Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

ONE DAY left in this Mid-Year Campaign. This is our hour of need.
If you value independent journalism, please support Common Dreams.

Join the small group of generous readers who donate, keeping Common Dreams free for millions of people each year. Without your help, we won’t survive.

Central American immigrants turn themselves in to U.S. Border Patrol agents on February 22, 2018 near McAllen, Texas

Central American immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border on February 22, 2018 near McAllen, Texas. (Photo: John Moore/Getty Images)

'The US Government Has Scarred My Daughter and Me for Life': Families Sue Trump Over Deliberate and 'Inexplicable Cruelty'

"The government's use of emotionally traumatizing children to try to achieve a policy objective very clearly meets all the legal elements of the offense intentional infliction of emotional distress."

Julia Conley

Accusing the Trump administration of deliberate and "inexplicable cruelty" perpetrated against them under it's so-called "zero tolerance" immigration policy, six families have filed suit against the U.S. government for the harm and "lasting trauma" they continue to suffer.

In the filing, six mothers described having their children torn away from them, with officials giving them little to no information about where their children were, if they were safe, and when they would be reunited—treatment that the lawyers involved in the suit argue fit the legal definition of intentionally inflicting emotional distress.

"It was the worst moment of my life, when officers tore my crying daughter from my arms. I didn't know where she was going or when I'd see her next—and I couldn't tell her she'd be safe. It was four months and one day until I saw her again," said Leticia, one of the mothers. "We came to the U.S. because we feared for our lives in Guatemala, but rather than offering us safety, the U.S. government has scarred my daughter and me for life."

The American Immigration Council and the National Immigrant Justice Center were joined by two law firms in filing the lawsuit against the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Health & Human Services (HHS) on Monday.

The families are demanding $3 million each in compensation for the suffering inflicted on them and their children, who were as young as five years old when they were separated—but advocates stressed that no amount of money can undo the harm caused by the family separation policy.

The Trump administration vehemently defended the family separation policy last year, insisting the government had in mind the best interest of at least 2,700 children who they took from their guardians. But, the families' lawyers said, the experiences described in the suit and other stories about the way the practice was carried out—with officers snatching one child from a breastfeeding mother and lying to parents about their childrens' whereabouts—prove that the cruelty of "zero tolerance" was deliberate, the lawyers said. 

As Common Dreams reported last month, a draft memo obtained by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) show how "the administration planned to traumatize children and intentionally create a humanitarian crisis at the border."

The practice amounted to "inexplicable cruelty" being inflicted on thousands of families, attorney Stanton Jones of the Washington, D.C. law firm Arnold & Porter, told the Guardian.

"The government's actual conduct of tearing children—often small children—away from their parents in a way that was designed to deliberately inflict emotional trauma on those people for the purpose of achieving a policy objective is unlawful," Jones added.

Months after being reunited, the plaintiffs in the suit describe symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in both themselves and their young children. One mother detailed her seven-year-old son's refusal to go to school for fear that he'll be taken from her again, and another described her six-year-old's reluctance to eat.

The mothers in the case have also experienced chronic headaches, insomnia, and extreme weight loss since their ordeals.

"They are entitled to more than just the outrage that was prompted by what people saw in the news in 2018. They are entitled to compensation from the government for intentional infliction of emotional distress," Jones told the Guardian. "The government's use of emotionally traumatizing children to try to achieve a policy objective very clearly meets all the legal elements of the offense intentional infliction of emotional distress."

"The federal government inflicted distress on parents and children seeking asylum with the expectation that other families would be deterred from trying to seek refuge in this country," said Trina Realmuto, directing attorney for the American Immigration Council, in a statement. "The purpose of our immigration laws is to protect asylum seekers and reunify families, not tear them apart."


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Just ONE DAY left in our crucial Mid-Year Campaign and we might not make it without your help.
Who funds our independent journalism? Readers like you who believe in our mission: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. No corporate advertisers. No billionaire founder. Our non-partisan, nonprofit media model has only one source of revenue: The people who read and value this work and our mission. That's it.
And the model is simple: If everyone just gives whatever amount they can afford and think is reasonable—$3, $9, $29, or more—we can continue. If not enough do, we go dark.

All the small gifts add up to something otherwise impossible. Please join us today. Donate to Common Dreams. This is crunch time. We need you now.

As US Rolls Back Reproductive Rights, Sierra Leone Moves to Decriminalize Abortion

"I'm hopeful today's announcement gives activists in the U.S., and especially Black women given the shared history, a restored faith that change is possible and progress can be made."

Brett Wilkins ·


'Indefensible': Outrage as New Reporting Shines Light on Biden Deal With McConnell

The president has reportedly agreed to nominate an anti-abortion Republican to a lifetime judgeship. In exchange, McConnell has vowed to stop blocking two Biden picks for term-limited U.S. attorney posts.

Jake Johnson ·


Assange Makes Final Appeal Against US Extradition

"If Julian Assange is not free, neither are we," said a protester at a Friday demonstration against the WikiLeaks founder's impending transfer. "None of us is free."

Brett Wilkins ·


'Payoff for 40 Years of Dark Money': Supreme Court Delivers for Corporate America

"It was the conservative court's larger agenda to gut the regulatory state and decimate executive powers to protect Americans' health and safety," warned one expert.

Jake Johnson ·


NARAL Pro-Choice Endorses Fetterman—Who Vows to End Senate Filibuster to Protect Abortion Rights

"We know we can count on him to boldly fight for abortion rights and access," said the head of one of the nation's largest reproductive rights advocacy groups.

Jon Queally ·

Common Dreams Logo