ICE Turns Lawyers Away at Minneapolis Detention Facility
As arrests surge under “Operation Metro Surge,” attorneys say the Trump administration is again denying detainees meaningful access to counsel.
On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) claimed that over 3,000 immigration arrests have taken place in the last six weeks amid the agency's ongoing crackdown in Minneapolis. This influx of arrests has brought to light new concerns that the Trump administration continues to violate immigrants' and Americans' rights to due process.
Earlier this week, ABC News reported that federal authorities were denying legal representatives the ability to see clients held at the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis. One anonymous immigration attorney told ABC News that they were denied visitation with a client who'd been held at the facility for multiple days. "I stood outside the visitation room for about four hours…And they just kept repeating, we don't do attorney visitation," the attorney told ABC News. The attorney also claimed that this was the first time in a decade of representing immigrants that they've had any issue visiting clients at the Whipple Federal Building.
Similarly, ABC News interviewed an anonymous criminal defense attorney who said they were turned away from seeing their client, a United States citizen and an Iraq War veteran, who was being held at the facility after an immigration enforcement operation took place near their client's home. "I've been practicing law in Minnesota for almost 20 years," the criminal defense attorney told ABC News, "and I have never been denied access to a client."
A third anonymous attorney told ABC News that one Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent at the facility said allowing lawyers to see their clients would result in "chaos."
These, and other instances reported by ABC News, stand out as potential violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to due process. Immigrants also have a statutory right to counsel, which protects an immigrant's "privilege of being represented" in removal proceedings and appeal proceedings. And according to the ICE National Detention Standards, legal representatives are supposed to be permitted "visitation seven days a week, including holidays…for a minimum of eight hours per day on regular business days, and a minimum of four hours per day on weekends and holidays."
Unlike criminal defendants, immigrant detainees are not guaranteed legal representation. However, they may procure legal representation to protect their rights while navigating a convoluted immigration system, and immigrants who obtain counsel are much more likely to win their cases.
When Reason asked the DHS about how the agency was ensuring meaningful access to counsel for both immigrant and criminal detainees, or if ICE detention standards had changed, a spokesperson replied that "all detainees at the Whipple building have opportunities to communicate with their family members and lawyers." A DHS spokesperson likewise denied any constitutional violations at the Whipple Federal Building in a statement to ABC News, and added that detainees "have access to phones they can use to contact…lawyers" and are provided a "list of free or low-cost attorneys."
Yet access to phones isn't always enough to ensure attorney-client confidentiality when government authorities record and likely listen to phone calls, the anonymous immigration attorney told ABC News. And other situations, like family members dropping off a detainee's medications, require more than a mere phone call.
Since President Donald Trump took office for his second term, the DHS and immigration authorities have been frequently accused of denying detainees' due process rights. In November, a federal judge in the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division issued a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration for inhumane conditions at the overcrowded Broadview ICE facility, and required, in part, that federal authorities provide Chicago-area detainees with three full meals a day and any prescribed medications needed, as well as allow communication with attorneys. But even with that restraining order in place, plaintiff's attorneys argued that ICE was still violating the terms of the order in December, according to CBS News.
Although immigration authorities have since left Chicago and are now focused on Minneapolis, the Trump administration's habit of violating rights seems to have followed in its push for speed over the rule of law.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Were they real lawyers who had been hired by the defendants / detainees? This time at least?
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/duckworth-staffer-immigrant-ice
This was my first question, too.
I would like to think that no matter where you fall on the spectrum of immigration legality that we could all at least agree that the right to an attorney should apply. However, I'm fully expecting that this behavior by the Trump administration will be roundly defended by the "libertarian" commenters at Reason.
How much access to an attorney is a right though?
The article admits these people have access - just not in-person access at the whim of the attorney.
The article also mentions that at least one MN attorney has never been turned away from this facility previously.
""I stood outside the visitation room for about four hours…And they just kept repeating, we don't do attorney visitation," the attorney told ABC News."
If true that's pretty problematic.
If you have an order of deportation, there is nothing for a lawyer to do.
Phone calls with lawyers is not at all adequate because those calls are recorded and ICE will use what they say against them. Attorney-client privilege is essential to representation.
Cite?
A right to an attorney to what exactly? They've had their due process and legally ordered out, which they've refused to do. Now Leftists like you demand infinity due process for them to remain.
It's leftist to say that maybe people need to be able to consult an attorney to be able to navigate our legal system? Seems like the tactics from actual leftist regimes.
"Similarly, ABC News interviewed an anonymous criminal defense attorney who said they were turned away from seeing their client, a United States citizen and an Iraq War veteran"
Was this citizen veteran also given due process and legally ordered out? Or are you just going to deny this might have happened?
Wow, a criminal defense attorney made a claim? That never happens.
So you support outright lies and demand perfection on the other side, typical. Sorry but you open borders retards guaranteed that sort of thing would happen because your entire fucking strategy is to overwhelm and defraud the system to such a degree that you guarantee issues to cherry pick for sympathy.
Leo, at any time you are free to read the INA and see what process is due for illegal immigrants. You choose not to do so in order to argue from ignorance, as is your standard.
You are also free to rely on anonymous sources as the basis of your facts despite how often they lie, as is your standard.
This claim is specifically about a US citizen. Do try to keep up.
"You are also free to rely on anonymous sources"
Thanks, I appreciate your approval.
Who?
Yes, who?
Who is that now?
Many of the people ICE is kidnapping do not have a final order of removal, and sometimes they are citizens. Access to counsel is there to ensure that ICE only deports those who are legally able to be deported.
List the names of the citizens and your sources.
Cmon Leo. We know you really mean taxpayer funded activist with a law degree.
we could all at least agree that the right to an attorney should apply.
Dude, 10 yrs. ago I thought we could all at least agree about the fundamentals of mammalian sexual dimorphism.
5 yrs. ago I thought we could all at least agree about voluntarily allowing people to attend Church and go to bars peacefully.
Two weeks ago I thought we could all at least agree about unnecessarily antagonizing armed men and accelerating at them in your vehicle.
GTFO with your fake, privileged, white "I think we could all agree." bullshit. You wanted diverse, post modern relativism and civility ended, deal with it.
>Yet access to phones isn't always enough to ensure attorney-client confidentiality when government authorities record and likely listen to phone calls
OMFG. Neither is sitting in a room in the detainment facility. It's never enough with you people, there's always one more stupid hurdle you demand everyone jump over.
My brother hasn't seen his public defender - neither she nor the prosecutor show up in person to the fucking *hearings* but these illegals are supposed to be entitled to in-person interviews at the convenience of random ambulance chases who probably are there just to find clients.
MAGAs: Access to representation is now a "stupid hurdle". I am sure you would sing a different song if you were arrested by ICE and about to be deported.
Would he be here illegally? That’s something that doesn’t matter to you.
As arrests surge under “Operation Metro Surge...
Couldn't be bothered to break out that thesaurus?
Pulse? Throb? Twitch?
Migrate northward
Spurt?
If they already have been issued a deportation order, there are no "proceedings" happening at which an attorney could represent them.
There are appellate proceedings. Peter Harisiades got to appeal his deportation order (though he ultimately lost)
No. There are a limited smoujt of days to file a potential appeal and the clock doesn't start only when you've been busted. OMFG you libtards are all so ignorant of everything other than your "feelz".
To a democrat, the legal process on any given day is whatever they feel will pro event all deportations no matter what.
You may be interested to know there is literally a recent appeals case about this.
It favored immigration courts.
Stopped reading while trying to count the anonymous attorneys.
Gee, I can't imagine why someone might be a little concerned with saying something negative about DHS or the Trump administration...
How do you feel about anonymous ICE agents?
CNN, MSNOW, CBS, NBC, ABC, The Atlantic, Politico, The Hill, WaPo.....an countless others stream negative comments about Trump and DHS 24/7. What has happened to them to give somebody pause? Have they been run over by cars? Doxxed? Had their wives and children threatened with murder?
A good number of the media companies you listed have been sued by Trump.
"Had their wives and children threatened with murder?"
Probably would happen if they were identified. That seems to be the state of politics on all sides.
Oh, so you oppose libel suits now?
Got it.
I oppose strawmen arguments.
Then don’t make them.
You said you oppose Trump's lawsuits, which were about libel and unfair treatment. He has been quite successful with said suits. So, CLEARLY, there was something there.
Again, why do you oppose libel suits?
He doesn’t. He opposes Trump having the same access to the legal system everyone else has, because of the ‘But Trump!’ clause in the constitution.
No, I said that the Trump admin has a history of going after it's political opponents (I defy you to dispute that point) and one could understand why someone who litigates in front of said government might not want to have their name dragged all over Social Media and other places. I made no statement about whether Trump's actions here are justified or not in any specific cases. Your claim is that I'm against libel suits because I offered it as justification for one instance of someone wanting to remain anonymous is in fact a straw man argument.
By the way, I would also understand why an immigration attorney might want to remain anonymous if they were critical of the Biden or Obama administrations. Not all comments you don't agree with are necessarily anti-Trump despite what the voices in your head might tell you.
Compared to Biden --- no, he has not done a thing to his political opponents.
A new precedent was set. There is no going back now.
Fuck off commie. Name the Leftists attacked or shot by conservatives, name the ones doxxed for their legal activities by conservatives. Also, name the media companies sued by Trump for true things they said and not known lies.
He will never tell the truth.
Why were they sued Leo?
I have no problem with negative comments about DHS. I have a problem with journalism that is entirely based on anonymous claims. If Autumn wants to publish the claims of anonymous ICE officers I have a problem with that too. So far that hasn't happened.
I was simply positing why the claimants in the article might wish to remain anonymous.
Because the tons and tons of people continuously condemning ICE have been disappeared? When did this happen?
Sadly, they’re all still around.
I admit to having only been on the internet since before Al Gore invented it, but in my limited experience at least a portion of the time someone, who isn't a politician, says or does something anonymously in public like this, it's because what they're saying or doing is insanely stupid, illegal, or both.
Like pretending to be a lawyer and giving bad legal advice and credentialed OpEd on the internet.
Lol. What a childish response.
Honk honk!
They don't feel any problem making themselves known as immigration attorneys though.
*Actual* *Legal* legal observers and totally not the mid-tier nitwits advising wine moms, regular old legal observers, to use their cars to interrupt police actions that have nothing to do with them.
No membership cards, so it's all good.
From the ABC article:
"ABC News is withholding the identity of three of them due to fears that federal agents could retaliate against their clients still in custody."
I mean the INA is clear, they are here illegally, already detained.... what more do you think can happen? Be legally deported? The horror.
Sadly youre dumb enough to buy it.
WTF is it with this clown simping for ABC News?
"One anonymous immigration attorney"
"an anonymous criminal defense attorney"
"A third anonymous attorney"
No "sources familiar with"? Weak.
The author linked to the ABC News source article which states:
"ABC News is withholding the identity of three of them due to fears that federal agents could retaliate against their clients still in custody."
Understand your skepticism. When I see such questionable info I follow the links, if any, provided by the author. The three ABC News reporters made a dubious call, but the article indicates the lawyers allegedly have named clients. If true then yeah, ICE is abusing rights. I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover ICE denying detainees their rights!
ICE having their work cut out for them cleaning up the democrat’s mess. And since democrats are working round the clock at every level to impede ICE officers, or even trying to murder them, it’s their fault for any alleged quality control failures.
Totally in synch with Murray Rothbard:
From 1992:
Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.
Easiest way to reduce that liability is to eliminate the lawyers looking to gum up the efficiency. And obviously illegals are not white collar criminals because they're not even white.
subject of course to liability when they are in error.
So get rid of QI, legislate to provide a cause of action for constitutional violations, remove absolute immunity in many cases - IOW do lots of things that the Regime and the cultists generally are opposed to.
Rothbard wasn't serious about any of those limitations either. This particular idea came in an essay where he advocated linking libertarians with David Duke and the KKK because the Hayek crowd is a bit effete. Fits well with the alt-right.
Cops cracking down on uppity nonwhites synchs with tax cuts, deregulation, and limited government. The economic ideas of billionaires (you're not a billionaire yet - but you wannabe right?) and the cultural ideas of trailer trash to create an electoral majority. Before that R strategy it was part of the Southern divide and conquer strategy during Jim Crow.
Not really that much different from the D coalition of university professors, bureaucrat unions, Davos donors, and drag queens.
Proper access to lawyers for everyone subjected to a government proceeding is critical to fair administration of justice. The accusation of an ICE agent is never enough.
The illegals get the prescribed access to counsel.
Not according to the article. If you have evidence* that these claims are false then present it.
*Your feelings are not evidence.
Little Autumn is a known liar and propagandist. So her claims mean nothing. Reason should fire her and find a new assistant to the editor.
We all know they would not do better with a new hire. I thought Dalmia was the worst they could find on immigration and they managed to find her equal.
Little Autumn is even dumber. And at her age, she is likely to get dumber, and more deranged with age.
Your attack is misguided because you have a literacy problem. Author Autumn Billings is simply relaying information in an ABC News article written by Matt Rivers, Janice McDonald, and Armando Garcia. In the future you may wish to actually read the article and follow the links provided so your ire is directed at the proper targets. I'll be helpful this one time and provide the link to the article since you have problems finding such things:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/lawyers-allege-dept-homeland-security-denying-legal-counsel/story?id=129335914
Holy fuck. Someone defending autumn. Lol!
Is there any leftist or corporate media too dumb for you to take as truth?
Ad hominem
If I have a ‘literacy problem’ then you are utterly illiterate by comparison. And your defense is that she’s cribbing from ABC News? Are you shitting me? ABC News is possibly the least credible of the network news operations. Which is REALLY saying something.
I have no interest in your bullshit links to your bullshit DNC propaganda operation.
Your entire comment is Walz +4.
Yes, surging from Biden low levels to near Bush levels, but less that Obama levels.
I suspect that the problem is that many of these detainees don’t know yet that they are represented by attorneys, nor, of course, who is funding their defenses. And that is why they don’t like the idea of outgoing phone calls. If they haven’t met their attorneys yet, they likely don’t know who to call.
I suspect that these complaints are orchestrated by the protesters in order to overwhelm ICE, etc. The USG probably doesn’t have the manpower available to bring the detainees out, one by one, and supervise the visits. Are they trying to orchestrate a violent revolt by the detainees? We just don’t know, and neither does ICE.