Trial Kicks off in Class Action Challenging Detention of 18-Year-Old Migrants
The bench trial comes in a case brought by Kirkland & Ellis and the National Immigrant Justice Center that challenges the federal government's incarceration of migrants who came to the United States as unaccompanied minors.
December 02, 2019 at 07:57 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
A rare trial began Monday in a class action challenging the placement of unauthorized migrant children in adult detention facilities once they turned 18.
The bench trial, expected to last three weeks, comes in a case brought by Kirkland & Ellis and the National Immigrant Justice Center against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and its unit, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Plaintiffs allege that government officials routinely violate the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which, under a 2013 amendment, requires that authorities place unaccompanied migrant children who turn 18 in the "least restrictive setting available."
"The plaintiffs are a class of those individuals who are currently incarcerated in county jails and adult detention facilities across the country," said Stephen Patton, of counsel in Chicago at Kirkland & Ellis, who is trying the case pro bono with firm partner Tia Trout-Perez, in Washington, D.C., and the National Immigrant Justice Center. "Under federal law, ICE has to make a determination where to place these kids, who have just aged out. That includes placing them in adult detention, or some other less restrictive alternative, which is where this statute comes into play."
In addition to their agencies, former ICE Acting Director Thomas Homan and former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen are defendants in the case.
A representative of the Homeland Security Department did not respond to a request for comment. In court documents, government lawyers insisted that ICE has a nationwide policy that complies with the amended statute, such as completing an "age-out review worksheet."
"This is a blatant attempt to compel agency action which is not unlawfully withheld because it is not required in the first instance," they wrote in pretrial documents filed last month. "Rather, plaintiffs ask the court to re-write the statute in accordance with plaintiffs' policy preferences."
The case, which seeks injunctive relief, is the latest to challenge immigration policies under President Donald Trump.
"There definitely was a pretty significant increase in the rate at which these young people were detained by ICE starting after the 2016 election and early 2017 with the new administration," Patton said. "So, overall, there is a correlation between the increased detention of these young people and the new administration, but when that increase occurred, it varies by field office."
The named plaintiffs are two migrant teenagers—a girl from Honduras and a boy from Guatemala—who entered the United States as minors without their parents. The boy, Wilmer Garcia Ramirez, escaped poverty, neglect and "deplorable" working conditions at a coffee plantation, while the girl, Sulma Hernandez Alfaro, fled an uncle who threatened to kill her.
Initially, both fell under the direction of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service's Office of Refugee Resettlement, which has authority over the detention of minors. Immigration authorities transferred them to ICE facilities in Arizona and Texas once they turned 18.
That violated the federal trafficking victims statute, which requires the "least restrictive" alternative, such as staying with a family friend or sponsor, or a group home, or released on bond.
"Instead, ICE automatically places unaccompanied immigrants who have turned 18 into adult detention without considering or making available the least restrictive (or other) alternatives," says the complaint, filed in 2018.
The case estimated the class to be thousands of migrants.
"We have a data set from 2016 through May 2019 and within that data set around 4,700 kids who aged out, and of that 4,700, more than 50% were detained," said Kate Melloy Goettel, associate director of litigation at National Immigrant Justice Center.
The trial is taking place before U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras of the District of Columbia. Last year, Contreras granted a preliminary injunction to the lead plaintiffs and refused to dismiss the class action, despite immigration authorities releasing both of them from detention. He also certified the class, concluding that the case was about a "single alleged practice" involving more than just the named plaintiffs.
"Here, plaintiffs explain that, like the other members of the putative class, the named plaintiffs are former unaccompanied minors who, upon reaching their respective 18th birthdays, were transferred from ORR custody to DHS and placed in adult facilities," he wrote.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
An ‘Indiana Jones Moment’: Mayer Brown’s John Nadolenco and Kelly Kramer on the 10-Year Legal Saga of the Bahia Emerald
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250