E-Verify Would Cost $40 Billion, CBO Says

NEW YORK – The Second Circuit Court of Appeals will hear arguments tomorrow, May 6 at 10 a.m. on whether a federal judge’s order to transfer Rümeysa Öztürk to Vermont should be granted or further delayed. Ms. Öztürk, a former Fulbright scholar and current Tufts University Ph.D. student researching child development, has been held in a Louisiana detention center for over a month — all in retaliation for co-authoring an op-ed. On March 25, while on the phone with her mom, plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents surrounded her in Somerville, Massachusetts and arrested her. For nearly 24 hours, Ms. Öztürk’s attorney was unable to locate her as ICE quickly and quietly moved her to three separate locations in three different states — including Vermont — before sending her to Louisiana. In early April, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that the challenge to ICE’s detention of Ms. Öztürk should continue in Vermont, not Louisiana. A Vermont judge later agreed that Ms. Öztürk’s federal case should continue in Vermont and ordered ICE to transfer her back to a Vermont facility by May 1. The government appealed on April 24. And last week, without ruling on the merits, the appeals court agreed to consider both the government’s request to keep her in Louisiana and her legal team’s opposition. Since she arrived in Louisiana, Ms. Öztürk has lived in a cramped room with poor ventilation and 23 other women for almost all hours of the day. In new filings in her federal court case in Vermont, she says she has suffered several asthma attacks that have “become progressively harder to recover from” while in detention. Whereas her attacks used to last between 5-15 minutes, they now can last up to 45 minutes. She is regularly exposed to asthma triggers including insect and rodent droppings, and is almost never exposed to fresh air. The new filings also describe difficulty receiving appropriate care in detention, including delays to receive medical care and dismissive comments from medical staff. She has suffered six weeks of a detention that is as harmful as it is unlawful. The Second Circuit will also hear arguments on Tuesday on the government’s motion to consolidate the cases of Rümeysa Öztürk and Mohsen Mahdawi, a move both students’ legal teams oppose. Ms. Öztürk is represented in immigration court by Mahsa Khanbabai and Marty Rosenbluth, and in federal court by Mahsa Khanbabai, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. Audio access to the hearing is available here.  

***MEDIA ADVISORY*** TUESDAY, April 29, 2 p.m. ET: Federal Court Hearing in Lawsuit Challenging Trump’s Efforts to Shut Down Asylum at the Border WHAT: A federal court in Washington, D.C., will hear arguments in a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s proclamation aimed at completely shutting down asylum at the border, a move that puts thousands of lives at risk. The case is RAICES v. Noem. Under the “212(f)” proclamation, which falsely cites an “invasion” as justification to deny asylum protections expressly granted by Congress, families and individuals face return to countries where they are at grave risk of persecution and torture with no recourse. Trump’s action ignores protections put in place by Congress and backed by the courts for generations that ensure people have a chance to have their asylum claims heard. This proclamation also differs from Trump’s attempts to shut off asylum in his first administration because the recent move leaves no avenue open for people to seek asylum, even if they present themselves at official ports of entry. WHO: The American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), Texas Civil Rights Project, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and ACLU of Texas filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of individual asylum seekers and three organizations that provide legal services to people seeking asylum but are unable to do so under this proclamation: the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. The plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction against enforcement of the 212(f) proclamation. Judge Randolph D. Moss will preside. WHEN: Tuesday, April 29, 2 p.m. ET WHERE: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia/Courtroom 8 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. Court media policy information is here and here.

Emergency lawsuit in federal court to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act for people within that court’s judicial district.

HOUSTON — A federal court in southern Texas today ruled the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) does not meet the “invasion” or “predatory incursion” requirement in the law, and blocked the administration from using it against anyone being held in the court’s judicial district. The case is JAV v. Trump. The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Texas brought the lawsuit to halt the removals. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, lead counsel, had the following reaction to today’s ruling: “The court ruled the president can’t unilaterally declare an invasion of the United States and invoke a wartime authority during peacetime. Congress never meant for this 18th-century wartime law to be used this way. This is a critically important decision that prevents more people from being sent to the notorious CECOT prison. Adriana Piñon, legal director of the ACLU of Texas, said: “This permanent injunction is a significant win for preventing unlawful, unilateral executive action that has been stoking fear across Texas, especially within border communities. Immigrants are, and always have been, an integral part of this state and nation. They, too, are protected by U.S. laws and the Constitution.” The ruling is online here.