US courts now a high-risk venue for immigrants
Protestes waving Mexican and US flags face off with police during a protest in downtown Los Angeles, on June 9. PHOTO: AFP
HOUSTON - Minutes after an immigration judge rejected his asylum case earlier this week, Oscar Gato Sanchez was arrested as he exited a federal courthouse in Houston.
'I'm a Cuban citizen unjustly arrested,' he told AFP as plainclothes officers led him away on June 9.
His aunt Ms Olaidys Sanchez, a 54-year-old legal resident of the United States, sobbed against a nearby wall.
Her nephew was placed in an unmarked gray vehicle that took off with sirens blaring, heading towards an immigrant detention center in Conroe, about 80 kilometers north of Houston, according to official documents.
Gato Sanchez is now among dozens of migrants detained there, awaiting deportation.
In recent weeks, there has been an uptick of immigration enforcement operations at courthouses, as thousands of migrants pursue the asylum process by attending hearings.
Agents from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enter the court facilities unidentified, migrant advocates say, and those who do wear badges often cover their faces.
Since President Donald Trump returned to power in January, ICE has been authorised to conduct enforcement activities in courts.
AFP journalists have also witnessed arrests at courthouses in New York.
In late May, US media published footage from a court in San Antonio, Texas, where a woman who had just been arrested cried out to ask anyone in earshot to pick up her children from school.
Meanwhile, a young boy tried to comfort his mother as they were loaded into a vehicle to be taken away.
Gato Sanchez entered the United States in December 2023. Like many other migrants, he turned himself in to authorities after arriving and was freed on condition that he appear in court at a later date.
He filed an aslyum petition in May 2024 and went on Monday to the Houston court, where a date was to be set for a hearing on his case.
Instead, a judge rejected the petition, after a public prosecutor said it was 'no longer in the best interest of the government,' said Ms Bianca Santorini, a lawyer who began representing Sanchez immediately after his arrest.
'If you're here without legal status, as soon as your case gets dismissed, the case doesn't exist anymore, the asylum application doesn't exist anymore,' she told AFP.
'So as soon as he walks out, he's here with nothing pending,' and it's at that vulnerable moment that the arrest occurs, she added.
Ms Santorini believes ICE now has informants inside the courtroom.
'They're not walking to every person who walks out of court and saying 'let me see your paperwork, let me see what happened.' They already know when people walk out of court what happened,' she said.
Even though he had an aslum applicaiton pending, Gato Sanchez will not get his day in court, despite the Constitution guaranteeing such a right, she added.
'It doesn't guarantee you'll win. It doesn't guarantee you get to stay, but it guarantees you have a day in court. Give me the day in court,' she said.
The majority of immigrants present themselves in court in good faith, said Mr Cesar Espinosa, executive director of the immigrant-rights organisation FIEL.
'Most of these people are following some sort of law, whether it's asylum law or even showing up to court. They're here trying to do the right thing, to try to see if they can fight their case,' he said.
In Los Angeles, an ICE operation targeting undocumented workers outside a home improvement store set off demonstrations and clashes that resulted in Mr Trump's controversial decision to send in the US National Guard and Marines.
Mr Espinosa said some Americans had welcomed the anti-immigrant raids and complained about the people being detained.
'But when they're serving us, when they are being the backbone of our economy, nobody complains,' he said. AFP
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
42 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, U.S., May 20, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo FILE PHOTO: A ball lies stuck on the fencing at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility, where Venezuelans at the center of a Supreme Court ruling on deportation are held, in Anson, Texas, U.S. April 22, 2025. REUTERS/Daniel Cole/File Photo WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
42 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with Democratic Republic of the Congo's Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner and Rwanda's Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington D.C., June 27, 2025. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno/File Photo Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A HOST OF POLICIES That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. STATES CHALLENGE DIRECTIVE The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Japan's justice system under the spotlight over botched cases, fabricated evidence
Former Japanese boxer Iwao Hakamada, who was sentenced to hang in 1968 and released in 2014, and his sister Hideko (right) in Tokyo, on Nov 25, 2019. PHOTO: AFP – Japan's criminal justice system is under intense scrutiny after the courts have, within months, twice accused law enforcement officials of 'fabricating evidence' in their zealous pursuit of convictions. The damning indictments in two cases – one involving murder, the other economic security – expose flaws in a system that prides itself on a 99.8 per cent conviction rate. On Oct 8, 2024, the nearly six-decade ordeal of former boxer Iwao Hakamada finally concluded when prosecutors decided not to appeal a retrial verdict that had exonerated him of four murders in 1966. Mr Hakamada, now 89, was the world's longest-serving death row inmate. Sentenced to hang in 1968, a verdict upheld by the Supreme Court in 1980, his fight for a retrial finally led to his release on bail in 2014 and acquittal a decade later. More recently, on June 11, a High Court verdict was finalised to award Yokohama-based spray-drying equipment maker Ohkawara Kakohki 166 million yen (S$1.47 million) in damages. The court had heard a shocking admission from a police officer: The entire case was fabricated and driven by the 'personal greed' of his superiors eyeing promotions. The company, with fewer than 90 employees, makes equipment used for producing powdered products such as instant soup and pharmaceuticals. In March 2020, three senior executives including president Masaaki Ohkawara, now 76, and ex-director Junji Shimada, now 72, were arrested on suspicions that their equipment could be used to make biological weapons. They were accused of breaching export control laws by selling to countries such as China without appropriate permits. The trio were held for 332 days, with eight bail requests denied until February 2021. Tragically, bail came too late for former adviser Shizuo Aishima, who died of stomach cancer at 72 while in remand after failing to get proper medical attention. Prosecutors, who argued against granting bail as it could lead to the destruction of evidence, would eventually drop charges in July 2021, prompting the company to sue for damages . No apology was offered for four years, until prosecutors decided not to appeal the High Court judgment. In recent weeks, Japan's Justice Minister Keisuke Suzuki expressed contrition on June 24 for 'causing great suffering and hardship', while Tokyo police and prosecutors visited the company on June 20, bowing in remorse. National Police Agency commissioner-general Yoshinobu Kusunoki called the situation 'extremely regrettable', acknowledging that 'public trust in the police has been undermined'. Global human rights watchdogs have long criticised Japan for 'hostage justice', characterised by prolonged detention, forced confessions, and a culture that effectively assumes suspects are guilty until proven innocent. Suspects can be held for up to 23 days upon arrest without access to a lawyer, a duration far longer than most other countries. This can be extended by court order, or if suspects are 're-arrested' on different charges. During this time, the police relentlessly pursue confessions and, reportedly, prosecutors lean on admissions of guilt rather than physical evidence in as many as nine out of 10 cases in deciding whether to go to trial. 'In Japan, when a prosecutor files an indictment, it is considered a formal request for trial, so prosecutors are said to only indict cases where they are sure to find a guilty verdict,' Kyushu University criminologist Koji Tabuchi told The Straits Times. 'This can be considered an advantage in terms of efficiency,' he said. 'But on the other hand, it can also be a disadvantage in that prosecutors tend to be very insistent on finding a guilty verdict after indictment.' The cases against Mr Hakamada and Ohkawara Kakohki expose this at-all-cost pursuit of convictions. In Mr Hakamada's case, Shizuoka District Court presiding judge Koshi Kunii ruled in the retrial that investigators tampered with evidence by smearing blood on clothing. As for Ohkawara Kakohki, Tokyo High Court presiding judge Teruyoshi Ota in the trial found the entire investigation illegal and built on 'fundamental flaws'. During the trial, an assistant police inspector testified that the probe proceeded 'without objective facts' and was based on the 'personal greed of investigators who were thinking about promotions'. The case came against the backdrop of a heightened focus on economic security, with then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe beefing up export control measures on sensitive materials. The court found that, despite repeated denials, the police and prosecutors distorted evidence and induced the suspects to write statements that could be twisted to sound like admissions of guilt. 'I want to believe that investigative agencies would not fabricate evidence or cases in order to frame innocent persons,' Professor Tabuchi said. 'But it does seem possible that evidence can get destroyed or concealed as they proceed on the basis that the suspect is guilty.' This amounts to more than a miscarriage of justice; at the human level, personal liberties are severely violated . Some, like Mr Aishima, never get to taste freedom again. Others, like Mr Hakamada, suffer mental health trauma from prolonged solitary confinement and the constant fear of execution. 'It is important for victims of wrongful convictions to have an easy-to-use retrial system,' Prof Tabuchi said, noting that Japan's archaic Criminal Procedure Code, enacted in 1948, has never been revised. The current law states that retrials are granted only if there is 'clear evidence' to prove the innocence of the accused – but does not require prosecutors to disclose the evidence that they have. For Mr Hakamada, it had taken 42 years for the courts to reopen the trial that led to his acquittal – a prolonged duration that has prompted a government review of the retrial system. But Prof Tabuchi also noted there is a strong prevailing opinion that Japan's practices do not constitute 'hostage justice' or violate human rights. 'For a long time, we have struggled against an invisible power,' Mr Hakamada's sister Hideko, 92, said on May 30. 'My brother was arrested at the age of 30 and his whole life has been ruined. What was the government doing this whole time?' THREE ONGOING HIGH-PROFILE CASES Concealment of evidence The Nagoya High Court will deliver its judgment on July 18 for the case against Shoshi Maekawa, 59, who has been granted a retrial over the brutal murder of a junior high school girl in 1986. His defence team sought a retrial despite Mr Maekawa having completed a seven-year prison sentence from 1997 to 2004. The hearing was reopened in 2022 after doubts were raised over key testimonies that the defence says were coerced or fabricated, with the judge assailing the prosecution for 'dishonest and sinful misconduct'. Mr Maekawa insists that he had never met the girl, and the police do not have any concrete evidence that pins him to the crime scene. During the retrial, prosecutors made available for the first time 287 pieces of evidence that defence lawyers say prove his innocence. Hostage justice Tsuguhiko Kadokawa, 81, the former chairman of publishing giant Kadokawa, is suing the government for 220 million yen in damages over 'hostage justice'. The octogenarian was arrested and detained for 226 days on bribery charges pertaining to a scandal related to the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2021. He was released on bail in April 2023. Kadokawa pleads innocent in the criminal case that is still before the courts. In the civil lawsuit, he argues that his constitutional rights were violated given his prolonged detention was enforced despite a scheduled surgery he had for chronic heart problems. He has also filed a complaint with the United Nations Human Rights Committee. Derogatory language and insults Mr Yamato Eguchi, 38, a former lawyer, was arrested in 2018 on suspicions of harbouring a criminal and instigating him to lie to law enforcement officials. But he chose to exercise his right to remain silent during his 250-day detention, with the police accusing him of being 'just a child', 'annoying', 'lacking in social skills' and 'a habitual liar' during interrogation. He was given a suspended two-year prison sentence in 2020 . He sued for damages in March 2022, arguing mental distress and a violation of his rights as a suspect to remain silent after he was interrogated for more than 56 hours over 21 days . The District Court granted him 1.1 million yen in damages in July 2024, with the judge finding that the investigators' repeated insults that were unrelated to the case formed a pressure tactic that violated his rights to remain silent. Mr Eguchi appealed, unsatisfied that the judge had not cited the length of interrogation as a psychological tactic in the verdict. The High Court then upheld the 1.1 million yen in damages in February 2025, with the judge finding that the prosecutors had unfairly impugned Mr Eguchi's character. But the High Court did not find any violation of his rights to remain silent, and Mr Eguchi is again appealing the verdict with the case to be brought before the Supreme Court. Walter Sim is Japan correspondent at The Straits Times. Based in Tokyo, he writes about political, economic and socio-cultural issues. Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
