Attorneys claim conditions at San Francisco ICE facility remain inhumane

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Attorneys representing a class of detainees held by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at a downtown San Francisco facility claimed on Monday that the government was not complying with a preliminary injunction regarding conditions at the holding facility, partially because the government has not provided any evidence of its compliance.

Attorney Marissa Hatton — representing class members who have been detained by ICE and held at the 630 Sansome St. building —told U.S. District Court Judge P. Casey Pitts that detention operations were moved down a floor, in a “dubiously literal interpretation of the preliminary injunction.”

In the preliminary injunction issued by Pitts, a Joe Biden appointee, in November, she held that conditions in sixth floor holding rooms were unconstitutional and ordered adequate sleeping facilities for detainees who are held for longer than 12 hours or “overnight,” immediate access to a medical assessment, access and provision of medications, if necessary, and written information in English and Spanish of detainees’ rights given to them within the first hour of detention.

“What we are dealing with is not an innocuous situation, but class members denied their constitutional rights,” Hatton said.

The attorney claimed ICE detentions at Sansome are “essentially operating as a black site” without access to attorneys, due to the fifth floor’s absence of phones and denial of in-person representation.

“This is an emergent situation,” Hatton said. “It’s a total categorical prohibition of attorney privilege.”

Pitts said Hatton would need to file a modification of the preliminary injunction about immediate access to representation, as there was no evidence when the injunction was first decided that it was denied access existed.

Hatton said “We have been stonewalled at every turn” by the government. She said one simple solution would be for government or ICE officials to take photos proving the facilities are compliance with the injunction.

Hatton said she and the plaintiffs’ counsel were likely to file a contempt of court motion, unless the government provides evidence of compliance with the injunction, especially after she was recently denied access to the fifth floor during a visit to the detention center at Sansome.

Furthermore, she said, the preliminary injunction — and the class members’ constitutional rights — exist on the fifth floor, as they did on the sixth, and when detainees are transferred to Stockton.

U.S. Attorney Doug Johns said he was trying to “take the temperature down,” and said both parties have the same goal of keeping the facility safe.

He told the court that to comply with the injunction, the sixth floor at Sansome became “nonoperational” and claimed there were safety issues regarding unconditional access to medications, saying there could potentially be theft or people harming themselves. He asked if a waiver releasing the government’s liability in those situations would be possible.

Additionally, the attorneys and Pitts discussed what “overnight” could be defined as, due to Johns’ claim that ICE officials had a difficult time complying with the “adequate sleeping conditions” order if a detainee came to the holding facility early in the morning. Pitts agreed some clarity was needed, and suggested “overnight” to mean 9 p.m. to 5 a.m.

On Dec. 19, Pitts ruled in favor of a newly certified class of people who were at risk of being re-arrested or re-detained by ICE, even after they were cleared of suspicion of danger or a flight risk.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement that ICE was following the law.

“Secretary Noem is reversing Biden’s catch and release policy that allowed millions of unvetted illegal aliens to be let loose on American streets,” she said. “ICE is now following the law and placing these illegal aliens in expedited removal, as they always should have been. If they have a valid credible fear claim, they will continue in immigration proceedings, but if no valid claim is found, aliens will be subject to a swift deportation.”

Pitts said many immigrants reestablish their lives after an initial arrest and detention and relied on a prior policy limiting re-detention.

Pitts found the claims that the current policy regarding re-arrests and re-detentions may violate the Administrative Procedures Act had merit.