Coast to Coast, Federal Courts Say NO to Mandatory Lock-up of Immigrants

The tide is turning against U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE)'s policy of picking up our community members and locking them away without a hearing.

Coast to coast, federal courts are saying "no" to this unjust and irrational practice.

Yesterday, a federal judge in an ACLU case ordered ICE to "immediately cease and desist" its unlawful practice of denying a bond hearing to people detained throughout Massachusetts based on crimes that are typically minor – like shoplifting or drug possession – and that occurred years ago. Judge Ponsor ruled that immigrants who are picked up by ICE after returning to their lives, their families, their jobs, and their communities must be given a chance to ask an immigration judge for their release. He explained, "An individual's right to the due process is not eradicated simply because he or she has been convicted of a crime at some point in his or her life."

Our Massachusetts victory comes on the heels of another ACLU class action win on the other side of the country. Last week in Preap v. Beers, Judge Gonzales Rogers required ICE to give bond hearings to people picked up by ICE in their communities throughout the state of California.

And before that in another ACLU case, Khoury v. Asher, a judge reached the same conclusion for community members in western Washington state. There, too, ICE must now stop picking up people in their workplaces and homes and putting them in no-bond detention.

Under our immigration laws, lock-up without a bond hearing applies only to a narrow group of people who are taken in by ICE immediately after serving sentences for certain crimes. ICE, however, unlawfully applies this draconian form of detention to people picked up months or years after the fact. It thus locked away Richard Clayton Gordon—the lead plaintiff in our Massachusetts case and a U.S. army veteran—for a single stale drug conviction.

That conviction is now six years old.

At the time ICE encountered Mr. Gordon, he had returned to his family, gotten engaged, had a child, bought a house, and started plans to build a halfway house for his community. He also had no subsequent run-ins with the law whatsoever. And yet, ICE still put him in jail and denied him a bond hearing.

Fortunately, thanks to ACLU's victories, immigrants picked up by ICE in their communities must now be given the basic due process of a bond hearing. There, they can ask an immigration judge to decide whether they ever needed to be locked up in the first place. If the answer is no, the immigration judge must – and in Mr. Gordon's case did – order their release from unnecessary and unfair ICE detention.

It's a shame that it took a federal lawsuit to secure Mr. Gordon's release. People like him simply shouldn't be locked away without first seeing a judge – a cornerstone of our democracy. Now in Washington, California, and Massachusetts, they can't be. It's time for the Obama administration to listen to the courts as well as to its conscience and end its unlawful practice nationwide.

Learn more about immigrant incarceration and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alertsfollow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

View comments (2)
Read the Terms of Use


I am an ACLU supporter, particularly when it comes to issues relating to the first amendment. Because of this I feel compelled to point it out when you seem to be misinformed or inaccurate. Your headline and article are misleading, in that they use the term "immigrant" with no modifier, which makes it seem like ALL immigrants are being targeted. They aren't. "Immigrants" aren't being locked up without due process, and your saying so makes it seem as if regular, law-abiding citizens are being harassed. This is untrue and irresponsibly inflammatory. These people are certainly entitled to due process in the procedure of determining whether or not they have a legal right to be here and if not, hopefully deporting them. I support your fight on their behalf to get their due process. There's no need to lie by omission.
Their immigration was illegal. Hence, they are illegal immigrants. If you really feel a need to obfuscate or otherwise conceal the criminal nature of their immigration for reasons of political correctness, then you could use the term "undocumented" immigrant. Or you can throw in the legalese term of "alleged" if there is a perceived need to do so, but don't pretend that they are law-abiding citizens like you and me. They aren't.
Now I find myself wondering about how many other things you are or have been lying and obfuscating about. Dishonesty only turns off people, like me, who otherwise support your efforts.


Why doesn't the ACLU mention the fact that 1) he was convicted of possession of a controlled substance (drugs) with intent to sell (drug dealer) , an offense under immigration law punishable by deportation. 2) Regardless that his wife says "he did not serve a day" he was CONVICTED. Probation under the law amounts to conviction. Not a "but" or "maybe". If we want a society of laws and order, then we need to respect the laws on the books. Why does the ACLU go out of their way to sue the government for a "no bond" and "due process case" but fails to mention that he is, for immigration law, a convicted felon? Stop the hypocrisy.

Stay Informed