Mother arrested at LA court alongside six-year-old son with cancer sues Ice
A Honduran woman who sought asylum in the US is suing the Trump administration after immigration agents arrested her and her children, including her six-year-old son who was diagnosed with leukemia, at a Los Angeles immigration court.
The woman, identified as 'Ms Z' in the lawsuit, and her nine-year-old daughter and six-year-old son have been in custody at a Texas detention facility for several weeks following their arrest. The government has placed them in expedited removal proceedings.
Lawyers for the family say they were detained as part of the administration's 'nationwide campaign to summarily arrest law-abiding non-citizens when they attend their immigration court hearings'. Such arrests that are occurring at 'rates never before seen in the United States', according to the lawsuit filed this week. The lawsuit alleges the family is being detained in violation of their constitutional rights.
The family applied to come to the US last year after fleeting their home country, where they faced 'imminent, menacing death threats'. They followed the 'lawful process', were paroled and went to live with the woman's mother, according to court documents provided by the Texas Civil Rights Project.
The boy had been diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia at the age of three and underwent two years of successful treatment. While no more leukemia cells were found in his blood, his mother knew he would need regular monitoring and medical care and took him to multiple appointments once they settled in the US, according to the suit.
After attending a court hearing in Los Angeles last month, where their case was suddenly dismissed, federal agents dressed as civilians arrested the family 'without any prior notice or warning' as they left the courtroom.
They were not permitted to leave or make calls, the suit stated. The six-year-old, after seeing an agents gun, urinated on himself in fear and was left in the wet clothing for hours, according to the suit.
The family has been held at a detention center in Dilley, Texas, since their arrest. The six-year-old missed a medical appointment related to his diagnosis earlier this month because of the family's incarceration.
Detention has highly detrimental effects on the physical and mental health of children, potentially causing 'serious psychological trauma', and research has found that children at the Dilley facility suffer from 'inadequate medical care', according to the suit.
The six-year-old has 'lost his appetite, experienced easy bruising and occasional bone pain, and looks pale, all of which are recognized as symptoms of leukemia,' the suit states, and his mother fears he is not receiving necessary medical care. Both children cry every night.
DHS official Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to the Guardian that the boy has received regular treatment while in custody.
'First of all, at no time during detention is a detained individual denied emergency care,' said McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary. 'Fortunately, the minor child in question has not undergone chemotherapy in over a year, and has been seen regularly by medical personnel since arriving at the Dilley facility.'
'The implication that Ice would deny a child the medical care they need is flatly FALSE, and it is an insult to the men and women of federal law enforcement. Ice ALWAYS prioritizes the health, safety, and wellbeing of all detainees in its care.'
Lawyers are requesting the family's immediate release for medical treatment, and say that they are not a flight risk and have 'done everything the government asked of them'.
'The government is not detaining petitioners to serve its legitimate interests in protecting against danger or flight risk,' the court filing states. 'Instead, the government is detaining this family, along with countless others swept up in its courthouse arrests, for the illegitimate reason that they were easy to locate because they were where DHS told them to be to pursue humanitarian relief.'
The family is suing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice), the Department of Justice (DoJ) as well as the warden of the detention center, Ice's acting director, the homeland security secretary, and the attorney general, among others.
McLaughlin said the family 'had chosen to appeal their case – which had already been thrown out by an immigration judge – and will remain in Ice custody until it is resolved'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Bear spotted making friends with coyote in California
Showing now | News 00:41 This is the unexpected moment a bear and a coyote come face-to-face - and end up making friends. Footage shared by Altadena Sheriff's Station, in Los Angeles on Tuesday (24 June) shows the unlikely pair encountering each other underneath a bush at night. The pair stare at each other for a few moments, before nuzzling their noses on the other and standing side by side for a few more seconds. The police station shared the sweet interaction online with the caption: When you and your coworker finally take that lunch break walk you've been talking about all week.'
Sky News
4 hours ago
- Sky News
Why critics believe Trump's big win in Supreme Court is 'terrifying step towards authoritarianism'
As the president himself said, this was a "giant" of a decision - a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news. The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump. By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president. Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges. The federal judges, branded "radical leftist lunatics" by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration. They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions - thus blocking the Trump administration's policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy frankly," the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room. "Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," he said. In simple terms, this ruling, from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges, frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts. "This is such a big day…," the president said. "It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power. "And it's really going to be... a very monumental decision." The country's most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court". In a statement, Schumer wrote: "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution - it's defacing it. "This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy." 2:57 Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government - the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts). They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful. This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship - that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here. A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deferred its judgement on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges. The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: "As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab - but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. "Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are... (wait for it)... the district courts." Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling. Writing for the majority, she said: "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply 'class action' - to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation. There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers. The ruling ends a giddy week for the president. 0:51 Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire. By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands. At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire "within a week" in Gaza.
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Supreme Court birthright ruling leaves migrant groups shocked, scared
The measure is not retroactive, meaning it would only apply to babies born after it takes effect, if allowed by the courts. Among those suing to stop Trump's plan is "Liza," a Texas-based Russian-born graduate student who gave birth after the president issued his executive order. Liza, who has been granted anonymity by the federal courts in recognition of her immigration status, said she fears going to the Russian embassy to register their child's birth because her husband has applied for asylum in the United States after fleeing their homeland. Liza's baby is currently protected from losing U.S. citizenship due to a preliminary injunction issued by a lower court, which will now consider the merit's of Trump's plan. Liza said she was "sick with worry" that the courts would rule before her baby was born. "Thankfully our baby was born health and happy ... we remain worried even now that one day the government would one day take away our baby's citizenship," she said during a press conference following the June 27 Supreme Court ruling. "I'm sad about what today's decision means for all the parents whose children are not protected by the current preliminary injunction and who are now even more scared about their children's future." SCOTUS ruling on birthright citizenship changes nothing immediately In Denver, the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition was hurriedly trying to reassure pregnant women that the court's decision in the Trump v. CASA Inc. case changes nothing immediately. "It is really scary for people who are having children right now ... that someone would want to take away this fundamental right," said spokeswoman Raquel Lane-Arellano. "I don't see a reality where birthright citizenship gets revoked, (but) for people watching the news, that might not be clear." Birthright citizenship - explicitly granted by the 14th Amendment - says that virtually anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. The only current exception is children of foreign diplomats, a position the Supreme Court has previously upheld. But the possibility that Trump could end the right granted by the 14th Amendment has raised alarm among groups that had hoped the Supreme Court would outright block his initiative. The Supreme Court's decision sets the stage for lower courts to consider the president's plan over the next month. "Today is a sad day for all of those who care about the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional rights of children born in the United States each and every day," said Conchita Cruz, the co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project. "It is a confusing moment for immigrant families as they see the news and are not necessarily sure what it means or how it could it impact them." What does ending birthright citizenship mean Trump in one of his first actions upon returning to the White House issued an executive order declaring that children born to parents visiting on tourist, student or work visas, or who are illegally present, are not automatically citizens. His order would not affect children born to U.S. citizens or people with legal permanent residency. Migrant-rights groups had hoped the Supreme Court would have reaffirmed its previous ruling in favor of birthright citizenship, and were shocked when the court instead ordered lower courts to consider the legal merits of the president's plan. If ended, the policy could affect about 255,000 babies born in the United States annually, according to the Migration Policy Institute. Experts warn that Trump's order could create "stateless" people who are born in the United States but who have no connection to the birth country of their own parents. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin said he was glad that the High Court recognized that nationwide judicial orders can be appropriate to protect plaintiffs from harm and vowed to continue to fight for birthright citizenship on its merits. "We welcome the opportunity to continue making our case before the district court particularly because the Executive Order will not take immediate effect, to show that the President's approach to birthright citizenship is a recipe for chaos on the ground and harm to the States," Platkin said on X. "We are confident that his flagrantly unconstitutional order will remain enjoined by the courts." Trump ran for office on a platform of strict immigration control, and repeatedly said he would attempt to revoke birthright citizenship. Many countries have ended their birthright citizenship, including the United Kingdom and most of Europe. Trump has promised to deport 1 million people annually, and ending birthright citizenship would make it easier for federal officials to remove entire families. Historically, parents of U.S. citizen babies have often been allowed to remain in the country even if they entered illegally themselves.
