Lawsuit: ICE Field Office Detained Individuals Prior to Removal Proceedings

Two attorneys for the National Immigrant Justice Center have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Chicago Field Office (ICE Chicago), its acting director, the secretary of Homeland Security, and ICE’s acting director over alleged violations of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The 12-page lawsuit alleges the defendants unlawfully employ the practice of detaining individuals without probable cause—and without a hearing before an immigration judge to fully understand the charges against them and their right to due process—before initiating removal proceedings.

What are the details of the lawsuit’s allegations?

Summarily, ICE Chicago has allegedly made a practice of arresting individuals without a valid, judge-approved warrant in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth and Fifth Amendments and federal immigration statutes. Arrested individuals, the case says, are then placed in contracted detention facilities throughout Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, or Wisconsin before removal proceedings take place.

According to the complaint, although the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Fourth and Fourth Amendment protections mandate that ICE bring an individual arrested without a warrant before an immigration judge “without necessary delay,” ICE “consistently arrests individuals for days” as they decide whether to initiate removal proceedings. Further, after individuals are detained, an “often lengthy” period of time passes before a Notice to Appear is filed with an immigration court, the suit claims. From here, once removal proceedings have finally begun, the lawsuit alleges it can “often be weeks more before an individual actually appears” in front of an immigration judge.

How can ICE Chicago allegedly detain people without a judge-approved warrant?

“ICE Chicago typically serves putative class members with an I-200 administrative warrant at some point after the individual is brought into ICE custody,” the lawsuit says. The problem with this warrant, the plaintiff argues, is that an administrative warrant is not reviewed or approved by a detached and neutral judicial officer, nor is it supported “by a sworn, particularize showing of probably cause.”

What was the plaintiff’s experience?

The case’s named plaintiff has allegedly been held in immigration custody for 18 days. As of the complaint’s filing on March 27, removal proceedings have not been initiated, and the man allegedly has not been brought before a judge, nor received an explanation of the charges against him or his due process rights. Court papers argue that the plaintiff’s situation is quite common.

“[The plaintiff’s] predicament is not unique,” the lawsuit alleges. “ICE Chicago detains thousands of people every year under similar circumstances.”

The complaint claims the plaintiff entered the United States in 1991 at 14 years old as a lawful permanent resident and became a naturalized U.S. citizen on February 27, 2001.

What parties are listed on the complaint as defendants?

The case formally lists the below as defendants:

Who is included in the proposed class?

The class proposed by the lawsuit includes:

“All persons who are or will be detained under the authority of ICE within the Chicago Area of Responsibility for over 48 hours, where ICE has not initiated removal proceedings by filing a Notice to Appear with the immigration court and have not brought the individual for a hearing before an immigration judge or other detached and neutral judicial officer, and has not initiated another former of removal proceedings.”

The full complaint can be read below.