In a blistering ruling that said the U.S. Department of Justice was not only violating a 1997 consent decree concerning immigrant children but had provided little justification for doing so, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee moved to end the policy of indefinitely detaining children and their mothers in inadequate, prison-like circumstances.
The ruling, issued Friday, July 24, gave the DOJ until Aug. 3 to respond and somehow persuade the court that its family detention policy does not violate a consent decree concerning immigrant children in effect since 1997. If the DOJ is unsuccessful in that motion or any appeal, the ruling could start to empty the South Texas, for-profit family detention centers at Karnes City (operated by the GEO Group) and Dilley (Corrections Corporation of America).
The DOJ (more precisely, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency) had defended its recent policy of detaining immigrant children and any accompanying family members as necessary because of the 2014 “surge” of immigrant children arriving from Mexico and Central America, saying it was a necessary deterrent to further border-crossing. Gee was unpersuaded, and moreover said that the consent decree had been in force for nearly 20 years, yet the DOJ had apparently made little attempt to adjust policies to address its requirements.
“It is astonishing that Defendants have enacted a policy requiring such expensive infrastructure,” wrote the judge, “without more evidence to show that it would be compliant with an Agreement that has been in effect for nearly 20 years or effective at achieving what Defendants hoped it would accomplish. It is even more shocking that after nearly two decades Defendants have not implemented appropriate regulations to deal with this complicated area of immigration law.”
Accordingly, Judge Gee agreed with plaintiffs suing on behalf of detained immigrants, that the government’s “no-release” policy violated the agreement’s requirement to “minimize the detention of children,” to avoid holding children in confinements not licensed nor resourced to care for children, and that the detention centers exposed children to “harsh, substandard conditions and treatment.” She strongly rejected both the DOJ’s arguments that changed circumstances required a modification of the decree and its attempt to effectively do so unilaterally. “In light of the evidence, or lack thereof,” Gee wrote, “the Court finds that Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that a change in factual circumstances requires modification of the Agreement.”
Unless the DOJ can show cause why the Court’s order should not take effect, the agency must begin implementing the original agreement concerning release of detained children, reunification of families, and safe and sanitary facilities, within 90 days. “Defendants shall file a response … by August 3, 2015. Plaintiffs shall file a response thereafter by August 10, 2015, after which the matter will stand submitted.” The complete ruling is available here.
This article appears in July 31 • 2015 and July 24 • 2015.
