A federal judge ruled in favor of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) over warrantless detentions, stating that such practices violated legal restrictions. The administration has vowed to appeal the decision.
Judge R. Brooke Jackson emphasized that the warrantless detentions contravened the requirement that individuals must be deemed a flight risk to justify detention. “Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in ‘racial profiling’ are disgusting, reckless, and categorically false,” he stated. “What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S.—NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity.”
Jackson noted that ICE agents had improperly ignored or applied the flight risk stipulation. “Plaintiffs are four individuals who had deep and longstanding ties to their communities, including parents, spouses, children, stable employment histories, and active participation in their local churches,” he said. “No reasonable officer could have reasonably concluded that these plaintiffs were likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained.”
One of the plaintiffs, 19-year-old Caroline Dias Goncalves, a University of Utah student, was detained after a routine traffic stop in Mesa, Arizona, in June. The deputy released her with only a warning but passed her information to ICE officials, who detained her a few miles down the road.
Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, expressed frustration with the ruling, stating it was a “brazen effort to hamstring the Trump administration from fulfilling the president’s mandate to deport the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens.” She added that “There are no ‘indiscriminate’ stops being made. DHS conducts enforcement operations in line with the U.S. Constitution and all applicable federal laws without fear, favor, or prejudice.”
Jackson ordered the government to refund the costs incurred by the four defendants. The judge denied a request from the plaintiffs to obtain training requirements at ICE but added that if the government did not comply with the order, the plaintiffs could renew the request. “The Supreme Court recently vindicated us on this question elsewhere, and we look forward to further vindication in this case as well,” McLaughlin concluded.
