Lawsuit Claims Dept. of Homeland Security, ICE Deny Noncitizen Detainees Remote Access to State Criminal Courts
Doe et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al.
Filed: September 11, 2024 ◆§ 2:24-cv-09105
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and ICE face a class action over an allegedly unconstitutional policy of denying certain detainees access to remote technology that would allow them to participate in state court criminal proceedings.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) face a proposed class action lawsuit over an allegedly unconstitutional policy of denying detainees at a Pennsylvania ICE facility access to video-conferencing technology that would allow them to appear in state court remotely and participate in pending criminal proceedings.
Get the latest open class action lawsuits sent to your inbox. Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter.
The 90-page civil rights lawsuit was filed by five noncitizens with unresolved criminal charges in New Jersey state court who are detained by ICE at its Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania. According to the suit, the Moshannon facility regularly allows detainees to use remote means such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams or the telephone to participate in immigration or family-court hearings, though they are barred from using the same technology to attend New Jersey state court criminal proceedings.
The case alleges this apparent policy denies detainees their constitutional right to appear in state court and participate in resolving the criminal charges brought against them.
As the complaint tells it, the federal government’s policy is not only unconstitutional but entirely arbitrary.
“There is no valid reason for Moshannon to distinguish between immigration and certain family-court proceedings, on the one hand (where virtual participation is allowed), and state-court criminal proceedings on the other hand (where virtual participation is not allowed),” the filing charges. “This is the very definition of an arbitrary, capricious, and nonsensical policy, especially in this day and age when, for the sake of efficiency and public health, remote hearings have become commonplace in all contexts.”
Per the class action lawsuit, the policy is particularly unreasonable given that most New Jersey municipal courts are completely or at least primarily virtual. In addition, remote access to state criminal courts is in fact provided at other immigration detention centers operated by the defendants, the suit points out.
However, at the Moshannon facility, the defendants—who include Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, ICE Acting Director Patrick J. Lechleitner and several other ICE officials—require detainees to secure a judge-issued writ requesting that the detention center produce the individual before the court in person, the case explains. This requirement involves convoluted legal procedures and impractical logistics, as “enormous resources” are needed to transport the detainee across Pennsylvania and house and return them to Moshannon after they have appeared in court, the complaint contends.
“If such a writ is issued, the State must dispatch law-enforcement personnel to pick up from, and return the individual to, Moshannon (at least an eight-hour, round-trip drive), regardless of expense; and the State must detain, and pay for the detention of, the individual, even if a State-court judge had already found there is no basis for detention. In practice, of course, this rarely happens—it is not realistic, feasible, or possible that State and municipal entities will expend their limited resources in this fashion, and for all of the people with unresolved criminal charges transferred by [the defendants] to Moshannon.”
The inability to remotely attend state-court criminal proceedings can have serious consequences for those detained at the Moshannon facility, the filing argues. In particular, it can affect a detainee’s chances of securing a public defender and mounting a successful defense, which can have massive repercussions down the line with respect to employment opportunities, potential citizenship and even basic freedoms.
“There is also a profound liberty interest at stake: many people in immigration custody qualify for release on bond or parole pending completion of removal proceedings, but unresolved state-court criminal matters significantly reduce or preclude an individual’s chances of securing such release,” the suit asserts.
The case further alleges that the federal government’s policy exacerbates and institutionalizes the statistical disproportionalities experienced by people of color in the criminal legal system, as, per the complaint, “Black and Hispanic noncitizen New Jerseyans are disproportionally arrested by state law enforcement officials.”
The plaintiffs are joined in the lawsuit against ICE and the Department of Homeland Security by the Immigrant Rights Program of the American Friends Service Committee, an organization that works to provide legal representation to noncitizens in immigration detention. Together, they seek a “simple” remedy—that the defendants allow the plaintiffs and other detainees at the Moshannon facility to participate in New Jersey criminal proceedings through remote means, the filing relays.
The ICE lawsuit looks to represent any noncitizens detained by the defendants at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center who have unresolved criminal matters (including petty disorderly persons, disorderly persons and indictable offenses) charged or to be charged in a superior or municipal court in New Jersey.
Check out ClassAction.org’s lawsuit list for the latest open class action lawsuits and investigations.
Hair Relaxer Lawsuits
Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.
Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits
How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?
Did you know there's usually nothing you need to do to join, sign up for, or add your name to new class action lawsuits when they're initially filed?
Read more here: How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?
Stay Current
Sign Up For
Our Newsletter
New cases and investigations, settlement deadlines, and news straight to your inbox.
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.