In a remarkable surge of legal action, Nebraska’s federal courts are now handling an unusually high number of wrongful detention lawsuits from immigration detainees. These cases originate from the McCook Detention Center and various county jails across the state.
Since last September, over 60 petitions for a writ of habeas corpus have been submitted by immigrants held in Nebraska. In the first two months of the current year alone, 36 such cases have been filed.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nebraska has been at the forefront in representing some of these petitioners. ACLU staff attorney Grant Friedman shared insights with Molly Ashford regarding the surge’s legal implications and the impact on judicial resources.
The following is an edited transcript for clarity.
Understanding Habeas Corpus Petitions
Molly Ashford: Could you explain what a petition for a writ of habeas corpus entails?
Grant Friedman: It is a legal mechanism used to challenge the federal government’s justification for detaining an individual. Originating from English common law in the 13th century, it asserts that the executive branch cannot detain someone without cause. This principle is central to our liberty and due process, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution to allow individuals to contest their detention.
The Surge in Immigration Habeas Cases
Ashford: Has there been a notable rise in immigration habeas petitions in Nebraska and nationwide?
Friedman: Indeed, the past year has seen an unprecedented filing of over 20,000 habeas cases for immigrant detainees across the country. This surge has strained judicial systems, as seen in Minnesota’s district, which has received the highest volume of such cases. The importance of these writs ensures they are prioritized for swift adjudication, impacting court operations.
Challenges in Managing the Case Load
Ashford: Does the increase in cases complicate judicial proceedings?
Friedman: Yes, it does. In Nebraska, we’ve reached a point where hearings are waived or scheduled earlier to accommodate the caseload, recognizing the urgency of these matters.
Impact of ICE Raids on Habeas Filings
Ashford: The uptick followed an ICE raid on Glenn Valley Foods in Omaha last summer. Were the cases related to bond issues?
Friedman: Correct. These were “auto stay” cases where an immigration judge granted bond, but the government paused the release process with a formality, despite the thorough evaluations by attorneys and judges. We had instances where bonds were granted, but mandatory detention was claimed by the Board of Immigration Appeals. Successfully, we secured client releases on granted bonds.
Recent Cases and Mandatory Detention
Ashford: Are recent filings from detainees denied bond hearings due to expanded mandatory detention?
Friedman: Yes, most recent cases involve detainees eligible for bond hearings but denied the opportunity. The government’s stance is that immigration judges lack jurisdiction over these hearings, prompting us to seek federal court intervention. Nebraska’s district has often ruled that detainees deserve bond hearings, challenging the government’s reinterpretation of the law.
Judicial Rulings and Compliance
Ashford: Have there been issues in holding bond hearings after court rulings?
Friedman: Thus far, in the cases I’ve handled, the government has complied with court orders to provide bond hearings within the stipulated timeframe.
Resources for Affected Families
Ashford: What should families of detainees without bond hearings do?
Friedman: We’ve established an email hub at immhabeas@aclunebraska.org for assistance. This resource aims to support those facing unlawful detention and connect interested attorneys with the Nebraska Habeas Pro Bono Project, ensuring financial barriers do not hinder access to legal representation.
Ashford: That was Grant Friedman from the ACLU of Nebraska, speaking with Molly Ashford for Nebraska Public Media News.
