| Last updated August 25, 2008 | |
Since late 2006, ICE has raided a number of companies and arrested and removed hundreds of noncitizens from the United States. This Litigation Clearinghouse Issue Page provides information about the federal court litigation related to the raids.
| |
|
Developments
| |
|
Swift Raids
On December 12, 2006, ICE officials arrested 1,282 noncitizen workers on administrative immigration violations at Swift meat packing plants around the country. Sixty-five individuals also were charged with criminal violations related to identity theft or other violations, such as re-entry after deportation. ICE raided six Swift plants located in Greeley, Colorado; Grand Island, Nebraska; Cactus, Texas; Hyrum, Utah; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Worthington, Minnesota. ICE did not bring charges against Swift officials during the raids. Union Seeks Injunctive and Declaratory Relief and Damages Related to Swift Raids The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) and several legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens brought a class action related to the December 2006 raids of Swift plants. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the INA and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by arresting large groups of workers without a warrant and without reasonable suspicion that the workers were immigrants present in violation of the INA. The complaint also alleges that defendants arrested parents without regard to their dependant children in violation of defendants’ internal policies and plaintiffs’ due process rights. Finally, the complaint states that plaintiffs were not given prompt access to counsel in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments. Plaintiffs seek damages for violation of their Fourth Amendment rights and injunctive relief requiring compliance with the law in future enforcement actions. On November 13, 2008, defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The motion asserted that the Union did not have individual or associational standing and that the individual plaintiffs also lacked standing. The motion also alleged that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments and under Bivens. Finally, the motion stated that the court cannot grant the injunctive relief requested. In their opposition to the motion to dismiss, plaintiffs countered that they had standing to challenge defendants’ program of arbitrary warrantless arrests and detentions because plaintiffs’ claims are not moot. In addition, plaintiff UFCW has both direct and associational standing to sue for injunctive relief. Plaintiffs also stated that defendants’ motion to dismiss was grounded in evidentiary materials outside the pleadings and were immaterial to whether plaintiffs stated a claim upon which relief may be granted and that whether plaintiffs were detained and arrested without a warrant is a question of fact that cannot be resolved in a motion to dismiss. Finally, plaintiffs reasserted their Bivens claims and argued that their prayer for injunctive relief was sufficiently specific. On January 28, 2008, defendants filed a reply to plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants filed an opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification on February 28, 2008.
Swift Employees File RICO Suit for Damages On December 15, 2006, only three days after the raids on Swift factories, eighteen Swift employees filed a civil suit against Swift. The complaint alleges that Swift hired undocumented workers in an attempt to "illegally depress and artificially lower" the wages of its employees. The plaintiffs, who had the "legal right" to work at Swift, are suing for damages. The suit alleges that Swift's actions violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit on April 30, 2007, stating that plaintiffs' claims are not properly before the court because they fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board and fail to meet RICO's proximate cause standards, among other shortfalls. The court ordered the parties to conduct a scheduling conference and report their position to the court on a range of matters including a description of the proposed class and needed discovery. On August 24, 2007, plaintiffs filed a response to defendants’ motion to dismiss and defendants filed a reply. On December 20, 2007, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Swift’s motion to dismiss. The court found that Plaintiffs stated claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) against Management as a member of the Swift Enterprise and against Swift as a member of the Wrongful Documentation Enterprise. Defendants are potentially liable only for the depression in wages caused by Management’s harboring of undocumented workers, i.e., Management’s knowing employment of illegal aliens that it also assisted in obtaining false documentation. The Court also finds that the unions are not necessary parties. On March 11, 2008, the court issued a scheduling order for the class certification motion and discovery. On May 28, 2008, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss portions of plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint alleging illegal hiring. The court found that plaintiffs had still not adequately stated an illegal hiring claim. As of August 24, 2008, the parties were still engaged in discovery.
Union Brings Suit After Swift Raids On December 13, the United Food & Commercial Workers Union filed a petition for habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of Swift employees detained during the raids. Plaintiffs' suit alleged that the Department of Homeland Security's conduct in carrying out the Swift plant raids violated the detained Plaintiffs' right to be free from arbitrary prolonged and indefinite detention. Plaintiffs also claimed that DHS violated their right to counsel by denying them access to counsel and any means to obtain counsel in a prompt and effective manner. The day the suit was filed, United States District Judge John Kane signed an Order to Show Cause why the Petitioners' Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. In the Order to Show Cause, the court ordered that the habeas applicants remain in custody and within the jurisdiction of the court until further order from the court. In response to petitioners' complaint, DHS stated that the "enforcement action" took place in a calm orderly fashion and that no Swift employees requested counsel. DHS also claimed that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, DHS asserted that the union did not have standing as next friend, and that the applicants and the Union did not exhaust administrative remedies. In addition, DHS stated that petitioners failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the government provided applicants with the requisite due process protections. On December 28, 2006, the court amended the Order to Show Cause to state that respondents could only remove employees from the United States at the request of employees "if said request was made without coercion, intimidation or harassment." On January 5, 2006, the court granted Petitioners' motion to amend the original petition and ordered the 252 individuals identified in an exhibit to Petitioner's brief to be added as named parties. Oral argument took place on January 12, 2007 and the court issued an order calling for a status report to be submitted on January 18, 2007. The judge also ordered that detainees who were not given bond hearings should have hearings within 48 hours, and that any petitioners in custody subject to a voluntary removal order who claim that the order was fraudulently or wrongfully obtained, should not be removed and could withdraw agreements to voluntary removal. The judge further ordered that counsel should meet and confer to determine the names of the detainees, where they are being held, and their status. During the January 22 hearing, Judge Kane concluded that respondents had sufficiently complied with court orders by correcting "constitutional deficiencies" in the due process given to the petitioners. The judge ordered the case to be closed.
Court Denies Preliminary Injunction to Stop Raids On November 28, 2006, Swift filed a complaint seeking judicial review of ICE's planned shut down of six of Swift's plants and the "mass removal" of suspected undocumented workers. The complaint alleges that ICE's plan "would have a direct impact on many legal workers, as well as suspected illegal workers, and would irreparably harm Swift by interfering with its legal business operations and by damaging its reputation." The complaint also outlines Swift's efforts to cooperate with ICE investigations and comply with the INA. The court held a closed hearing on December 6, 2006 to consider Swift's request for a preliminary injunction. On December 7, 2006, the court issued an order denying the preliminary injunction. The court concluded that it was unlikely that Swift would succeed on the merits of the case and that an injunction would impede ICE enforcement activities and would be contrary to the public interest. Upon the parties' stipulation, the court dismissed the case on December 14, 2006.
California
Citizens and Immigrants File FTCA Damages Claims Stemming from Raid at Factory in Van Nuys On April 24, 2008, 114 U.S. citizens and immigrants filed administrative damages claims alleging that ICE illegally detained and harassed them at a factory raid in Van Nuys, California on February 7, 2008. Each claimant seeks $500 in compensation. Under the under the Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA), if DHS denies the claims or fails to resolve them, the claimants may file an action in federal court. Lawyers Challenge DHS' Denial of Right to Counsel Following Raid at Factory in Van Nuys The National Lawyers Guild and a person arrested during an ICE raid filed a suit to challenge DHS' denial of access to counsel at immigration interviews following a raid at a factory in Van Nuys, California. According to the complaint, over 100 residents of Los Angeles County were arrested at the factory raid on February 7, 2008. Many of the individuals were released and scheduled for follow up interviews. A group of lawyers with the National Lawyers Guild offered free legal assistance to those who were arrested, but ICE barred the lawyers from being present at the interviews. The complaint alleges that the deprivation of counsel violates section 555(b) of Administrative Procedure Act, the INA and its regulation (8 C.F.R. § 292.5), and due process under the Fifth Amendment. The plaintiffs filed a motion for a TRO that would require DHS to allow lawyers to accompany their clients to the interviews. At a hearing on February 15, 2008, the court scheduled a hearing to consider a preliminary injunction for March 6, 2008 and defendants agreed that DHS would not conduct immigration interviews before the close of business on that date. Following the court's scheduling order, the parties stipulated to an extended briefing schedule and a hearing date on March 17, 2008; DHS agreed that it would not conduct interviews before March 19, 2008. On March 17, 2008, the court stayed the briefing and hearing schedule because the parties had represented that they reached a settlement agreement and would comply with the requirements of the agreement by April 10, 2008. On April 10, 2008, the parties filed a Stipulation to Dismiss, stating that they had complied with the requirements of the settlement agreement and had resolved their differences. On April 17, 2008, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Seven Year-Old Boy Sues ICE After Raid of his Home Plaintiff Kebin Reyes, a United States citizen, filed suit by and through his guardian ad litem and father, Noe Reyes, alleging violations of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, limitations set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (governing powers of immigration officers), and his Fifth Amendment due process rights. Reyes claims that these violations took place when ICE agents entered his home, took him into custody without a warrant for his arrest, and forced him to remain in custody for approximately 12 hours. Reyes seeks compensatory and punitive damages. He also is pursuing a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act and will amend his complaint to seek monetary damages from the government if his claim is denied. On April 26, 2007, the court ordered the action to be assigned to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Multi-Option Program governed by ADR Local Rule 3. On November 19, 2007, Reyes filed an amended complaint and on January 15, 2008, the government filed an answer. The court scheduled a settlement conference for March 7, 2008. On June 25, 2008, the court approved the parties' settlement agreement. As part of the settlement, the government will pay plaintiff $30,000. In addition, the agreement provides that if Kebin Reyes' father, Noe Reyes, has a final removal order entered against him, he will granted deferred status subject to biennial reviews of extension.
Connecticut
Day-Laborers File Suit after Connecticut Raid On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of day laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007. The amended complaint stated that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury’s mayor and its police department. Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims. Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees. On February 1, 2008, defendants filed two motions to dismiss. One motion moves to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and on the basis of the independent contractor exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. The other motion moves to dismiss the state law claims and a Bivens claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. On March 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss and moved to certify four questions of state constitutional law to the Connecticut Supreme Court. On May 19, 2008, defendants filed an answer to plaintiffs' amended complaint. The parties submitted a proposed case management plan on August 15, 2008.
Iowa
Postville Raid Detainees Challenge Detention; Seek Access to Counsel; and Ask Court to Stop Transfer On May 15, 2008, three detainees arrested in an ICE raid of a meat processing plant in Postville, Iowa, filed suit individually and on behalf of approximately 147 immigrant detainees. The petitioners alleged that ICE and individual government officials violated petitioners' due process rights to be free from unlawful detention and to consult with counsel after the raid. Petitioners also alleged violations of 8 U.S.C. § 3771, the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), because petitioners, if transferred outside of Iowa, would not be able to attend or be involved with any future federal or civil actions against their employer, Agriprocessors, Inc. Petitioners also claimed the government's actions violated the INA. Petitioners requested declaratory, habeas and injunctive relief. Specifically, petitioners requested that petitioners be released or given a reasonable amount of time to meet with counsel before any transfer and that transfer be enjoined until petitioners are given their full statutory and constitutional rights. Petitioners also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin respondents from transporting petitioners out of Iowa before petitioners 1) had bond redetermination hearings, 2) a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, or 3) a reasonable opportunity to consult with legal counsel concerning their rights in removal proceedings and their rights to pursue remedies against their employer. Petitioners and the government reached an agreement on May 17. In a letter to petitioners' attorneys, government counsel stated that ICE would not transfer individuals who were arrested for immigration violations out of state prior to their bond hearings. ICE also stated that it would not re-arrest individuals who were released on bond unless there was a material change in the individual's circumstances. After reaching the agreement, petitioners filed a motion to withdraw petitioners' motion for temporary restraining order.
Massachusetts
350 Employees Detained During Raid in New Bedford File Habeas Employees of Michael Bianco, Inc. detained during the March 6, 2006 raid in New Bedford, Massachusetts filed suit "to remedy violations of their constitutional and statutory rights." The consul of Guatemala filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief as Next Friend on behalf of Petitioners John/Jane Doe ##1-350. The petition alleged that approximately 100 children were stranded as a result of the raids and that many of the spouses and children of the petitioners are U.S. citizens or residing lawfully in the U.S. The petition further alleged that ICE is transporting the petitioners to remote locations in Texas, which is hampering their access to counsel. Petitioners moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and sought an expedited hearing. They asked the court to enjoin ICE from transporting them out of Massachusetts until they have been afforded a bond hearing and a removal hearing. Judge Sterns held an emergency hearing on March 9, 2007. He granted a TRO precluding ICE from transferring any detainees without prior notice to the court. The Judge also ordered petitioners' counsel to demonstrate why the Consul of Guatemala has standing to prosecute this action or substitute named individuals. In a March 21, 2007 order, the court granted petitioners' request for jurisdictional discovery and to take the deposition of Bruce Chadbourne, Field Office Director for Detention and Removal at the ICE Boston Field Office. On April 6, 2007, the Judge renewed petitioners' TRO and ordered respondents to provide petitioners' counsel with a list of all people detained outside of Massachusetts who have been scheduled for voluntary removal. The court also ordered respondents to allow petitioners' counsel access to detainees who agreed to voluntary removal and wish to speak to an attorney. Finally, the court ordered respondents to reply to petitioners' request for additional discovery by April 12, 2007. On May 7, 2007, the court granted respondents' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court found that petitioners' Amended Complaint "fails to link respondents' 'pattern and practice' to any constitutional or statutory violation that is ripe for review." The court indicated that the petitioners would be able to challenge any violations of their rights by seeking administrative and court of appeals review at the conclusion of removal proceedings. On May 24, 2007, petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal of the district court's dismissal. On November 27, 2007, the First Circuit affirmed the district court finding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) stripped the district court of jurisdiction over the petitioners' right to counsel and other procedural due process claims. However, the Court held that petitioners' substantive due process claims, which alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment right of parents to make decisions as to the care, custody and control of their children, were collateral to removal and outside the realm of § 1252(b)(9). The court also held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) did not strip the district court of jurisdiction over petitioners' substantive due process claims. Having found jurisdiction to examine these substantive due process claims, the Court held that petitioners' due process rights were not violated because petitioners did not show 1) that ICE's actions were so "extreme, egregious, or outrageously offensive" as to "shock the conscious" or 2) that petitioners' claims were encompassed by the due process right to the care, custody and control of their offspring. On January 11, 2008, petitioners filed a petition for rehearing. The court denied the petition on February 1, 2008.
Minnesota
Class Action Lawsuit Challenges ICE Raids of Plaintiffs’ Homes Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated their Fourth Amendment rights when ICE agents entered and searched private homes without warrants or plaintiffs’ consent, and detained and interrogated plaintiffs in their homes. In addition, plaintiffs claim that ICE agents violated their equal protection rights, due process rights, and their right to counsel. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to halt any enforcement actions against plaintiffs and to prevent the transfer of plaintiffs out of the court’s jurisdiction. They also are asking the court to enjoin the defendants from further warrantless searches. Furthermore, plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, damages and attorneys’ fees. Defendants responded to plaintiffs’ complaint by arguing that plaintiffs cannot show irreparable future harm and that INA § 1252(b) and (g) strip the court of jurisdiction over this case. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the court considered at a hearing on January 9, 2008. New Jersey
Damages Suit Alleges 4th and 5th Amendment Violations During Raids Ten individuals, including US citizens, LPRs and other noncitizens, are suing USICE employees and local police for 4th and 5th Amendment violations that they allege occurred during home raids in New Jersey. The plaintiffs bring their damages claims under Bivens (federal employee defendants) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New Jersey Constitution (local police defendants). The plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that the defendants entered their homes without valid warrants, consent, or other exigent circumstances or probable cause and that the defendants used excessive force, such as pointing guns at them and pushing down doors with their weapons. According to the complaint, the pre-dawn raids are part of ICE's "Operation Return to Sender," which supposedly is intended to arrest individuals with old deportation orders, but has extended far beyond its stated goals. FOIA Suit Seeks Information About ICE Raids in New Jersey Seton Hall School of Law and Evicao El Brasileira (d.b.a. Brazilian Voice) filed a FOIA suit to compel ICE and USCIS to release records relating to ICE's enforcement efforts in New Jersey. In particular, the plaintiffs are seeking records regarding a pattern and practice of pre-dawn, warrantless raids in New Jersey. The plaintiffs mailed their FOIA request on December 14, 2007. They requested expedited processing because the FOIA request involves an "urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal government activity" pursuant to 6 C.F.R. § 5.5(d). On January 15, 2008, DHS acknowledged receipt of the FOIA request and denied the request for expedited processing. The complaint alleges that the denial of expedited processing violates FOIA and its regulations. In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants have failed to timely respond within twenty days as required under FOIA and that DHS' failure to release the records requested violates FOIA. New Mexico
Parties Reach Settlement in Raid on Latinos in New Mexico A district court approved a settlement in a civil rights suit that stemmed from a series of immigration raids in Chaparral, New Mexico. The complaint, filed in October 2007, alleged that sheriff's department deputies carried out illegal raids of Latino homes in the town looking for undocumented immigrants in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments and state laws. According to the complaint, the county officials had implemented a policy of detaining and arresting Latinos who were then taken to be questioned by federal immigration agents. The operation that was the subject of the complaint took place on September 10, 2007, when defendants raided plaintiffs' homes without warrants to search for undocumented immigrants; stopped and interrogated Latinos in their cars or on the sidewalk without probable cause or reasonable suspicion; fabricated violations as a pretext for detaining or interrogating plaintiffs; and assaulted and battered plaintiffs who questioned defendants' actions. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and injunctive relief as well as actual, compensatory and punitive damages. As part of the settlement, the Otero Sheriff's Department agreed to revise its operating procedures to protect against immigration raids targeted at Latinos but denied that it did anything wrong. In addition, the county agreed to pay the plaintiffs monetary damages as well as attorney's fees and costs. The settlement hearing was closed because some of the plaintiffs were minors. New York
Class Action Alleges NY Raids Are Unconstitutional United States citizens, lawful permanent residents, and plaintiffs without legal status brought a class action following ICE raids of their residences in early 2007. Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights by 1) entering and searching plaintiffs’ homes without valid warrants or voluntary consent and in the absence of probable cause and exigent circumstances; and 2) by stopping, detaining, investigating, searching and effecting seizures in the absence of a reasonable articulable suspicion of unlawful activity or probable cause. Plaintiffs are suing defendants in both their official capacity and their individual capacities pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Names Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The proposed class would include "Persons who because they (1) are Latino, live in residences with Latinos or are or were associated with individual otherwise sought by ICE and (2) reside in the jurisdiction of the New York City regional office (or field office) of ICE, have been subjected to and/or are at imminent risk of home raises by the New York City regional office (or field office) of ICE." Defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss and a motion for a limited stay of discovery. Defendants argue that the court should dismiss the claims for injunctive relief because plaintiffs lack standing to obtain prospective relief and similarly have failed to state a claim because future harm is speculative. On January 29, 2008, the court issued a scheduling order for the Bivens claims. The parties are directed to complete discovery by the end of January 2009; the parties will file summary judgment motions in February 2009; and a trial will begin after June 1, 2009. Ohio
Immigrants Arrested in Ohio Raid File Suit Two plaintiffs, individually and as the representatives of 120 other unnamed individuals who were arrested at a Koch Foods, a chicken processing plant in Butler County, Ohio, filed an action in federal court. The petition alleges that actions by the local Sheriff and ICE during the arrest of the petitioners violated the Supremacy Clause, petitioners’ due process and equal protection rights, as well as petitioners’ right to full and equal benefit of the laws under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Petitioners also allege that the sheriff’s deputies exceeded their police powers under the Constitution. Petitioners request that the court compel respondents to adjudicate petitioners’ applications for bond, enjoin transfer of the detainees and stay the removal of the detainees. After the initial complaint, Koch Foods of Cincinnati, LLC filed a motion to intervene and a motion for a temporary restraining order which the government opposed. On October 19, 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion for voluntary dismissal, noting that the case may have become moot by the removal of some of the plaintiffs and the voluntary withdrawal of others. The court dismissed the case on October 26, 2007. | |
|
Additional Resources
| |
|
