In the first order, after hearings, the able USDC Judge has ruled that the Noemites / Miller-istas cannot lawfully impose a $500 fee on class members who've won the right to remain in the US under the class settlement. [A provision of the (odious) "Big Beautiful Bill" signed last year purported to nullify prior class action settlement orders. That it cannot do.]
The second order is more sweeping -- and requires the Miller-istas to provide more information about both people in custody at present, and those already wrongfully removed, where the government had reason to know the people were protected by the 2018 Ms. L. class settlement orders. Here's a bit of that one:
. . .Defendants do not dispute any of these facts. They simply state “[t]here are no records of ERO removal for these individuals.” (Decl. of Byoung C. Park in Supp. of Defs.’ Resp. to Mots. ¶ 4, ECF 919-1.)
Given the evidence set out above and the corroborating evidence set out in S.M.B.C.’s Supplemental Declaration, (see Supp. Decl. of S.M.B.C. in Supp. of Reply, ECF 920-1), Plaintiffs have shown S.M.B.C. and her family did not voluntarily depart the United States. Rather, the evidence reflects they were removed despite having been granted parole and in violation of this Court’s June 27, 2025 order staying the removal of Class Members and QAFMs. Accordingly, Defendants must return S.M.B.C. and her children to the United States. . . .
[T]he undisputed circumstances are as follows: ICE officers instructed three mothers to bring their children to their check-in appointments. One of those mothers was a Ms. L. Class Member. One was a QAFM. Each of them had been granted parole through 2027, and each of them had at least one child who was a U.S. citizen. One of those mothers had been forcibly separated from her daughter in 2018 pursuant to the first Trump Administration’s family separation policy. The third mother was not a Class Member or a QAFM, but one of her children was a Class Member due to his separation from his father in 2018. At their respective check-in appointments, ICE officers told the mothers they had deportation or removal orders for each of them despite two of them having parole status. The officers also told the mothers to bring their passports and their childrens’ passports to their appointments. With the mothers, children, and passports in hand, the officers then transported these families to a hotel or motel, and later boarded them onto an aircraft and removed them from the United States.
Given these circumstances, and in particular, the Class Member or QAFM status of the family members, the parole status of two of the family members, and that the removal of one family occurred after this Court ordered a stay of removals of Class Members and QAFMs, the Court finds Defendants should bear the expense of returning these family units to the United States. Each of the removals was unlawful, and absent the removals, these families would still be in the United States and have access to the benefits and resources they are entitled to under the Settlement Agreement. Although the Settlement Agreement does not prohibit Defendants from enforcing the laws of the United States, the removals at issue here clearly violated the spirit of the Agreement, which was to effect and support reunification in the United States of families that had been separated pursuant to the family separation policy.
Defendants’ decision to remove these families rendered the benefits of the Settlement Agreement illusory for these families, and the manner in which each of these removals was affected, in addition to being unlawful, involved lies, deception, and coercion. For these reasons, and to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement as to these families, (see Settlement Agreement § VII.D), Defendants shall bear the cost of returning these family units to the United States. . . .
The level of intentional thwarting of federal court orders (and lying in court under oath about it!) -- day in, and day out -- by the Noemites. . . is appalling. Time to run the lot of them out of office, methinks -- and in 2028, obtain federal indictments, and prosecute the lot of them.
Actually, several states are moving right now through their legislatures (in Colorado, California, Illinois, New York and Minnesota) to enact state level laws that would allow for charging federal agents with state level felonies for violating the Constitutional rights of people they detain. This would obviously allow for separate jailings, under state law -- and could easily begin even later this year, once the local legislative packages pass. ICE would be wise to stay out of those states, entirely.
Onward, resolutely. Get ready to play hard-ball -- and break some noses.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment