ICE Hit With Constitutional Claims Over Court Hearing Appearances by Video
Attorneys and their detained immigrant clients claim the glitch-ridden system and presence of ICE agents in the room during court hearing video conferences represent a due-process violation.
February 13, 2019 at 01:49 PM
4 minute read
Detainees in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement are being denied their due-process and statutory rights by being forced to appear at immigration court hearings via video conference rather than in-person, a new federal lawsuit claims.
The plaintiffs—a coalition of public defenders and individual detainees—claim ICE halted its regular practice of delivering inmates in person in June. At the time, the agency claimed it was due to public safety concerns related to a small group of protesters outside the Varick Street immigration facility, according to reports.
However, despite the end of the protests in the summer, the policy of relying on video conference rather than presenting detainees physically at their hearings has remained in effect, the lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York claims.
“First it was public safety; then it was cost effectiveness; then it was part of a nationwide plan to streamline immigration proceedings; then it was public safety again,” the plaintiffs allege. “Defendants' shifting justifications are pretext for their real, illegitimate motivation: the government's nationwide effort to expedite deportations at the expense of due process.”
Detainees claim hundreds of immigrants in ICE's custody are unable to fully and fairly participate in their own hearings because of the video conference policy, according to Andrea Saenz, attorney-in-charge of the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project at Brooklyn Defender Services, one of the defenders organizations party to the suit.
“This policy is not just a small administrative change—it goes to the heart of whether our clients will get a fair day in court to contest their deportation, Saenz said in a statement. “We, as a society, owe due process to people facing such enormous consequences—not to lock them up and show them a TV screen where they cannot properly hear the judge, speak to their lawyers, or see their loved ones in-person.”
Brooklyn Defender Services were joined by the other members of the Immigration Family Unity Project in the suit, The Legal Aid Society and The Bronx Defenders.
According to the complaint, ICE relies on a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives Department of Justice-employed immigration judges the discretion to conduct proceedings through video conference. However, the plaintiffs argue, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2008's Aslam v. Mukasey requires proceedings that use video conference to ensure due process rights are being afforded.
This, the plaintiffs allege, is not being honored by ICE—despite allegedly producing an internal report in 2017 that warned video conferencing should be limited to procedural matters because such appearances may lead to due process issues.
The country jails holding immigration detainees in New York's Hudson Valley or in Bergen County, New Jersey, are not equipped to handle the increased demand for video conferencing from the Manhattan immigration court, the suit claims. When detainees do have access to video feeds, they regularly face technical glitches that can make seeing and hearing what's going on in their case difficult. Often, ICE officers are present in the video conferencing room, which has a chilling effect on detainees' willingness to provide sensitive information for their case, according to the complaint.
As such, the plaintiffs claim ICE's policies have had a direct impact on what the Immigrant Family Unity Project called the immense success of its efforts to represent detained immigrants. The program—the first of its kind in the nation to provide counsel to immigrant detainees unable to afford private attorneys—claims to have increased the rate of successful outcomes for these clients by 1,100 percent since 2013. Attorneys with the organization now represent more than a full third of the immigrants with proceedings on the Varick Street court's docket.
The plaintiffs are represented by a joint legal team from Debevoise & Plimpton, led by partner Susan Reagan Gittes, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, with partner Robert Gunther, Jr. at the helm.
A spokeswoman for ICE did not respond to a request for comment on the suit and its allegations.
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 AllAttorneys 'On the Move': Structured Finance Attorney Joins Hunton Andrews Kurth; Foley Adds IP Partner
4 minute readNY Civil Liberties Legal Director Stepping Down After Lengthy Tenure
Former Top Aide to NYC Mayor Is Charged With Bribery Conspiracy
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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