Ms. L. v. Immigration
302 F. Supp. 3d 1149 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The government practice of separating migrant parents from their minor children, absent a specific finding that the parent is unfit or presents a danger to the child, implicates the fundamental constitutional right to family integrity and may state a plausible claim for a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Facts:
- On November 1, 2017, Plaintiff Ms. L., a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, arrived at the San Ysidro Port of Entry with her 6-year-old daughter, S.S., to seek asylum based on religious persecution.
- Four days later, on November 5, 2017, immigration officials forcibly separated Ms. L. from S.S., sending the child to a facility for 'unaccompanied' minors in Chicago, over a thousand miles away.
- Plaintiff Ms. C., a citizen of Brazil, entered the United States with her 14-year-old son, J., between ports of entry and was apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol, at which time she stated she was seeking asylum.
- Ms. C. was prosecuted for misdemeanor illegal entry, and her son J. was taken from her and sent to a facility for 'unaccompanied' children in Chicago.
- After serving a 25-day sentence, Ms. C. was transferred to ICE detention to pursue her asylum claim but remained separated from her son for over five months.
- In both cases, the government separated the mothers from their children without any hearing, accusation, or finding that either Ms. L. or Ms. C. was an unfit parent or posed a danger to their child.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Ms. L. filed a complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California against several U.S. government agencies and officials.
- Ms. L. then filed an Amended Complaint, adding Plaintiff Ms. C. and seeking to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated parents.
- The government defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction, venue was improper, and the plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim for relief.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government practice of separating migrant parents from their children, without a finding that the parent is unfit or a danger to the child, plausibly violate the parents' substantive due process rights to family integrity under the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Hon. Dana M. Sabraw
Yes, the government practice of separating migrant parents from their children, without a determination of parental unfitness or danger, states a plausible claim for a violation of the fundamental right to family integrity under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The right to family integrity is one of the oldest fundamental liberty interests protected by the Constitution and applies to all persons within United States territory, including non-citizens. While this right is not absolute, the alleged practice of separating families—not as an incident of lawful detention but as a deliberate act, potentially for the purpose of deterrence—is so egregious that it may be considered arbitrary and 'conscience shocking.' The court found that these specific circumstances, involving asylum seekers being separated from their children without a justification related to the child's welfare, fall within the 'narrow subset of circumstances' where the right to family integrity is constitutionally protected. The government's conduct, if true, tears at the sacred bond between parent and child without reasonable justification, which is sufficient to state a plausible due process violation and survive a motion to dismiss.
Analysis:
This district court decision was a foundational ruling in the legal battle against the Trump administration's family separation policy. By denying the government's motion to dismiss, the court affirmed that the fundamental constitutional right to family integrity extends to asylum seekers and other migrants within U.S. borders. The ruling established that separating families for deterrence, rather than for child welfare reasons, is constitutionally suspect and can be challenged in federal court. This decision paved the way for a class-wide preliminary injunction that ultimately compelled the government to halt the practice and reunify thousands of separated families, demonstrating the judiciary's role in checking executive branch immigration enforcement policies that infringe upon fundamental rights.
