ACLU Immigrant Class Action over Child Separations Moves Forward

The ACLU can continue with its class action lawsuit alleging that the government has wrongfully separated children from their immigrating families, after a California federal judge refused a motion to dismiss the case.

U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw found that the American Civil Liberties Union had sufficiently supported their claims under due process rights.

The ACLU immigration class action alleges that the Trump administration forcibly separates asylum seekers from their children. The class action lawsuit further claims that the inhumane practices occur while immigrant parents are fighting deportation and have not been found to be unfit parents.

“These allegations sufficiently describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child, and is emblematic of the ‘exercise of power without any reasonable justification in the service of an otherwise legitimate governmental objective,’” Judge Sabraw stated in his decision. “Such conduct, if true, as it is assumed to be on the present motion, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency.”

Due process claims in the ACLU immigrant complaint were brought under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which the court found applicable to the plaintiffs’ situations. The Fifth Amendment is legally recognized to protect the right to family integrity and applies to both citizens and noncitizens.

“At a minimum, the facts alleged are sufficient to show the government conduct at issue ‘shocks the conscience’ and violates Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to family integrity,” Judge Sabraw states.

Although Judge Sabraw approved the argument that the alleged separation of families violates due process rights, he dismissed immigrant claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and U.S. asylum statute.

The court also found that plaintiffs in the ACLU immigrant class action had not sufficiently proven that the government’s actions stem from a “final agency action” under the APA. Judge Sabraw further determined that the plaintiffs’ had not proven their private right of action under the U.S. asylum statute.

Defendants in the ACLU immigrant suit sought to dismiss the claims of plaintiff “Ms. L,” arguing that she had been reunited with her daughter and therefore her claims were moot. However, Judge Sabraw found that the reunion of mother and daughter does not invalidate Ms. L’s legal claims, stating that it is possible authorities released her only as a result of the pending ACLU immigrant class action litigation.

Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and counsel for plaintiffs, expressed a positive outlook following the court’s decision.

“In the most forceful language, the court rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the Constitution permits it to engage in the inhumane practice of tearing little children away from their parents,” Gelernt said in a statement.

The ACLU is represented in-house by Lee Gelernt, Judy Rabinovitz, Anand Balakrishnan, Spencer E. Amdur and Baris Vakili.

The ACLU Immigrant Child Separation Class Action Lawsuit is Ms. L, et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., Case No. 3:18-cv-00428, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.