On June 27, 2018, a refugee from Guatemala filed this lawsuit on behalf of herself and her daughter in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Attorney General of the United States and officers and executives of the Department of Homeland Security, the ...
read more >
On June 27, 2018, a refugee from Guatemala filed this lawsuit on behalf of herself and her daughter in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against the Attorney General of the United States and officers and executives of the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. §§ 551
et seq.) and the Declaratory Judgment Act (22 U.S.C. § 2201). Represented by the ACLU of Massachusetts and private counsel, the plaintiff sought injunctive and declaratory relief, along with attorney’s fees. The plaintiff alleged that she and her daughter had been separated upon their entry to the United States in violation of their Fifth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights and their equal protection rights. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s family reunification requirements violated the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the Department of Health and Human Services had violated the Flores Settlement’s requirements regarding immigrant detention.
See Flores v. Reno. Finally, the plaintiff filed petitions for mandamus and habeas relief for the defendants to release her daughter.
The plaintiff brought the case in Massachusetts, where she was domiciled as she awaited her asylum hearing, while her daughter was kept in a shelter in Texas. The case was assigned to Judge George A. O’Toole.
The following day, the plaintiff filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order for immediate injunctive relief, asking the court to order the release of the daughter. A copy of the motion was promptly sent to the defendants, who were ordered to respond by July 2, 2018. The defendants requested, and were granted, an extension until July 6. Rather than take advantage of the extension, the defendants decided to release her daughter. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case on July 5, 2018 after she and her daughter were reunited. The case is now closed.
Elizabeth Helpling - 10/29/2019
compress summary
