See below -- but I think the Ninth Circuit argument, and the attorneys' visits -- have blown Trump's cover. He is in for a serious reckoning with the law, post haste [from that just filed order, this afternoon]:
. . . .The Court has already issued several orders that have set forth in detail what it considers to be violations of the Flores Agreement. [Doc. ## 177, 189, 363, 470.] Thus, the parties need not use divining tools to extrapolate from those orders what does or does not constitute noncompliance. The Court has made that clear beyond peradventure.
The Court is mindful that the emergent nature of Plaintiffs’ allegations demands immediate action. The mediation procedures included in the Monitor’s Appointment Order were intended to facilitate the expeditious remediation of conditions, such as those presented here, threatening the safety and welfare of class members and to avoid the inordinate delay that would inevitably result from any protracted litigation regarding the Flores Agreement.
Indeed, although the Court’s July 24, 2015 and June 27, 2017 Orders found that CBP had committed multiple breaches of the Flores Agreement, Plaintiffs claim that CBP has continued to commit many of the same violations years later. See, e.g., July 24, 2015 Order at 16–18 (finding widespread and deplorable conditions in holding cells of CPB stations) [Doc. # 177]; June 27, 2017 Order at 12–15 (finding the presence of unsanitary conditions at certain CBP facilities in Rio Grande Valley Sector) [Doc. # 363]; Pls.’ Mem. of P. & A. at 12–14 (asserting that CBP facilities in the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso Sectors are not sanitary) [Doc. # 572-1].
While the Court is aware that the sudden influx of migrants presents special challenges and that the facilities’ conditions are not static, the Flores Agreement, executed in 1997, contemplated such circumstances and charged Defendants with the task of preparing a “written plan that describes the reasonable efforts that it will take to place all minors as expeditiously as possible.” Flores Agreement, Paragraph 12.C. If 22 years has not been sufficient time for Defendants to refine that plan in a manner consistent with their “concern for the particular vulnerability of minors” and their obligation to maintain facilities that are consistently “safe and sanitary,” it is imperative that they develop such a comprehensive plan forthwith. Id. at Paragraph 12.A. . . .
Therefore, pursuant to Paragraph D.3 of the Appointment Order and in accordance with Defendants’ request, the Court REFERS Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application to expedited mediation before the Monitor. In light of the evidence presented, the Court waives the time periods set forth in Section D.3. The Monitor may, in her discretion, set other deadlines and take other measures appropriate to facilitate the prompt remediation of the conditions at issue, including the retention of an independent public health expert. By July 12, 2019, the parties shall file a joint status report regarding their mediation efforts and what has been done to address post haste the conditions described in the Ex Parte Application. The parties shall participate in the mediation process in good faith. Pending the parties’ mediation, the Court holds the Ex Parte Application in abeyance.
IT IS SO ORDERED. . . .
The monitor now has the authority to simply cause immediate changes -- or begin contempt [jailing] citations. Now we will see movement -- immediately -- or we will see contempt orders, and jailings of CBP officers -- and perhaps. . . their lawyers. And. . . that would mean you, Ms. Fabian, and Mr. Readler.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment