Demonstrators in Chicago protested against the Trump administration's policy of separating children from their parents after families cross the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum. (Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
As Judge Slams Family Separation as 'Brutal, Offensive' Conduct, Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Policy Advances
The Trump administration's forcible separation of parents and children at the southern border is "emblematic of the exercise of power without any reasonable justification," argued a federal judge
Slamming the Trump administration's attempt to deter asylum seekers by separating immigrant children from their parents as "brutal," a federal judge declared Wednesday that the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the policy would be allowed to proceed.
"We are enormously pleased with the ruling about an issue that has galvanized so many and outraged the country," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project, told the New York Times. "The judge left no doubt that he viewed the practice of separating young children from their parents as inhumane."
Judge Dana Sabraw's ruling follows nationwide protests this week against President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' policy of criminally prosecuting all undocumented immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and separating parents from their children after the parents are apprehended by authorities.
Sabraw wrote in his opinion that the ACLU's arguments against the policy "sufficiently describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child, and is emblematic of the exercise of power without any reasonable justification."
The forcible separation of parents and children violates the families' constitutional right to due process, the ACLU argued in its suit. In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Trump administration claimed that asylum seekers have no constitutional right to be kept together--an argument Sabraw rejected.
"Such conduct...is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency," the judge wrote.
Plaintiffs represented by the ACLU in the case include a Congolese woman who was held in a detention center in Southern California after applying for asylum, while her seven-year-old daughter was taken to a shelter in Chicago for four months before they were reunited.
Another plaintiff, an asylum seeker from Honduras, was separated from her 18-month-old child for more than two months.
Immigrant rights advocates expressed hope on Thursday that the judge's ruling was a step toward a possible injunction halting the Trump administration's policy.
\u201cThis will be in a column posting Thursday a.m., but after reading today's ruling swatting down the Trump administration's motion to dismiss an ACLU lawsuit, I think we'll soon see an injunction halting the government's policy of separating families at the border. Hope I'm right.\u201d— Rex Huppke (@Rex Huppke) 1528349513
The ACLU's motion requesting a nationwide injunction is pending.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. The final deadline for our crucial Summer Campaign fundraising drive is just days away, and we’re falling short of our must-hit goal. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Slamming the Trump administration's attempt to deter asylum seekers by separating immigrant children from their parents as "brutal," a federal judge declared Wednesday that the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the policy would be allowed to proceed.
"We are enormously pleased with the ruling about an issue that has galvanized so many and outraged the country," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project, told the New York Times. "The judge left no doubt that he viewed the practice of separating young children from their parents as inhumane."
Judge Dana Sabraw's ruling follows nationwide protests this week against President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' policy of criminally prosecuting all undocumented immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and separating parents from their children after the parents are apprehended by authorities.
Sabraw wrote in his opinion that the ACLU's arguments against the policy "sufficiently describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child, and is emblematic of the exercise of power without any reasonable justification."
The forcible separation of parents and children violates the families' constitutional right to due process, the ACLU argued in its suit. In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Trump administration claimed that asylum seekers have no constitutional right to be kept together--an argument Sabraw rejected.
"Such conduct...is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency," the judge wrote.
Plaintiffs represented by the ACLU in the case include a Congolese woman who was held in a detention center in Southern California after applying for asylum, while her seven-year-old daughter was taken to a shelter in Chicago for four months before they were reunited.
Another plaintiff, an asylum seeker from Honduras, was separated from her 18-month-old child for more than two months.
Immigrant rights advocates expressed hope on Thursday that the judge's ruling was a step toward a possible injunction halting the Trump administration's policy.
\u201cThis will be in a column posting Thursday a.m., but after reading today's ruling swatting down the Trump administration's motion to dismiss an ACLU lawsuit, I think we'll soon see an injunction halting the government's policy of separating families at the border. Hope I'm right.\u201d— Rex Huppke (@Rex Huppke) 1528349513
The ACLU's motion requesting a nationwide injunction is pending.
Slamming the Trump administration's attempt to deter asylum seekers by separating immigrant children from their parents as "brutal," a federal judge declared Wednesday that the ACLU's lawsuit challenging the policy would be allowed to proceed.
"We are enormously pleased with the ruling about an issue that has galvanized so many and outraged the country," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU's Immigrant Rights Project, told the New York Times. "The judge left no doubt that he viewed the practice of separating young children from their parents as inhumane."
Judge Dana Sabraw's ruling follows nationwide protests this week against President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions' policy of criminally prosecuting all undocumented immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and separating parents from their children after the parents are apprehended by authorities.
Sabraw wrote in his opinion that the ACLU's arguments against the policy "sufficiently describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child, and is emblematic of the exercise of power without any reasonable justification."
The forcible separation of parents and children violates the families' constitutional right to due process, the ACLU argued in its suit. In its motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Trump administration claimed that asylum seekers have no constitutional right to be kept together--an argument Sabraw rejected.
"Such conduct...is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency," the judge wrote.
Plaintiffs represented by the ACLU in the case include a Congolese woman who was held in a detention center in Southern California after applying for asylum, while her seven-year-old daughter was taken to a shelter in Chicago for four months before they were reunited.
Another plaintiff, an asylum seeker from Honduras, was separated from her 18-month-old child for more than two months.
Immigrant rights advocates expressed hope on Thursday that the judge's ruling was a step toward a possible injunction halting the Trump administration's policy.
\u201cThis will be in a column posting Thursday a.m., but after reading today's ruling swatting down the Trump administration's motion to dismiss an ACLU lawsuit, I think we'll soon see an injunction halting the government's policy of separating families at the border. Hope I'm right.\u201d— Rex Huppke (@Rex Huppke) 1528349513
The ACLU's motion requesting a nationwide injunction is pending.