Judge Calls Trump's Border Separations of Children Brutal'
Source: bloomberg
The Trump administration failed to kill a legal challenge to its practice of separating undocumented parents and children who seek to enter the U.S. to flee persecution at home, with a judge handing an early victory to civil rights activists who say the policy is unconstitutional and cruel.
U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego on Wednesday denied a motion to dismiss the suit, in which the American Civil Liberties Union argues that splitting up families at the border violates their due process rights.
The practice, spearheaded by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, caused widespread outrage after images of children in detention centers circulated on social media. The government argues separations are necessary to properly prosecute adults who cross into the U.S. illegally, while activists say children are being used as pawns in an informal policy intended to deter migrants.
These allegations sufficiently describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child," the judge wrote. The conduct, if true, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency."
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/aclu-suit-over-child-separations-at-border-may-proceed-judge
Gothmog
(145,216 posts)Gothmog
(145,216 posts)this is a clear constitutional law violation https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/district-court-judge-rules-that-trump-administration-child-separations-would-be-unconstitutional.html
For Plaintiffs, the government actors responsible for the care and custody of migrant children have, in fact, become their persecutors. These allegations sufficiently describe government conduct that arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child, and is emblematic of the exercise of power without any reasonable justification in the service of an otherwise legitimate governmental objective[.] Such conduct, if true, as it is assumed to be on the present motion, is brutal, offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency. At a minimum, the facts alleged are sufficient to show the government conduct at issue shocks the conscience and violates Plaintiffs constitutional right to family integrity. Accordingly, Defendants motion to dismiss Plaintiffs due process claim is denied.
As Sabraw noted, he is still poised to rule on whether or not separated families will be certified as part of the ACLUs requested class action lawsuit, and to determine if a preliminary injunction will be issued to halt a practice he describes as brutal, offensive, and [failing] to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency. In other words, the class action question is still open, but his view that such a practice is shockingly cruel for constitutional purposes, does not seem to be in doubt.
The ACLU attorney who argued the case, Lee Gelernt, described the ruling to me as a powerful initial victory for his clients.
This is an enormous ruling, theres no question about it, because the major dispute between us and the government was whether there was a constitutional right [for] families to remain together in these circumstances, Gelernt told me.
The court has essentially said that the practice alleged in the suitand reportedly taking place all across our border for the past monthis a gross violation of the U.S. constitution. Now it has merely to determine whether the practice is actually taking place.
Hitleresque is more like it.