Why the Trump administration is targeting immigration courts for arrests
Why the Trump administration is targeting immigration courts for arrests A man is detained by federal immigration officers at a US immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] A man is detained by federal immigration officers at a US immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters]
Houston, Texas – Oscar Gato Sanchez had gotten dressed up for his day in immigration court. The 25-year-old wore a red button-down, black slacks and dress shoes, his dark hair trimmed short with the aim of leaving a good impression.
It was a Monday afternoon in June, and Gato Sanchez, a Cuban immigrant, had come to present himself before a United States immigration judge.
As he sat inside the Texas courtroom, he had no reason to doubt that the court would eventually hear his case.
Gato Sanchez was seeking asylum on the basis that his life would be in danger if he returned to Cuba. There, human rights groups have accused the government of repression and torture, and Gato Sanchez feared he would face repercussions for having attended recent antigovernment protests on the island.
While he waited to go before the judge, his aunt, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, sat in the room outside. She was anxious. The clock seemed to move more slowly than usual.
'What is taking so long?' his aunt, a Houston resident, asked a friend next to her.
But the two women were not the only ones waiting outside the courtroom. Near the elevators, four men sat staring at their phones, dressed in ordinary street clothes.
Around 3:15pm, Gato Sanchez emerged from the courtroom with a folder of documents in his hands. As soon as he did, the four men surrounded him. It was as if they already knew Gato Sanchez's case had been dismissed.
They were federal agents, and they were in the courthouse to take Gato Sanchez into custody as soon as his case was thrown out.
His aunt was frantic. She tried to ask for information. But the only details the men would give her was that her nephew would be sent to Conroe, Texas, the site of the largest detention centre in the Houston area.
The men did not even tell her whether they were from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or another federal law enforcement agency.
'Why, God, did they do this?' His aunt screamed, overcome with emotion. As the agents took Gato Sanchez away, his aunt's friend yelled out to him.
'You're not a bad person,' she said through tears.
Gato Sanchez is one of the hundreds of people recently detained immediately after leaving their immigration hearings. Advocates fear the courthouse arrests not only violate the right to due process but also discourage immigrants from pursuing legal means to stay in the US.
'These are people that are doing the right thing,' said Cesar Espinosa, the executive director of Houston immigrant rights nonprofit FIEL.
'You're between a rock and a hard place. If you don't show up, they're going to come get you. If you do show up, they're going to come get you, which is not due process.' Federal officers lead a migrant man to an elevator in a immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] Federal officers lead a migrant man to an elevator in a immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters]
The question of whether immigration raids should take place within courthouses has gained new urgency since the return of President Donald Trump in January.
In the early months of his second term, Trump has followed through on his pledge to pursue a campaign of mass deportation.
Over the last month alone, his administration has stepped up its quota for immigration arrests, raising the bar from 1,000 to 3,000 per day.
Part of the strategy for reaching that goal is to leverage the court system and detain immigrants after their scheduled hearings.
This has led to some high-profile clashes. In April, for instance, a Wisconsin judge was arrested and charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice for attempting to help an immigrant evade the federal agents waiting outside her courtroom.
John Gihon, the vice chair of the ICE liaison committee at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said his own clients are now scared to go to immigration court as a result of the arrests.
'It's creating a gigantic chilling effect on everybody going to immigration court. I see that every day, constantly now,' said Gihon, who previously worked as a lawyer for ICE.
Immigration arrests at courthouses have long been a controversial practice. In 2011, ICE issued a memorandum identifying "sensitive locations" where arrests should be avoided, including churches and schools.
Courthouses were not among them.
But that changed in 2021, under former President Joe Biden. ICE issued new guidance discouraging immigration agents from conducting civil arrests in courthouses, just as they would in "sensitive" places.
The day Trump began his second term, however, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded all the guidelines for "sensitive" areas.
"The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense," the department said in its statement. A man is placed in handcuffs by law enforcement officers at a New York City immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] A man is placed in handcuffs by law enforcement officers at a New York City immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters]
But advocates say the Trump administration has gone a step further, using the immigration system itself to facilitate courthouse arrests and swift deportations.
The immigration court system in the US is separate from the judicial branch of government. Rather, it is run by the Department of Justice, directly under the president's authority.
That allows the president to shape immigration policy and give directives to the courts. But critics accuse the Trump administration of manipulating the system to prioritise his deportation push over the right of immigrants to receive a fair hearing.
Earlier this month, NBC News broke the story that the Trump administration had issued a memo calling on immigration judges to quickly dismiss the cases on their dockets.
In the past, the Department of Homeland Security could request a case be dismissed, but immigrants would still have about 10 days to respond before the judge rendered a decision.
But in the new memo, the Trump administration called on immigration judges to grant dismissals on the very same day they were requested.
That meant immigrants would lose their protections against deportation immediately. Individuals who have been in the country for less than two years are often eligible for expedited removal from the country, meaning they have little chance of appealing their deportation.
And advocates say ICE agents are now stationed right outside the courtrooms, waiting to sweep up the immigrants whose cases were dismissed.
Bianca Santorini, a Houston-based lawyer who took Gato Sanchez's case pro bono after his courthouse detention, said that ICE is taking advantage of the immigration system 'to trick people to come to court".
'I'm not asking that every case is won. What I'm asking is that they give people their day in court,' Santorini said. 'They are taking that away from people unjustly.'
ICE declined to confirm the number of agents at immigration courts in recent weeks but said that its enforcement at courthouses 'is wholly consistent" with its longstanding practices.
'ICE officers and agents seek to conduct enforcement actions at an alternate location when practicable," a spokesperson told Al Jazeera.
"However, when no other location is feasible or when the alternate location increases the risk to public safety or the safety of our officers, ICE will seek to effectuate the arrest in the location that is least likely to endanger anyone's safety." A federal immigration officer patrols the hallway at a Manhattan immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] A federal immigration officer patrols the hallway at a Manhattan immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters]
A dismissal in immigration court, however, does not mean an immigrant's rights are exhausted.
They can still seek alternative pathways to legal status by appealing their case or applying to a government programme like Temporary Protected Status.
Gihon, the Florida-based immigration lawyer, explained that immigrants like Gato Sanchez will have a chance to seek asylum again if they choose.
But being detained often disincentivises them from continuing their cases. That is part of the Trump administration's strategy, according to Gihon.
'The whole point is to detain as many people as possible because it's much less likely that they're going to be successful in winning their cases and less likely that they're going to fight,' Gihon said. 'They're just going to accept deportation.'
Advocacy groups like FIEL are now advising immigrants not to come to court without legal representation, if possible.
If a lawyer is not available, FIEL has circulated guidance about what to say to oppose a dismissal and keep a case open.
"Your honour, I reserve the right to appeal," one line reads.
Another suggests explaining, "Your honour, before dismissing my case, I respectfully ask you to hear my side of the story. I am afraid to return to my country because I will face harm, danger or death."
In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security justified its policies by blaming the Biden administration for allowing unfettered immigration into the country.
'ICE is now following the law and placing these illegal aliens in expedited removal, as they always should have been,' a spokesperson said. Narel Lopez comforts her daughters on June 25 after her husband and a son were detained at an immigration court in San Antonio, Texas [Eric Gay/AP Photo] Narel Lopez comforts her daughters on June 25 after her husband and a son were detained at an immigration court in San Antonio, Texas [Eric Gay/AP Photo]
Despite the controversy, authorities have continued to target immigration hearings for arrests.
The day after Gato Sanchez was arrested, immigration agents were once again in the waiting room of the Houston immigration court. Some wore ski masks and glasses.
One approached a Venezuelan immigrant named Daniel, who had shown up to court alone. The agent explained that they would be taking him into ICE custody.
'Understand?' the agent asked.
'Don't understand,' Daniel answered, his grasp of English still minimal. After a lawyer spoke to Daniel to take his information, immigration agents took him into the lift.
Moments later, another Venezuelan man and a Mexican man exited the courtroom with Santorini, their lawyer. The three of them were standing by the lift when a plain-clothed agent approached.
'We have a warrant,' he told Santorini. She questioned why ICE would detain one of the men again if he had already been released on a $7,500 bond.
'Where is the warrant?' she asked.
'I don't have it,' the immigration agent responded. He declined to identify which agency he worked with.
Santorini said she and her clients would wait until he could produce a warrant. They took a seat in the waiting room.
After a few minutes, another man, who identified as an ICE agent, returned with an administrative warrant dated for that day.
'Who are you scared of?' one of Santorini's clients asked in Spanish as he was handcuffed. 'We're just here to work.'
As the men were ushered into the lift, the ICE agent assured Santorini that her clients would still have the chance to seek asylum if they feared returning to their country.
But Santorini scoffed at the comment and held back tears, knowing that her clients would have to repeat a legal process they had already begun, this time behind bars.
'All we want is that they give us our right to a day in court,' Santorini said. 'Arresting someone at court is not the correct thing to do here in the US.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What cases did the US Supreme Court decide at the end of its 2024 term?
The United States Supreme Court has ended its latest term with a host of blockbuster decisions, touching on everything from healthcare coverage to school reading lists. On Friday, the court issued the final decisions of the 2024 term before it takes several months of recess. The nine justices on its bench will reconvene in October. But before their departure, the justices made headlines. In a major victory for the administration of President Donald Trump, the six-person conservative majority decided to limit the ability of courts to issue universal injunctions that would block executive actions nationwide. Trump has long denounced court injunctions as an attack on his executive authority. In two other rulings, the Supreme Court's conservative majority again banded together. One decision allowed parents to opt out of school materials that include LGBTQ themes, while the other gave the go-ahead to Texas to place barriers to prevent youth from viewing online pornography. But a decision on healthcare access saw some conservative justices align with their three left-wing colleagues. Here is an overview of their final rulings of the 2024 term. Court upholds preventive care requirements In the case of Kennedy v Braidwood Management, the Supreme Court saw its usual ideological divides fracture. Three conservative justices – Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and John Roberts – joined with the court's liberal branch, represented by Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, for a six-to-three ruling. At stake was the ability of a government task force to determine what kinds of preventive healthcare the country's insurance providers had to cover. It was the latest case to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation passed under former President Barack Obama to expand healthcare access. This case focused on a section of the act that allowed a panel of health experts – under the Department of Health and Human Services – to determine what preventive services should be covered at no cost. A group of individuals and Christian-owned businesses had challenged the legality of that task force, though. They argued that the expert panel was a violation of the Appointments Clause, a section of the Constitution that requires certain political appointees to be chosen by the president and approved by the Senate. The group had previously secured an injunction against the task force's decision that HIV prevention medications be covered as preventive care. That specific injunction was not weighed in the Supreme Court's decision. But writing for the majority, Justice Kavanaugh affirmed that the task force was constitutional, because it was made up of 'inferior officers' who did not need Senate approval. Court gives nod to Texas's age restrictions on porn Several states, including Texas, require users to verify their age before accessing pornographic websites, with the aim of shielding minors from inappropriate material. But Texas's law came under the Supreme Court's microscope on Friday, in a case called Free Speech Coalition v Ken Paxton. The Free Speech Coalition is a nonprofit that represents workers in the adult entertainment industry. They sued Texas's attorney general, Paxton, arguing that the age-verification law would dampen First Amendment rights, which protect the right to free expression, free association and privacy. The plaintiffs noted the risks posed by sharing personally identifying information online, including the possibility that identifying information like birthdates and sensitive data could be leaked. The American Civil Liberties Union, for instance, warned that Texas's law 'robs people of anonymity'. Writing for the Supreme Court's conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas acknowledged that 'submitting to age verification is a burden on the exercise' of First Amendment rights. But, he added, 'adults have no First Amendment right to avoid age verification' altogether. The majority upheld Texas's law. Court affirms children can withdraw from LGBTQ school material The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority also continued its streak of religious freedom victories, with a decision in Mahmoud v Taylor. That case centred on the Montgomery County Board of Education in Maryland, where books portraying LGBTQ themes had been approved for use in primary school curricula. One text, for example, was a picture book called Love, Violet, which told the story of a young girl mustering the courage to give a Valentine to a female classmate. Another book, titled Pride Puppy, follows a child searching for her lost dog during an annual parade to celebrate LGBTQ pride. Parents of children in the school district objected to the material on religious grounds, and some books, like Pride Puppy, were eventually withdrawn. But the board eventually announced it would refuse to allow parents to opt out of the approved material, on the basis that it would create disruptions in the learning environment. Some education officials also argued that allowing kids to opt out of LGBTQ material would confer a stigma on the people who identify as part of that community – and that LGBTQ people were simply a fact of life. In the majority's decision, Justice Samuel Alito asserted that the education board's policy 'conveys that parents' religious views are not welcome in the 'fully inclusive environment' that the Board purports to foster'. 'The curriculum itself also betrays an attempt to impose ideological conformity with specific views on sexuality and gender,' Alito wrote. Court limits the use of nationwide injunctions Arguably, the biggest decision of the day was another ruling decided by the Supreme Court's conservative supermajority. In the case Trump v CASA, the Trump administration had appealed the use of nationwide injunctions all the way up to the highest court in the land. At stake was an executive order Trump signed on his first day in office for his second term. That order sought to whittle down the concept of birthright citizenship, a right conferred under the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. Previously, birthright citizenship had applied to nearly everyone born on US soil: Regardless of their parents' nationality, the child would receive US citizenship. But Trump has denounced that application of birthright citizenship as too broad. In his executive order, he put restrictions on birthright citizenship depending on whether the parents were undocumented immigrants. Legal challenges erupted as soon as the executive order was published, citing Supreme Court precedent that upheld birthright citizenship regardless of the nationality of the parent. Federal courts in states like Maryland and Washington quickly issued nationwide injunctions to prevent the executive order from taking effect. The Supreme Court on Friday did not weigh the merits of Trump's order on birthright citizenship. But it did evaluate a Trump administration petition arguing that the nationwide injunctions were instances of judicial overreach. The conservative supermajority sided with Trump, saying that injunctions should generally not be universal but instead should focus on relief for the specific plaintiffs at hand. One possible exception, however, would be for class action lawsuits. Amy Coney Barrett, the court's latest addition and a Trump appointee, penned the majority's decision. 'No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,' she wrote. 'But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation – in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so.'
Al Jazeera
5 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
University of Virginia president resigns under US government pressure
The president of the University of Virginia has resigned his position under pressure from the United States Department of Justice, which pushed for his departure amid scrutiny of the school's diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices. In an email sent to the university community on Friday and circulated on social media, university president James Ryan said he was resigning to protect the institution from facing the ire of the government. 'I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job,' he wrote. 'To do so would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld.' Ryan's resignation has been accepted by the board, two sources told The New York Times, which first broke the story. It remains unclear exactly when he will leave his post. His departure is the latest indication of ongoing tensions between the administration of President Donald Trump and the academic community. During his second term, President Trump has increasingly sought to reshape higher education by attacking diversity initiatives, pushing for crackdowns on pro-Palestinian student protesters, and seeking reviews of hiring and enrollment practices. Ryan's departure marks a new frontier in a campaign that has almost exclusively targeted Ivy League schools. Critics also say it shows a shift in the government's rationale, away from allegations of rampant anti-Semitism on campus and towards more aggressive policing of diversity initiatives. Just a day prior, the Justice Department announced it would investigate another public school, the University of California, for its use of diversity standards. Ryan, who has led the University of Virginia since 2018, faced criticism that he failed to heed federal orders to eliminate DEI policies. An anonymous source told The Associated Press news agency that his removal was pushed by the Justice Department as a way to help resolve an inquiry targeting the school. Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, called Ryan's ouster an example of the Trump administration using 'thuggery instead of rational discourse'. 'This is a dark day for the University of Virginia, a dark day for higher education, and it promises more of the same,' Mitchell said. 'It's clear the administration is not done and will use every tool that it can make or invent to exert its will over higher education.' Virginia's Democratic senators react In a joint statement, Virginia's senators, both Democrats, said it was outrageous that the Trump administration would demand Ryan's resignation over ''culture war' traps'. 'This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future,' Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said. After campaigning on a promise to end 'wokeness' in education, Trump signed an executive order in January calling for an end to federal funding that would support educational institutions with DEI programming. He accused schools of indoctrinating 'children in radical, anti-American ideologies' without the permission of their parents. The Department of Education has since opened investigations into dozens of colleges, arguing that diversity initiatives discriminate against white and Asian American students. The response from schools has been scattered. Some have closed DEI offices, ended diversity scholarships and no longer require diversity statements as part of the hiring process. Still, others have held firm on diversity policies. The University of Virginia became a flashpoint after conservative critics accused it of simply renaming its DEI initiatives. The school's governing body voted to shutter the DEI office in March and end diversity policies in admissions, hiring, financial aid and other areas. Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin celebrated the action, declaring that 'DEI is done at the University of Virginia'. But America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, said that DEI had simply taken another form at the school. In a May letter to the Justice Department, the group said the university chose to 'rename, repackage, and redeploy the same unlawful infrastructure under a lexicon of euphemisms'. The group directly took aim at Ryan, noting that he joined hundreds of other college presidents in signing a public statement condemning the 'overreach and political interference' of the Trump administration. On Friday, the group said it will continue to use every available tool to root out what it has called discriminatory systems. 'This week's developments make clear: public universities that accept federal funds do not have a license to violate the Constitution,' Megan Redshaw, a lawyer with the group, said in a statement. 'They do not get to impose ideological loyalty tests, enforce race and sex-based preferences, or defy lawful executive authority.' Until now, the White House had directed most of its attention at Harvard University and other elite institutions that Trump sees as bastions of liberalism. Harvard has lost more than $2.6bn in federal research grants amid its battle with the government, which also attempted to block the school from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. Harvard and its $53bn endowment are uniquely positioned to weather the government's financial pressure. Public universities, however, are far more dependent on taxpayer money and could be more vulnerable. The University of Virginia's $10bn endowment is among the largest for public universities, while the vast majority have far less.
Al Jazeera
6 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
California Governor Newsom sues Fox News for $787m over alleged defamation
California Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a $787m defamation lawsuit against Fox News, accusing the network of misrepresenting a phone call between him and US President Donald Trump earlier this month amid immigration arrests and the subsequent protests in Los Angeles. The complaint was filed on Friday in Delaware Superior Court, the state in which Fox Corp is incorporated. Newsom spoke by phone with Trump late on June 6 – early June 7 on the East Coast, soon after protests broke out in Los Angeles following federal immigration raids. Less than 24 hours later, the president sent National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the state, bypassing the governor's office. In an interview with NBC News on June 8, Newsom said that he had a civil conversation with the president, but he never brought up sending the National Guard. 'I tried to talk about LA, he wanted to talk about all these other issues,' Newsom said. 'He never once brought up the National Guard,' he added. Newsom said he did not speak with Trump again, and confirmed this after Trump falsely told reporters on June 10 that he had spoken with the governor 'a day ago'. The suit alleged that the network had a 'willingness to protect President Trump from his own false statements by smearing his political opponent Governor Newsom in a dispute over when the two last spoke during a period of national strife'. The complaint said Fox nonetheless made a misleading video clip and multiple false statements about the timing of the last call, acting with actual malice in an effort to brand Newsom a liar and curry favour with Trump. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?' Watters said on June 10 on his show, Jesse Watters Primetime, according to the complaint. Watters's report was accompanied by a chyron, a banner caption along the bottom of a TV screen, that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call,' the complaint added. According to the complaint, Fox's claim that Newsom lied was 'calculated to provoke outrage and cause Governor Newsom significant harm' by making people less likely to support his causes, donate to his campaigns, or vote for him in elections. 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,' a spokesperson for Fox News told Al Jazeera in an email. In a follow-up, Al Jazeera asked Fox if Watters and his production team fact-checked claims about the phone call before speaking about it – which is industry standard – but the network did not provide clarification. Newsom's punitive damages request is nearly identical to the $787.5m that Fox paid in 2023 to settle Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit over alleged vote-rigging in the 2020 US presidential election. To prevail in his lawsuit, Newsom would have to show Fox acted with actual malice, meaning it knew its statements were false or had reckless disregard for their truth. According to the New York Times, Newsom would drop the lawsuit if Fox issued a retraction and host Jesse Watters apologised on-air for saying the governor lied about his call with Trump. The governor's office told Al Jazeera that it would not comment because Newsom is pursuing the lawsuit in a personal capacity and not through the office. In an emailed statement, Newsom said, 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences – just like it did in the Dominion case. I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.' Out of Trump's playbook Newsom's lawsuit comes as Trump has gone after news organisations that have been critical of him. He reached a $15m settlement with ABC News after the network made in an inaccurate claim that a jury found Trump liable for rape in the civil case involving E Jean Carroll, rather than sexual assault. The White House also recently went after the network when former White House correspondent Terry Moran called White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller a 'world-class hater'. Moran was later suspended and subsequently dismissed from the network. Trump also sued CBS News for $20bn for the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his Democratic rival Kamala Harris, which was reportedly mediated into a settlement agreement of $20m with parent company Paramount Global, causing concern in the news division. Paramount has a pending merger with Skydance. Trump has also slashed funding for public media, which the White House alleged was 'radical, woke propaganda disguised as 'news''.
