Civil Rights Group Sues ICE for Withholding Records of the Agency's Detention Expansion Plans in Virginia

Lawyers at America's largest civil liberties group say the agency’s lack of transparency violates federal disclosure requirements.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its Virginia and North Carolina affiliates have filed a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), requesting the release of records detailing the agency's planned expansion of detention centers in Virginia. 

The lawsuit, which was filed on October 1 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, stems from a Request for Information (RFI) issued by ICE on May 28. The RFI sought to identify "single adult facilities" within a two-hour drive of Richmond International Airport in Virginia with 1,000 to 1,500 beds, to serve as additional ICE detention centers under the jurisdiction of the agency's D.C. Enforcement and Removal Operations division.

On August 8, the ACLU submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all records related to the solicitation—including submitted proposals, internal communications, and evaluation records. Under FOIA, federal agencies are required to respond to requests within 20 business days, but can be granted a 10-day extension in certain situations if they notify the requester in writing and explain the need for more time. ICE acknowledged receiving the ACLU's request and invoked a 10-day extension, but never followed up or produced any documents. The ACLU states in its filing that it has "exhausted all administrative remedies regarding [ICE's] failure to respond."

"This lawsuit is about transparency and accountability," Michele Delgado, an attorney with the ACLU of North Carolina, said in a press release. "The public has a right to know how ICE is planning to expand its network of detention centers, especially when tens of thousands of people are already held in these facilities every day under conditions that raise serious human rights concerns."

Under President Donald Trump's expensive immigration crackdown, ICE has rapidly expanded its detention facilities, which has drawn mounting legal scrutiny and allegations of civil rights abuses. In the agency's temporary holding facility in Chantilly, Virginia, detainees have allegedly been denied meals, basic medical care, and access to due process, according to a recent MSNBC investigation. The same pattern of humanitarian and due‑process concerns has surfaced in other detention sites, including Alligator Alcatraz and several other facilities in Florida.

The Virginia case is only the latest in a growing wave of litigation aimed at exposing the Department of Homeland Security, of which ICE is a part, and its quiet efforts to expand detention infrastructure. In September, the ACLU of Colorado filed a similar lawsuit to the one in Virginia, after ICE failed to comply with a FOIA request filed by the nonprofit, which sought records about the agency's detention expansion plans in the state and neighboring Wyoming. This pattern is hardly unusual—ICE has long denied, ignored, or stonewalled FOIA requests from journalists and watchdogs, frequently failing to meet statutory deadlines, according to the Columbia Journalism Review.

The ACLU's lawsuit against ICE operations in Virginia could force the agency to disclose its rapid expansion plans for the state—as past cases raised by the nonprofit have done. While this might provide an important piece of oversight to Trump's mass deportation agenda, it would likely do little to stop the due process and constitutional rights violations that the agency continues to perpetrate. 

Comments

[Chumby]

Detention centers in Virginia. Lawsuit filed in New York. Odd.

[Jerry B.]

Just the usual venue shopping.

[JesseAz (RIP CK)]

Always amuses me how reliant reason is in citing fully captured institutions like the ACLU because they were told they were the good guys growing up.

[damikesc]

They still think CATO is libertarian. Which is pathetically amusing.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

And that’s ad hominem too, attacking the author for his affiliation. You too seem to have no actual problem with the facts, or you would have tried to rebut them.

Don’t you want government to spend money more carefully? Do you think government doesn’t spend enough?

[Juliana Frink]

All part of the psy-op.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

That’s an ad hominem attack, resorted to by people who have no real complaint and can’t rebut the action itself.

Rebut the facts, or you’re just another weak-kneed whiner who didn’t get your Maypo for breakfast.

[Minadin]

If a source has been shown to be unreliable in the past, is that still considered an ad-hominem? I mean, if I were to cite the SPLC or Hamas / Gaza Health Ministry, would that not hurt my argument? Should it not?

[sarcasmic]

“They were wrong once. That means they’re wrong all the time.”

textbook ad-hominem

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Go ahead, it certainly deserves mention. But when there are actual rebuttable facts, ignoring them in favor of only attacking their credibility looks weak.

The point of rebuttal is not to convince those who already know. It is to convince new people who don’t know the background. Imagine some brand new college freshman first hearing about Gaza, and all he hears is “The Gaza Health Ministry lies!” with no proof. Why should he put any credence in it, especially when he sees videos of bombs and starving children?

[Z Crazy]

While this might provide an important piece of oversight to Trump’s mass deportation agenda, it would likely do little to stop the due process and constitutional rights violations that the agency continues to perpetrate.
What the agency wants to do is save lives!

[Jerry B.]

Did anyone file suit when Biden was letting millions of “immigrants” cross the border?

[Incunabulum]

>While this might provide an important piece of oversight to Trump’s mass deportation agenda, it would likely do little to stop the due process and constitutional rights violations that the agency continues to perpetrate.

This is how people who do not think deeply write.

You make an assertion about how important it is – then, in the same paragraph, point out that it’s not actually important at all.

Disclosing plans for expansion *is not oversight* and even if it was it would not be meaningful. And it’s the civil rights violation that are why the oversight is needed – not the plans for expansion of facilities.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You don’t care how wisely or carefully they spend taxes? That’s oversight. There ought to be more of it. Lack of oversight is how cronies get rich. It’s called corruption.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Really don’t see the point of this story or the lawsuit. This is in response to ICE seeking to identify potential detention facilities, something that is entirely lawful and mundane. The author, quoting MSNBC and purported victims of overcrowding assumes, without evidence, that any new location will engage in some horrifying abuse. If overcrowding is the issue it seems completely logical to seek new locations and attempting to stop the process is obviously contrary to relieving that overcrowding. If ICE is out of compliance with FOIA they need to step up their game. But government agencies slow walking FOIA disclosures is hardly unusual and ICE is far from the worst actor. It is in fact standard operating procedure. See Fauci and the NIH for example.

[sarcasmic]

The author, quoting MSNBC and purported victims of overcrowding assumes, without evidence, that any new location will engage in some horrifying abuse.

What you seem to ignore or fail to understand here is that horrifying abuse is the goal. Even if the facilities weren’t overcrowded they’d still find a way abuse the inmates. People don’t join ICE to be nice to immigrants. Quite the opposite.