Judge denies relief in push for Oregon immigration detainee attorney access

The court also dismissed two defendants from the suit and declined to certify a class of individuals who fear arrest and detention.EUGENE, Ore. (CN) — A federal judge declined to order the Department of Homeland Security to ensure migrants in Oregon have access to attorneys before they are transferred out of the state.“Plaintiffs cite no case for the proposition that access to counsel before transfer to [Northwest ICE Processing Center] is required,” U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken wrote in a 32-page order.Clear Clinic, a Portland, Oregon-based pro bono law firm, and Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, a nonprofit representing Latino farmworkers, sued the Department of Homeland Security in 2025, accusing Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers of blocking detainees from accessing lawyers. Leon X, a 32-year-old Mexican national with a pending visa application, joined as a plaintiff to represent a class of individuals who fear arrest and detention by ICE.The nonprofits said detainees are held in ICE facilities for mere hours before being transferred to larger facilities out of state, which denies them access to lawyers. The government argued deferring meetings with potential counsel before transferring detainees is not the same as denying counsel.Aiken denied the nonprofits’ emergency motion for a temporary restraining order last year and on Wednesday denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and class certification.The Bill Clinton appointee found that of the three plaintiffs, only Clear Clinic had standing to pursue its claims and preliminary injunction.Under the proposed injunction, the nonprofit wanted ICE ordered to arrange a meeting between pro bono attorneys and detainees as well as provide the plaintiffs with all paperwork related to detained individuals even before an attorney-client relationship has been established. The nonprofit also requested detainees be allowed to attend Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste’s Know Your Rights trainings and that they not be transported if they request to attend one.Clear Clinic next requested that Oregon Field Offices remain open on weekends and holidays and until 8 p.m. every night, and to be notified if anyone is detained outside those hours.“These conditions do not restore the status quo,” Aiken wrote. “Plaintiffs have asked this court to create new operational rules — and many of them — for any building hosting ICE facilities in Oregon.”Aiken also disagreed with the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the meaning of the word “examination” in the regulation entitling detainees to representation, finding they had ignored the context of the full sentence by selectively quoting it.“Plaintiffs’ reading of the regulation would give immigrant detainees a more robust due process requirement at this stage than those being booked in jail on criminal charges,” Aiken wrote.The plaintiffs compared their case to others in which detainees had been denied access to counsel; however, Aiken noted the extended length of detention in field offices played a crucial factor in those and that there had been no claim that detainees have been held for more than 12 hours at any Oregon field office.“In fact, the allegations are the opposite: according to plaintiffs, detainees are being transferred from Oregon field offices to a long-term detention facility too quickly.” Aiken wrote. “Plaintiffs ask the court to require defendants to hold detainees at the field offices for longer periods of time.”Aiken also expressed concern about the evidence the nonprofits presented.“Plaintiffs make an assertion in their motion about what is happening inside Oregon field offices, but the five evidentiary documents they cite provide minimal, if any, support for the proposition,” Aiken wrote.Clear Clinic claimed its lack of access at Oregon field offices violated its First Amendment rights to disseminate information and solicit clients, but Aiken was not persuaded.“​​The record shows that attorneys have been able to access clients, though not to the degree or for the length of time that they wish, nor at all hours that plaintiffs wishes,” Aiken wrote.The federal defendants noted there were operational, logistical and security considerations impacting detention procedures, which Aiken found to be important interests. Plus, the court pointed out attorneys have been able to meet with prospective clients, though it may be a burden.“Plaintiffs have not shown that defendants’ practice burdens substantially more speech than necessary,” Aiken wrote.Aiken also dismissed Customs and Border Protection and its acting commissioner Pete Flores from the suit, finding the plaintiffs failed to accuse either of specific claims.Jordan Cunnings, legal director at Innovation Law Lab, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs, said the law lab will continue to challenge ICE.“Due process is a fundamental right in this country, and it doesn’t stop at ICE’s gate,” Cunnings said in a statement. “There is substantial evidence that ICE is denying people the right to speak with attorneys before transporting them out of state or even deporting them.”The federal defendants did not respond to a request for comment before press time.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