Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Newmexican

Thread: L.A. federal judge rules that a key tool in Trump's immigration crackdown effort is i

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006

    L.A. federal judge rules that a key tool in Trump's immigration crackdown effort is i

    If this was previously posted please let me know and I will merge the threads.

    L.A. federal judge rules that a key tool in Trump's immigration crackdown effort is illegal

    FEB 09, 2018 | 4:40 PM

    A federal judge in Los Angeles has ruled that police departments violate the Constitution if they detain inmates at the request of immigration agents, marking the latest legal setback for the Trump administration's plans to identify and deport immigrants in the country illegally.

    In his order issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte Jr. found that a now-defunct policy of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department violated the constitutional rights of inmates who were kept in custody at the behest of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

    Birotte's strongly worded order bolstered similar previous court rulings, which found police cannot legally honor such detainer requests from ICE.

    "The LASD officers have no authority to arrest individuals for civil immigration offenses, and thus, detaining individuals beyond their date for release violated the individuals' Fourth Amendment rights," Birotte wrote.

    The Sheriff's Department has not delayed releasing inmates on ICE's behalf since 2014 and none of California's 58 sheriffs are willing to fulfill the ICE requests. Police in other parts of the country, however, continue to hold inmates to allow ICE agents time to take them into federal custody for possible deportation. Judges elsewhere could look to this week's decision for guidance when deciding future cases.

    In the 48-page ruling, Birotte found other old ICE and Sheriff's Department policies had run afoul of the Constitution as well.

    Though many of the issues raised in the case have been addressed in previous cases or don't apply to new ICE and Sheriff's Department policies, Birotte's order bars either agency from returning to old practices and will add to the growing set of cases impeding Trump's plans to aggressively ramp up the number of deportations.

    As part of the administration's plans, ICE officials have increased the number of detainer requests the agency issues to local police departments. And Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions has tried to ratchet up pressure on local law enforcement agencies across the country that have refused to honor the detainer requests and cooperate with ICE in other ways.

    "This is a significant ruling, especially considering the national debate around immigration and the efforts of the Trump administration to strong-arm localities to honor immigration detainers," said Jennie Pasquarella, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, one of several groups involved in the lawsuit. "Here is yet another court saying that any police department that does go along with detainer requests can be held liable."

    Under Birotte's order, an estimated 10,000 to 12,000 people who were improperly held in L.A. County jails on ICE detainers between 2010 and 2014 may be entitled to monetary awards, said Pasquarella.

    Along with his finding that local police cannot legally hold people in custody at ICE's request, Birrotte ruled on other aspects of the detainer process.

    He ruled, for example, that ICE was wrong to issue detainers for people who were born overseas but were not found in the massive databases federal agents rely on when determining a person's immigration status. ICE officials said in court filings that the agency stopped the practice in June 2015, although Pasquarella said she doubts the agency has changed its ways.

    And an ICE practice of issuing detainers for people without a warrant when there was no evidence that the subject was a flight risk was illegal, the judge ruled.

    Under the terms of the lawsuit, the ruling voids any pending detainer requests that were issued by ICE officials in Southern California. That designation is important since ICE officers working out of a facility in Orange County issue detainer requests to police departments in dozens of states around the country.

    Birotte also concluded that the Sheriff's Department practice of booking people with ICE detainers into jail even if their bail had been set at less than $25,000 was improper, Birotte said. Typically, the department did not put someone with bail under that amount behind bars. The department said the policy was changed in 2014.

    "For years, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ... callously denied immigrants constitutional protections that universally apply to all other jail detainees — unjustifiably holding them without cause as prisoners," said Lindsay Battles, one of the attorneys involved in the case. "This decision holds law enforcement agencies accountable for their anti-immigrant abuse of their authority."

    ICE and sheriff's officials declined to comment, citing the ongoing lawsuit.

    The order came in a class-action lawsuit that challenges several aspects of detainer requests — electronic alerts that ICE officers commonly issue when a local police department has custody of someone ICE believes should be deported. The notices, among other things, ask police to keep targeted inmates beyond when they would otherwise be released in order to give ICE agents time to take custody of them.

    The lawsuit, which combined two separate cases, is being waged by several groups and law firms and has been winding its way through the court since 2012. One of the original cases was filed by U.S. citizens who were in Los Angeles County jails when ICE wrongly issued detainers for them. The other was brought by immigrants challenging the Sheriff's Department's cooperation with ICE.

    Finding that some issues needed to be hashed out in front of a jury, Birotte did not rule on all aspects of the case.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  2. #2
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    André Birotte Jr.[1] (born 1966) is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California and previously served as United States Attorney for the Central District of California. On July 22, 2014, the United States Senate unanimously confirmed Birotte to serve as a district judge in Los Angeles after being nominated by President Barack Obama.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Heart of Dixie
    A Coalition of All Democratic Forces, Part III: What if Trump Wins?
    The point is that there is no reason at this stage to imagine that the legislature will be a viable venue for push-back, which is a shame considering the powerful set of tools at its disposal. The Coalition of All Democratic Forces should certainly see what kind of use it might make of the legislature, but realistically, we should probably expect that the coalition’s job in Congress will be to prevent Trump from passing anti-democratic legislation. That is, the task in Congress will be a negative one of denying Trump the use of the Article I powers, not the positive one of the coalition’s using them itself.

    That leaves the tool that will certainly be available: the courts. The courts have a few obvious advantages, starting with hundreds of independent judges of both parties whom Trump cannot remove from office and who don’t have to face his supporters in forthcoming elections.

    This tool is not a cure-all by any means. Much of what the President does, after all, is not justiciable, particularly the president’s overseas activities. Trump as president would be able to do a huge amount of damage that no amount of litigation would be able to restrain—probably including certain versions of his utterly noxious Muslim ban. So I don’t want to suggest that what I’m about to propose can “tyrant-proof” the presidency. As I have argued before, the only way to tyrant-proof the presidency is to not elect tyrants as president.

    That said, litigation can restrain certain things, and a great deal of what Trump proposes to do will be ripe for legal challenge, particularly as his actions impact individuals who will have standing to sue or the right to defend themselves. As Trump attempts to use the powers of the presidency to lash out at people or groups, the actions he takes will generally give rise to litigation opportunities.
    artist likes this.
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

  4. #4
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    It's tragic and funny at the same time that these Federal Judges have an issue with some legal technicality of our law enforcement when all they're trying to do is stop ALL THE LETHAL AND DESTRUCTIVE ILLEGALITY of illegal immigration.

    There's an ole saying, fight fire with fire and don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Are federal judges really as stupid as they act??!!
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at

Similar Threads

  1. Immigration detainees entitled to bond hearings, federal judge rules
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2013, 08:00 PM
  2. Federal Judge Rules that ICE Agents have Standing in Lawsuit Against Federal Governme
    By HAPPY2BME in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-26-2013, 01:00 AM
  3. Federal judge rules bloggers are not journalist
    By JohnDoe2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-08-2011, 08:27 PM
  4. Federal judge rules on Arizona's immigration law
    By JohnDoe2 in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-28-2010, 03:53 PM
  5. Effort to Skirt Contracting Rules Unnerves Federal Workers
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 06:09 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts