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: