protect her while she was in their custody,” said ACLU of Arizona Immigrant Rights Attorney Victoria Lopez.

During her 8-month detention at Eloy, one of the largest ICE facilities in the country, Guzman-Martinez was sexually assaulted twice. One incident occurred on December 7, 2009 and involved a detention officer who after repeated harassment, maliciously forced Guzman-Martinez to ingest his ejaculated semen and threatened to deport her back to Mexico if she did not comply with his demands. Guzman-Martinez immediately reported the assault to detention staff and the Eloy Police Department and the detention officer was later convicted in Pinal County Superior Court of attempted unlawful sexual contact.

Despite this attack, immigration officials did nothing to protect her from further abuse. In a separate incident that took place on April 23, 2010, Guzman-Martinez was sexually assaulted by a male detainee in the same all-male housing unit where she was subjected to the first assault. She didn’t report the assault to local police until about a week later because she feared retaliation by detention staff and other detainees. Soon after she reported the second assault to the police, Guzman-Martinez was released from ICE custody.

Although Guzman-Martinez was released from detention more than a year-and-a-half ago, she still suffers from the emotional pain she endured while at Eloy.

“When we tout our country as a beacon of freedom, fairness, and individual liberties for all, the United States, as well as state and local governments, and the people and entities with whom they routinely contract, must live up to those values, especially for those people who seek refuge in this country because of those values,” added ACLU of Arizona cooperating attorney Kirstin Story of the law firm of Lewis and Roca LLP. “Unfortunately, that did not occur in the Tanya Guzman-Martinez case and in many others. We hope that this lawsuit is a step toward remedying these failures.”

Today’s lawsuit alleges that CCA, Eloy, and ICE personnel failed to take basic steps to protect Guzman-Martinez’s physical safety and emotional well-being, to properly train and monitor the staff at the center or to implement best practices to house transgender detainees and prevent the sexual assault of vulnerable populations.

Incidents of sexual abuse in immigration detention, particularly among vulnerable women and LGBTQ detainees, are widespread, the ACLU said. In October, the ACLU of Texas filed a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of three immigrant women who were sexually assaulted while in ICE custody at the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Center in Taylor, Texas. The lawsuit was filed following the release by the ACLU of government documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that confirmed 185 allegations of sexual abuse of immigration detainees jailed at detention facilities across the nation since 2007 alone. According to those documents, 16 allegations of sexual abuse were lodged in Arizona facilities – the third largest number of allegations after Texas and California. Of those 16 allegations in Arizona, 8 were from the Eloy Detention Center. In addition, the ACLU of Arizona documented five cases involving transgender or gay detainees who were sexually assaulted or treated in an abusive manner while in detention in Arizona facilities. The case examples are highlighted in the ACLU-AZ report entitled "In Their Own Words: Enduring Abuse in Arizona Immigration Detention Centers," which includes an entire section highlighting the array of problems confronting LGBTQ detainees.

Despite mounting documentation of widespread sexual abuse in immigration detention centers, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has proposed a rule that explicitly excludes immigration detention facilities from coverage under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). Congress enacted PREA to protect all persons in custody by setting standards for preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse. “Without PREA's protection, immigrants in detention such as Tanya Guzman-Martinez, remain vulnerable to abuse,” added Lopez.

In response, the U.S. Congress will hold a briefing on December 7th titled: the Prison Rape Elimination Act and the Crisis of Sexual Abuse in Immigration Detention.

Lawyers on the case, Tanya Guzman-Martinez v. CCA, et al., include Daniel Pochoda, ACLU of Arizona Legal Director, and ACLU of Arizona Cooperating Attorneys Kristina N. Holmstrom and Kirstin A. Story of the law firm of Lewis and Roca LLP.

Click here to read the complaint.

The ACLU of Arizona’s detention report is available here.
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

Indianapolis – The ACLU of Indiana today filed a complaint on behalf of a United States citizen who was erroneously and unconstitutionally detained at the direction of federal agents in anticipation of possible deportation.

Victor Jimenez is a naturalized United States citizen. After being arrested late in the evening on August 28, 2010, for a violation of Indiana law, Jimenez was taken into custody in Indianapolis. He was eligible for bail almost immediately, but he could not be released, because on Aug. 29, federal immigration agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued an immigration detainer, which had the effect of requiring that Jimenez be held pending possible immigration proceedings and deportation.

The detainer was issued without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that Jimenez was in the U.S. illegally. Of course, a U.S. citizen cannot be deported. Jimenez, a U.S. citizen since 2000 residing in Marion County, had provided arresting officers with his Indiana driver’s license, but found himself held for three days without bail at the Marion County Jail because of the ICE detainer. He was never given the opportunity to prove his U.S. citizenship to the ICE agents who were responsible for his continued detention.

As a result of his unlawful imprisonment, Jimenez, a married father of four, missed two days of work for which he was not paid, and was unable to accompany his wife, who was six months pregnant, to her medical appointment.

“The current political climate regarding immigration issues has created an environment where these situations occur all too often,” said Gilbert Holmes, Executive Director of the ACLU of Indiana. “We don’t want a repeat in Indiana of what’s happening in some states, where they’ve passed laws allowing people to be stopped on the basis of looks, and where you’re considered guilty until proven innocent.”

“We are concerned about the lack of any procedures here to safeguard against what appears to be the clear deprivation of Mr. Jimenez’s basic constitutional rights. No citizen, naturalized or otherwise, should have to worry about being deported.” said Ken Falk, the ACLU of Indiana’s Legal Director.

ICE is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Illegal detention violates a U.S. citizen’s rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The ACLU of Indiana is requesting a jury trial on behalf of Jimenez. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana under cause number 1:11-cv-1582, and is captioned Jimenez v. United States.

 

Law Enforcement, Gov’t Officials, Victims Speak Out

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
  WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security’s Secure Communities (S-Comm) leads local communities to distrust law enforcement, encourages racial profiling and undermines the Constitution, critics of the program said today at a press conference on Capitol Hill.
  Antonio Montejano, a 40-year-old U.S. citizen wrongly ensnared by S-Comm on Nov. 5, 2011, explained how the experience affected him and his family. Montejano spent four nights locked up for a shoplifting charge after he forgot to pay for candy his children had eaten while shopping. Among $600 in purchased items, a $10 bottle of perfume had also slipped through. That charge was dismissed, but Montejano was detained because of an immigration hold, which was triggered by S-Comm despite his citizenship status.
  “When I was released,” Montejano said, "my eight-year-old son said to me: ‘Dad, can this happen to me too because I look like you?’ I feel so sad when I heard him say this. But he is right. Even though he is an American citizen – just like me – he too could be detained for immigration purposes because of the color of his skin – just like me.”
  Aarti Kohli, Director of Immigration Policy at the Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, Berkeley Law, University of California, said that 3,600 U.S. citizens have been apprehended by ICE from the inception of the program through April 2011. Kohli has co-authored the report, “Secure Communities by the Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and Due Process,” which revealed many problems with S-Comm.
  “The administration has a very technical definition of Secure Communities, but it’s very different than the reality,” Kohli said, explaining that evidence points to the fact that S-Comm encourages racial profiling  and impacts U.S. citizens and families as well as immigrants.
  Ronald Hampton, the Washington Representative of Blacks in Law Enforcement in America and a retired police officer who served in the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., for 24 years, said S-Comm causes communities to distrust the police.
  “It’s the federal government’s role to enforce immigration violations,” Hampton said. “Police officers have enough to do. Local police should be building relationships and doing crime prevention – we don’t have the extra resources.”
  The Honorable J. Walter Tejada, member of the Arlington County Board, explained how Arlington County was the first local government to seek an opt-out from S-Comm. Tejada said the program created fear in the immigrant community, which had always trusted the police in Arlington.
  “This was imposed on us, we didn’t ask for it,” Tejada said. “Our police haven’t asked for this. We do not want our police officers to be immigration agents.”
  Ali Noorani, National Immigration Forum's executive director, called on DHS to fix S-Comm before implementing the program in all jurisdictions nationwide.
  “We believe that until the DHS can assure the public that critical problems with Secure Communities have been remedied, the program should be suspended,” Noorani said. 

 

Federal Immigration Authorities Wrongly Deported Mark Lyttle, a U.S.-born Citizen with Mental Disabilities, to Mexico in 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

RALEIGH - United States Magistrate Judge William A. Webb today recommended that a case go forward in which the U.S. government wrongly deported an American citizen. The ruling recommended denying a motion by the U.S. government to dismiss a lawsuit filed on behalf of Mark Lyttle, a U.S. citizen of Puerto Rican descent with mental disabilities who was wrongfully deported to Mexico in 2008 and forced to endure over four months of living on the streets and in the shelters and prisons of Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua and Guatemala.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina in October 2010.

“What our government did to Mark Lyttle, one of its own citizens, is unconscionable, and we are pleased that the court today recommended that the case go forward,” said Katy Parker, Legal Director for the ACLU of North Carolina Legal Foundation. “Even though Mark was born and raised in Rowan County, North Carolina, immigration officials made scarcely any effort to confirm his citizenship. Instead, they unjustly shipped this poor man off to a country where he didn’t even speak the language, inflicting severe emotional harm in the process.”

Lyttle’s entanglement with immigration authorities began when he was about to be released from a North Carolina jail where he was serving a short sentence for inappropriately touching a worker's backside in a halfway house that serves individuals with mental disorders. Despite having ample evidence that Lyttle was a U.S. citizen – including his social security number, the names of his parents, his sworn statements that he was born in the United States and criminal record checks – officials from the North Carolina Department of Correction referred him to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as an undocumented immigrant whose country of birth was Mexico. Lyttle had never been to Mexico, shared no Mexican heritage, spoke no Spanish and did not claim to be from Mexico.

Lyttle was left alone and penniless in Mexico and unable to communicate in Spanish. Mexican authorities sent him to Honduras, where he was imprisoned and faced with guards who threatened to shoot him. Honduran officials sent him to Guatemala and, eventually, he made his way to the U.S. Embassy in Guatemala City. Within a day, embassy officials contacted one of Lyttle's three brothers at the military base where he was serving, leading to Lyttle being issued a U.S. passport. His brother wired him money and Lyttle was soon on a flight to Atlanta. Upon Lyttle's arrival, border officials, seeing his history of ICE investigations, held and questioned him for several hours before letting him go.
During this four month ordeal, Lyttle was unable to take his medications to treat his mental illnesses and was subject to cycles of manic activity and depression.

In his judgment today, Judge Webb wrote that the actions taken by the U.S. government, if proven true, were “extreme and outrageous.” He also agreed that “improperly detaining and ‘unjustly exiling [an American citizen] ought to be beyond this society’s bounds.’”

“The United States loses sight of the fact that [Lyttle] is not an alien challenging a decision of removal,” Webb wrote. “Rather, he is a United States citizen alleging that immigration officials deliberately violated his rights in the execution of their duties.”

Judy Rabinovitz, deputy Director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, said Mr. Lyttle’s case is unfortunately not unique.

“What happened to Mr. Lyttle – and to countless others – is the inevitable result of an immigration system that fails to provide basic due process protections – such as a right to appointed counsel – to individuals who are placed in removal proceedings, even those who are U.S. citizens and have mental disabilities,” Rabinovitz. “Throughout the time Mr. Lyttle was detained by immigration and facing deportation, he never had any contact with a lawyer.”

The judge’s entire recommendation is available online at www.acluofnc.org.

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

November 9, 2011 – The U.S. Border Patrol is using aggressive policing tactics far from the border in upstate New York to increase arrest rates with little regard to New Yorkers’ constitutional rights and freedoms, according to a report released today by the NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic, the New York Civil Liberties Union and Families for Freedom.

The report, Justice Derailed: What Raids on New York Trains and Buses Reveal about Border Patrol’s Interior Enforcement Practices, is the first ever, in-depth analysis of the Border Patrol’s interior enforcement operations, including raids on domestic trains and buses, in upstate New York. It provides unprecedented insight into the agency’s aggressive enforcement practices miles from the border with Canada or any point-of-entry in to the country.

“Our findings paint a disturbing picture of an agency that wrongly believes it has the authority to stop anyone at any time or place within 100 miles of the border and demand proof of their citizenship or immigration status,” said Nancy Morawetz, director of New York University’s Immigrant Rights Clinic. “Border Patrol tells Congress that it needs money to patrol the border, but instead it is using those funds to arrest and detain immigrants who have lived in the United States for long periods of time.”

Throughout central and western New York in recent years, armed Border Patrol agents have routinely boarded trains and buses nowhere near the border to question passengers about their citizenship. Passengers who cannot produce sufficient documentation are subjected to potential arrest, detention and deportation.

Through a Freedom of Information Act request, which is still being litigated, the report’s authors obtained a complete dataset of all transportation arrests in the Border Patrol’s Rochester Station from 2006 to 2009 and detailed information on a random sample of 200 of those arrests.

The analysis shows that the Border Patrol is abusing its authority through an unprecedented reach into the country’s interior and the use of aggressive search and seizure procedures that do not comport with standards and expectations for domestic policing or interior immigration enforcement. It maintains that the transportation raids are likely the result of the use of arrest rates as a performance measure. The findings show that the Border Patrol’s aggressive tactics go far beyond its mandate to protect the border.

“Upstate New York is not a Constitution-free zone,” said NYCLU Advocacy Director Udi Ofer. “The Border Patrol takes an extremely broad view of its mission that would disturb most Americans, who expect to be able to go about their daily lives without having to prove their citizenship status to armed government agents. These ‘show me your papers’ tactics belong in a police state, not the world’s oldest democracy.”

While recent reports suggest that Border Patrol may have temporarily reduced its operations on trains and buses, the concerns raised in the report extend to Border Patrol activities on the state’s highways and on the streets of towns and villages in upstate New York.

Among the report’s key findings from its study of the Rochester Station:

• From 2006 to 2009, there were 2,743 transportation arrests.
• Despite the Border Patrol’s mission of policing the border, transportation raids did not target recent border-crossers. From 2006 to 2009, less than 1 percent of transportation raid arrests were made at entry. The vast majority of individuals arrested, 76 percent, had been in the United States for more than one year.
• Interior transportation raid arrests represent the majority of the Border Patrol’s Rochester Station border arrests despite the fact that they occur far from any point-of-entry into the country.
• Agents widely violate established arrest procedures in the course of transportation raids. In 77 percent of transportation raid arrests between 2006 and 2009, Rochester Station officers violated the two-officer rule, which requires that someone other than the arresting officer examine the person who was arrested and determine whether to commence removal proceedings.
• Despite the immense human and financial costs of overzealous detention, the data reveals that more than 73 percent of individuals arrested were then placed in a detention facility rather than released while awaiting the adjudication of their case.
“The Border Patrol’s aggressive and bias tactics have little to do with protecting the border,” said Abraham Paulos, director of Families for Freedom. “They tear apart our families and our communities miles away from the border. They undermine the safety of immigrant communities and instill fear by detaining people who were stopped and arrested while going about their everyday lives.”

The Border Patrol defends its aggressive policing practices in the county’s interior by citing federal regulations that ostensibly give it authority to operate within 100 miles of the border. In New York State, about 97 percent of the population lives within 100 miles of the border.

The full extent of the Border Patrol’s interior enforcement practices remains unknown, but community groups have documented abuses of power that extend beyond the transportation system and into our state’s towns and villages. These concerns include complaints of Border Patrol agents wrongfully stopping, questioning and arresting individuals, including Latino United States citizens, and engaging in improper enforcement practices in close collaboration with state and local police.

The report concludes with a series of recommendations for federal and state officials, including:

• CBP should end its practice of raids on domestic trains and buses.
• To the extent that Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency that manages the Border Patrol, continues to engage in interior enforcement operations, it should ensure that it does so only in situations involving specific suspicion that an individual has crossed the border illegally, with proper constitutional and procedural protections in place.
• State and local police should refrain from enforcing federal immigration laws, includ¬ing by engaging in interior enforcement operations with Border Patrol agents and requesting translation assistance from Border Patrol.
• CBP should discontinue any use of arrest-based performance measures.
• The governor and attorney general of New York should monitor CBP’s interior operations to ensure that the rights of New York residents are protected.
To download the report, visit http://www.nyclu.org/news/report-reveals-troubling-border-patrol-tactics....

 

Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice Reacts: “Actions Speak Louder than Words.”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

Montgomery, AL – Janet Napolitano, secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), told a Congressional committee this week that her agency is not helping Alabama officials enforce our state’s new discriminatory anti-immigrant law. The Secretary said that she is concerned about reports of racial profiling, and that her agency is cooperating with the US Department of Justice to investigate these and other abuses.

The Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice appreciates Secretary Napolitano’s remarks. However, given the documented cooperation between local authorities and DHS since the implementation of the law, and the experience of Alabama families with immigration authorities, the Secretary’s declaration is being met with justified skepticism. Contributing to that skepticism is the Department’s failure to implement its announced new policy directing its agencies to exercise prosecutorial discretion in deportation cases.

In Decatur, Alabama, four immigrants were arrested during traffic stops and subsequently turned over to immigration authorities, who placed them into deportation proceedings. These individuals remain in proceedings despite the Secretary’s statement.

In addition, over 3,000 calls have been made to an emergency hotline set up by national and local legal organizations since the implementation of the Alabama law. The hotline has uncovered an extensive record of civil rights abuses, as well as cases of individuals being put into deportation proceedings by federal officials—again, despite the Secretary’s statement.

Olivia Turner, Executive Director of the ACLU of Alabama and Steering Committee member of ACIJ said, "We know of at least one woman who was arrested under one of HB 56's 'papers please' provisions who is currently in deportation proceedings and fighting to return to her Alabama home. We call upon ICE to release her, and stop putting those ensnared by this unconstitutional law - which the administration is challenging - through the deportation pipeline."

Victor Palafox, Steering Committee member of the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice and leader with Alabama Dreamers for the Future (an organization of undocumented and allied youth) said, “I am glad that Secretary Napolitano finally acknowledged that the civil rights of our families are being violated on a massive scale. Many of our friends have disappeared from school and their families have fled the state, afraid of being ripped apart by immigration authorities. I hope that Secretary Napolitano is telling our families that we have nothing to fear--but we will have to see it to believe it. Actions speak louder than words.”

Napolitano’s latest statement follows another pronouncement by DHS, made in August of this year, that many immigrants who were deemed no threat to public safety--including young people eligible for the DREAM Act--should not be deported. However, those words have not resulted in relief to immigrant communities.

Said Mary Bauer, Legal Director from the Southern Poverty Law Center, “The new guidance about prosecutorial discretion from DHS has not been implemented. Immigration lawyers in the Southeast and across the nation are waiting for direction from DHS on these memos, but thus far it has remained business as usual in the immigration offices and courts that cover Alabama.”

Zayne Smith, Coordinator of the Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice, said, “It is time for the Department of Homeland Security to take bold and public action to assure our families that they will not be ripped apart as a result of HB 56. Statements from Secretary Napolitano in Washington are welcome, but relief in Alabama is what we need. The Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice asks that DHS publicly direct immigration authorities in the field to stop cooperating with local law enforcement in Alabama, who are being forced to implement a law which even Secretary Napolitano herself acknowledges is discriminatory. We also request that DHS headquarters review every deportation case coming out of Alabama to ensure that the Secretary’s words are enforced.”