Immigrant Rights Clinic files amicus brief supporting Fourth Amendment challenge to immigration detainers
The Immigrant Rights Clinic has submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a case challenging the detention by local law enforcement of individuals suspected of immigration violations at the request of federal authorities.
The brief was filed in support of the plaintiffs in Gonzalez et al. v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., a class-action lawsuit brought by U.S. citizens who claim the use of “immigration detainers” violates the Fourth Amendment due to the lack of procedural protections. The clinic submitted the brief at the request of civil rights organizations on behalf of groups that advocate for and provide legal services for indigent clients.
“Immigration detainers ask local law enforcement officers to hold people based on federal civil charges,” said Clinical Professor Kate Evans, who directs the clinic. “Unlike with criminal arrests, the accuracy and reliability of these requests are not reviewed by an independent and neutral fact-finder. As a result, people like Mr. Gonzalez — a U.S. citizen — are wrongfully detained in local jails by local officials. Because Latino and Black men are overrepresented in local jails, detainers amplify racial disparities by attaching immigration detention to criminal custody.”
Working with attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis, spring-semester clinic students Amanda Ng ’20 and Christine Mullen ’21 and summer intern Zachary Pollack JD/LLM ’22 co-wrote the brief and developed the brief’s lengthy appendix, which outlines statutes governing civil confinement in all 50 states for reasons such as child endangerment, mental illness, or substance abuse. Their research showed that such statutes provide safeguards that are not granted with immigration detainers.
“The goal was to show that every state requires significant procedural protections when a person is civilly deprived of their liberty,” said Mullen. “This strongly supported the claim of Mr. Gonzalez and the class of people he represents that their arrests at the request of immigration officials for alleged civil immigration violations — which lack the kind of prompt and neutral review provided in all of the state laws we documented — violate the Fourth Amendment.”
Ng said the project felt particularly significant in light of the nationwide demonstrations against police brutality and racial injustice.
“Speaking personally, contributing to this amicus brief was especially meaningful in large part because it gave me an outlet while our country is reckoning with the ways our law enforcement systems are inherently designed to control, hold, and harm Black, Brown, and immigrant communities,” she said. “Working on this research and listening in on calls with co-counsel was a really timely reminder that there are role models in this field and legal work worth pursuing.”
Added Pollack: “As part of a collaborative team including NGOs, a law firm, and Duke Law, I was able to see an idea develop into a final product. I am proud of my role and, hopefully, things go well in the Ninth circuit and these arrests are held to the appropriate constitutional standard.”