A federal judge in Chicago has recently listened to oral arguments concerning a motion filed in March by immigration and civil rights attorneys against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The attorneys accuse the federal government of violating the constitutional rights of at least 25 individuals, including one U.S. citizen, arrested and detained in the Midwest amid President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts.
As of now, one person remains in custody, one has been deported, and the others have been released on bond.
Representatives from the National Immigrant Justice Center and the ACLU of Illinois argued before Judge Jeffrey Cummings that federal immigration agents have made arrests without proper warrants or probable cause.
They also contend that agents have been fabricating warrants in the field after arrests have occurred, violating the Fourth Amendment which protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.
In this context, Judge Cummings questioned government attorneys William H. Weiland and Craig Oswald, stating, “How do you know [a warrant] existed if you can’t find a copy of it?” This was referencing the case of Sergio Bolanos Romero, who was allegedly arrested without a warrant in late January just a few blocks from his residence in Chicago.
Bolanos Romero shared his experience, explaining how officers dressed in plain clothes stopped him and demanded he exit his vehicle without providing an explanation.
He believes the officers may have actually been searching for a former neighbor rather than him.
During the hearing, government attorneys conceded they did not possess a warrant for Bolanos Romero’s arrest despite claims in the arrest report suggesting otherwise.
Weiland and Oswald claimed that it is not unlawful for agents to possess blank warrants and fill them out on-site if they perceive probable cause for an arrest.
However, immigration rights advocates argue that agents have frequently failed to substantiate claims of probable cause in numerous cases.
Mark Fleming of the National Immigrant Justice Center expressed grave concerns, stating, “The most troubling thing is that we have a law enforcement agency in the United States that clearly does not believe that the Fourth Amendment applies to any of their arrests.”
He further criticized the establishment of what he termed a “parallel universe of policies.”
Fleming and his team highlighted incidents that allegedly contradicted the 2022 Castañon Nava settlement agreement, which arose from a class action suit regarding unlawful arrests by ICE agents.
This agreement stipulates that ICE officials can only execute warrantless arrests if they have sufficient reason to believe an individual may flee, and they are obligated to provide evidence to substantiate those claims.
Among the evidence presented was an extensive two-hour security video showing the arrest of 12 restaurant workers in Liberty, Missouri.
Fleming argues that the footage captures federal agents in tactical gear entering a Mexican restaurant during lunchtime, barricading workers inside, and executing arrests without any warrants or probable cause.
Notably, Missouri is one of six states, including Illinois, covered under the Nava settlement.
Michelle Garcia, Deputy Legal Director of the ACLU of Illinois, emphasized a key point from the hearing: government representatives acknowledged that agents did not follow the agreed-upon policy during the arrests in question.
She remarked, “Attorneys [representing the federal government] are defending these unlawful actions and trying to do it with a straight face.”
This court hearing is occurring alongside a backdrop of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that determined individual judges do not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions.
The ruling has left the legal status of automatic birthright citizenship in a state of uncertainty.
Moreover, this hearing is taking place amidst a notable increase in ICE and federal agent arrests occurring outside immigration courts, in streets, workplaces, and various communities.
In light of these events, immigration rights attorneys from the National Immigrant Justice Center and the ACLU of Illinois are requesting several specific remedies from the court.
These include a three-year extension of the settlement agreement, a court order to prohibit ICE from creating warrant forms in the field after making arrests, reimbursement for bond fees, weekly reporting on immigration arrests, and further training and disciplinary measures for involved federal agents.
They are also calling for the immediate release of Abel Orozco Ortega, who was arrested outside his home after purchasing tamales last January while agents were actually pursuing his son.
Fleming stresses that federal agents allegedly generated an administrative warrant while Orozco-Ortega was handcuffed.
“Orozco-Ortega was arrested unlawfully,” Fleming stated.
“Despite the ongoing settlement agreement stipulating his release, he remains detained, even as his wife battles breast cancer, and the family faces possible foreclosure on their home.”
This situation highlights the ongoing and complex issues surrounding immigration enforcement practices and the legal frameworks meant to protect individuals’ rights.
image source from：chicago
