logo
Migrant family sues over US detention in what may be first challenge to courthouse arrests involving kids

Migrant family sues over US detention in what may be first challenge to courthouse arrests involving kids

CNNa day ago

A mother and her two young kids are fighting for their release from a Texas immigration detention center in what is believed to be the first lawsuit involving children challenging the Trump administration's policy on immigrant arrests at courthouses.
The lawsuit filed Tuesday argues that the family's arrests after fleeing Honduras and entering the US legally using a Biden-era appointment app violate their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure and their Fifth Amendment right to due process.
'The big picture is that the executive branch cannot seize people, arrest people, detain people indefinitely when they are complying with exactly what our government has required of them,' said Columbia Law School professor Elora Mukherjee, one of the lawyers representing the family.
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment.
Starting in May, the country has seen large-scale arrests in which asylum-seekers appearing at routine court hearings have been arrested outside courtrooms as part of the White House's mass deportation effort. In many cases, a judge will grant a government lawyer's request to dismiss deportation proceedings and then US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will arrest the person and place them on 'expedited removal,' a fast track to deportation.
Mukherjee said this is the first lawsuit filed on behalf of children to challenge the ICE courthouse arrest policy. The government has until July 1 to respond.
There have been other similar lawsuits, including in New York, where a federal judge ruled earlier this month that federal immigration authorities can't make civil arrests at the state's courthouses or arrest anyone going there for a proceeding.
The Texas lawsuit was filed using initials for the children and 'Ms. Z' for the mother. Their identities have not been released because of concerns for their safety.
For weeks in the Dilley Immigration Processing Center, the mother has watched her 6-year-old son's health decline, Mukherjee said. He recently underwent chemotherapy treatment for leukemia and because of his arrest missed his check-in doctor's appointment, Mukherjee said.
'He's easily bruising. He has bone pain. He looks pale,' Mukherjee said, adding that he has also lost his appetite. 'His mom is terrified that these are symptoms that his leukemia situation might be deteriorating.'
The mother, son and 9-year-old daughter fled Honduras in October 2024 due to death threats, according to the lawsuit. They entered the US using the CBP One app and were paroled into the country by the Department of Homeland Security, which determined they didn't pose a danger to the community, Mukherjee said. They were told to appear at a Los Angeles immigration court May 29.
President Donald Trump ended CBP One for new entrants on his first day in office after more than 900,000 people had been allowed in the country using the app since it was expanded to include migrants in January 2023.
During the family's hearing, the mother tried to tell the judge that they wished to continue their cases for asylum, Mukherjee said. Homeland Security moved to dismiss their cases, and the judge immediately granted that motion.
When they stepped out of the courtroom, they found men in civilian clothing believed to be ICE agents who arrested the family, Mukherjee said. They spent about 11 hours at an immigrant processing center in Los Angeles and were each only given an apple, a small packet of cookies, a juice box and water.
At one point, an officer near the boy lifted his shirt, revealing his gun. The boy urinated on himself and was left in wet clothing until the next morning, Mukherjee said.
They were later taken to the processing center, where they have been held ever since.
'The family is suffering in this immigration detention center,' she said. 'The kids are crying every night. They're praying to God for their release from this detention center.'
Their lawyers have filed an appeal of the immigration judge's May decision, but they're at risk of being deported within days because the government says they are subjected to expedited removal, Mukherjee said.
The arrests of the family were illegal and unjustified, said Kate Gibson Kumar, an attorney for the Texas Civil Rights project who is also representing the family.
'The essential question in our case is, when you have these families who are doing everything right, especially with young children, should there be some protection there?' Gibson Kumar said. 'We say 'yes.''

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How to protect yourself from ticks year-round
How to protect yourself from ticks year-round

Washington Post

time28 minutes ago

  • Washington Post

How to protect yourself from ticks year-round

WASHINGTON — Ticks can be active in any season and it's important to check for and remove the bloodsuckers as quickly as possible — especially after you've been outside hiking, gardening or enjoying nature. 'Humans are outside more in summer so we hear about more tick infections ,' said Sam Telford, an infectious diseases expert at Tufts University. But he urges caution year-round because 'every season is tick season.'

Wind, Solar Credits Face Shorter Phase-Out in GOP's New Tax Bill
Wind, Solar Credits Face Shorter Phase-Out in GOP's New Tax Bill

Bloomberg

time31 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Wind, Solar Credits Face Shorter Phase-Out in GOP's New Tax Bill

Key tax incentives for US wind and solar projects would face a more aggressive phase-out in the Senate's latest version of President Donald Trump's spending package. The tweak, which follows pushback by Trump on the Inflation Reduction Act credits, would sharply limit the number of solar and wind farms that qualify for incentives, appeasing opponents while risking the ire of moderate members who argued for a slower phase-out.

Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship
Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Court Fans Fear of State Patchwork in Birthright Citizenship

(Bloomberg) -- A US Supreme Court ruling is stoking fears that the babies of many noncitizen parents could be treated differently depending on the state in which they're born, as legal challenges unfold against President Donald Trump's order ending birthright citizenship. Philadelphia Transit System Votes to Cut Service by 45%, Hike Fares US Renters Face Storm of Rising Costs Squeezed by Crowds, the Roads of Central Park Are Being Reimagined Sprawl Is Still Not the Answer Mapping the Architectural History of New York's Chinatown The justices didn't rule on the constitutionality of Trump's restrictions. But in a divided decision Friday, they paused nationwide injunctions in three cases that had blocked the policy from taking effect. That opens a potential path for Trump's ban on birthright citizenship to be enforced in the 28 states where no court order to block it is currently in place, many of them Republican strongholds from Texas to Florida and Wyoming to Oklahoma. State officials and legal experts warn the arrangement could lead to a patchwork quilt of outcomes, in which the children of people in the US unlawfully or on temporary visas would be recognized as citizens in some states but not in others. 'What we have is an unworkable mess that will leave thousands of babies in an untenable legal limbo,' said Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, who joined officials from 21 other Democratic-led states in suing to block the order. 'Will babies born in Connecticut have different citizenship rights than those born in Texas or Florida?' Nothing will change immediately — the justices said Trump's restrictions can't take effect for 30 days. Much will be in flux during that period as lower courts revise their rulings to align with the new precedent set by the high court. Justices also left open an avenue for opponents to continue trying to block Trump's order through a class action lawsuit. And they left key questions unanswered about the scope of relief that certain challengers — particularly individual states — are entitled to receive. Trump celebrated Friday's ruling as a 'monumental victory.' His administration has long sought to limit the ability of a single judge to block a federal policy across the country. Organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union, Democracy Defenders Fund and CASA Inc. have sued to block his order on birthright citizenship. They're already adjusting their legal strategy in light of the Supreme Court ruling, refiling their cases as class action lawsuits and seeking fresh court orders to block Trump's policy while their lawsuits proceed. 'Every court to have looked at this cruel order agrees that it is unconstitutional,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project and lead attorney in this case, said in a statement. 'The Supreme Court's decision did not remotely suggest otherwise, and we are fighting to make sure President Trump cannot trample on the citizenship rights of a single child.' Litigation will also proceed in cases filed by the 22 Democratic-led states that sued to block the order. Those states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, emphasized the legal uncertainty and said lower courts will now have to determine the scope of relief available to states that sued in order to avoid running afoul of the Supreme Court. 'There's lots of unanswered questions,' she said. Some state attorneys general said language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion leaves open the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. 'The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution belong to everyone in this country, not just those whose state attorneys general had the courage to stand up to this president's anti-democratic agenda,' California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. 'We remain hopeful that the courts will see that a patchwork of injunctions is unworkable.' America's Top Consumer-Sentiment Economist Is Worried How to Steal a House Inside Gap's Last-Ditch, Tariff-Addled Turnaround Push Apple Test-Drives Big-Screen Movie Strategy With F1 Luxury Counterfeiters Keep Outsmarting the Makers of $10,000 Handbags ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store