ICE denies violating court order barring warrantless arrests in Oregon

The plaintiffs accused federal officials of enacting an “arrest first, ask later” policy.PORTLAND, Ore. (CN) — A class of former immigration arrestees in Oregon urged a federal judge on Monday to find the federal government had violated a court order barring immigration officials from warrantless arrests.“Evidence shows they’ve never taken the court’s injunction seriously, and in fact are taking steps to thwart it,” argued Jordan Cunnings, attorney with the Innovation Law Lab.In February, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, Joe Biden appointee, barred Immigration and Customs Enforcement from arresting Oregonians without a warrant and without determining whether they posed an escape risk, but the plaintiffs say the agency hasn’t been complying with the preliminary injunction.An ICE agent in the Medford, Oregon, area identified as JG described on Friday the arrest of two witnesses who testified to their detainments, explaining the warrant was prepared on site and not issued before as the injunction orders.“Anyone looking would say the arrest complies with the law, when in fact nothing complies with the law,” said Stephen Manning with the Innovation Law Lab.Kasubhai questioned how he should consider the fact JG acknowledged he was not truthful in the arrest record.Justice Department attorney Ariana Garousi argued the officer testified candidly about the differences between the arrest record and what occurred, and that he had no malicious intent.“These aren’t minor discrepancies,” Kasubhai said. “Had it not ever been brought to light under oath in this courtroom, that material in the narrative would have been uncontested.”The class of Oregon immigrants claim the unlawful arrests are part of the Trump administration’s efforts to hit immigration arrest quotas.During eight hours of witness testimony and arguments on Friday, an attorney withthe Deportation Data Project, which publicizes immigration enforcement data through Freedom of Information Act requests and other sources, testified there were 574 immigration arrests in Oregon between the judge’s February order and July. Of those, 504 have been noncustodial arrests, which means they are more likely to have occurred without an arrest warrant.The federal defendants dispute that figure, arguing some of those noncustodial arrests occurred at a prison or jail, making them situations that don’t require a warrant.The noncustodial arrests aren’t synonymous with warrantless arrests, argued Garousi.“This backdrop all shows that defendants are significantly underreporting warrantless arrests in Oregon,” Cunnings said.Though some of the arrests had warrants, the plaintiffs argue those warrants are invalid. In some cases, the agents had pre-filled warrants ready to go to bypass the usual procedure. In others, the supervising officer on site approved the warrant instead of a supervisor removed from the situation. In many cases, the plaintiffs say the warrants were issued before the arrestees were given a charging document.The government argued the scope of this case is solely on warrantless arrests, not the validity of warrants.“Considering all that evidence, we don’t think plaintiffs demonstrated there’s been a violation of the injunction,” Garousi said.Kasubhai gave both sides a week to submit supplemental briefing and did not indicate when he would release his decision.Following the hearing, Cunnings praised the bravery of the plaintiffs’ witnesses who testified on Friday as to how their lives were disrupted by ICE’s sweeps across the state.The four men — all in their 20s and 30s who work in blue-collar and service-connected jobs, speaking through interpreters — said they still fear arrest by ICE and potential deportation, despite the fact that they are following immigration laws.“We are trusting these officers with the power to determine whether someone goes home to dinner with their kid that night or not,” Cunnings said. “We’re confident the judge is going to make a decision that restores the validity of the force of his conviction on preventing harm and stress in Oregon.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads