Researchers Aim to Unlock Data on Detained Immigrants as FOIA Lawsuit Advances
The lawsuit alleges U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has withheld data from researchers on immigrant detention requests since the beginning of the Trump administration.
September 28, 2018 at 04:44 PM
4 minute read
Academic researchers who have invoked the Freedom of Information Act to pry open data detailing the detention of immigrants by law enforcement have cleared a hurdle in a New York federal court. U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes of the Northern District of New York denied motions for summary judgment this week in the lawsuit—filed by researchers at Syracuse University—which alleges U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has withheld data from researchers on immigrant detention requests since the beginning of the Trump administration.
The lawsuit was brought against the federal agency by Susan Long and David Burnham, co-directors of the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. The research center tracks spending and enforcement of federal laws, including immigration policy.
The parties are now scheduled for a telephone conference in four weeks at which point they will decide the best way forward in the lawsuit. Long and Burnham are represented in the case by Terence Keegan of Miller Korzenik Sommers Rayman in Manhattan.
Long said they are hoping to push the lawsuit into the discovery phase so they can use any information garnered to reach an agreement with the government. They have not ruled out going to trial.
“We would like discovery because they are saying things that are simply untruthful,” Long said. “Often if the government is compelled to undergo discovery, then they are willing to turn in the towel.”
The issue is over data on what are called “detainers.” That's when ICE asks federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to hold an immigrant in custody upon arrest or release from prison and turn them over to immigration agents for possible deportation. Immigrants can be held for up to 48 hours in those situations.
Long said they have been requesting data on detainers from the federal government for years and had largely received detailed responses on the agency's use of detainers, including case-by-case summaries. They obtained the data using period requests through the Freedom of Information Act and published it freely during the Bush and Obama administrations.
That changed at the beginning of the Trump administration in January 2017, Long and Burnham claimed in their complaint last year. Long said they sent the same request to ICE that they always have, with identical phrasing. But this time, the agency said it didn't have the data they were looking for.
“What they're withholding are the kinds of fields that would allow you to see if the government's policy—if they're achieving their stated goal on very important basic issues,” Long said.
ICE claimed, according to Sannes' decision, that it does not track the data that the plaintiffs requested, despite offering it to them previously. The agency said it may have voluntarily took additional efforts to compile data for researchers in the past, but was no longer willing to do that. FOIA does not require an agency to produce documents that are not readily available.
The plaintiffs rebutted that argument with evidence they said proves otherwise. A document from ICE on its Criminal Alien Program, for example, cited data on the percent of inmates in federal prison who are non-U.S. citizens. The plaintiffs also cited the documents they received from ICE before the stoppage, which they claim prove the agency tracks the data they're looking for.
Sannes said in her decision that those documents, among others, show TRAC's claims are worth pursuing.
“In this case, as plaintiffs argue, ICE has misconstrued certain requests, and plaintiffs have provided tangible evidence regarding ICE's response to other FOIA requests and inconsistencies within ICE's declarations, all of which amount to more than 'purely speculative claims about the existence and discoverability of additional responsive records,” Sannes wrote.
A spokeswoman for ICE declined to comment on the decision, citing the ongoing litigation. The parties will discuss the case by phone on Oct. 23.
READ MORE:
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 All'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readAttorneys Ordered to Apologize to South Philadelphia Residents Following 'Scream Test' Experiment
5 minute readDOJ: TD Bank Agrees to Pay $3B Over Anti-Money Laundering Program Violations
2 minute readNY Appeals Court Grants J&J's Subpoena for Talc Expert as 'Clearly Relevant'
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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