Class Action Alleges ICE’s Videoconference Court Hearings Violate Immigrants’ Rights

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action filed by seven pseudonymous plaintiffs seeks to end the government’s allegedly “exclusive use of video teleconference hearings” at New York City’s Varick Street Immigration Court. Filed in conjunction with Brooklyn Defender Services, The Legal Aid Society and The Bronx Defenders, the lawsuit charges that ICE’s policy of forcing detainees to appear at their removal proceedings via video feed from county jails rather than in person infringes on their right to due process.

Enacted in June 2018, the policy, the suit says, has had a “disastrous” effect on how detained immigrants are able to defend themselves and the overall efficiency of the immigration court system. According to the case, video conferences have caused significant delays due to “rampant” technical failures that prevent detainees from seeing, hearing or understanding what is happening in the courtroom. Adding to these delays, detainees are also unable to efficiently communicate with language interpreters via a video feed during proceedings, the suit alleges.

Additionally, the case claims that the presence of ICE officers in videoconference rooms prevents detainees from fully engaging with their attorneys. The suit says the lack of confidentiality between attorneys and their clients “discourages the immigrants from testifying about sensitive personal information that may be vital to their case.” By way of example, the complaint notes that one plaintiff was hesitant to answer a lawyer’s question about his sexual orientation for fear of retaliation from the officers in the room.

The three public defender organizations behind the case claim they face “unnecessary and growing costs” because their attorneys are forced to travel outside the city to meet with clients at county jails. Since detainees are often unable to speak with an attorney prior to their first court appearances, many initially appear pro se in court, the suit alleges. This lack of counsel apparently adds to detainees’ problems, as they are not advised of their legal options in a timely manner. Consequently, the suit claims, “non-deportable lawful” residents may unnecessarily accept orders of deportation.

As for the reason behind the policy, the case charges that the government has failed to provide a valid justification for this practice. From the complaint:

“First it was public safety; then it was cost effectiveness; then it was part of a nationwide plan to streamline immigration proceedings; then it was public safety again. Defendants’ shifting justifications are pretext for their real, illegitimate motivation: the government’s nationwide effort to expedite deportations at the expense of due process.”