Immigrants detained in a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles can no longer be held for weeks on end in crowded cells without drinking water, changes of clothing or sanitary napkins, or be deprived of their ability to defend themselves, under the terms of a settlement announced today by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California (ACLU/SC), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the law firm of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker LLP.
The settlement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency means an end to unsanitary conditions in the basement facility known as “B-18.” It also puts a stop to the practice of shuttling detainees back and forth to overcrowded local jails in an effort to avoid rules prohibiting long-term detention at the facility. The agreement prohibits the agency from holding detainees there for more than 12 hours on any given day or over two consecutive days, subject to limited exceptions.
“The disturbing human shell game of shuttling people back and forth between jails has ended at B-18. This settlement eliminates the unacceptable conditions that existed and restores detainees’ dignity and their right to due process,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, director of immigrants’ rights and national security at the ACLU/SC. “It is one step, but an important one, in correcting our severely broken immigration detention system nationwide.”
The settlement agreement stems from a federal lawsuit brought five months ago by the ACLU/SC, NILC, and Paul, Hastings, Janofsky and Walker LLP, charging that ICE often held immigrants for many weeks in terrible conditions at B-18, a facility which was intended only to hold detainees for short periods of time.
To its credit, the government promptly took steps to correct many of the problems at B-18 shortly after the lawsuit was filed. Within weeks, the agency adopted a rule that detainees could be held at B-18 for no more than 12 hours on any given day. It also significantly improved conditions at B-18 by providing better access to water, hand sanitizers and sanitary napkins.
Prior to the lawsuit, detainees had painted a harrowing picture of conditions at the facility. There was no soap or drinking water. Immigrants were crowded into cells, sometimes waiting for hours without room to sit down. Some had not been able to shower, brush their teeth, or change their clothes in weeks. Women asking for sanitary napkins were often ignored, and detainees were often forced to sleep on the floor for several days in a row. Many detainees also had no access to writing material, effectively depriving them of the ability to prepare legal documents needed to defend themselves. The conditions were symptomatic of problems that exist in ICE detention centers around the country and were documented in the recent report “A Broken System: Confidential Reports Reveal Failures in U.S. Detention Centers,” co-written by NILC and the ACLU/SC.
“No longer can ICE stuff people into overcrowded cells or deny detainees their right to see a lawyer. This settlement serves as a safeguard against what was once an almost everyday situation at B-18: unlawful treatment and unsanitary conditions,” said Karen Tumlin, a staff attorney with the NILC. “As this lawsuit shows, major national policy changes are desperately needed to safeguard against the terrible conditions that afflict so many immigrants held in detention centers across the country.”
Under the agreement, ICE must now provide writing material and mail access to B-18 detainees who have a need to prepare legal documents. Additionally, detainees must be notified of this right via a notice posted inside each of the cells. Immigration lawyers and their representatives, sometimes denied visitation in the past, are now guaranteed the right to meet with detainees at the facility during regular business hours.
In order to monitor the situation at B-18, the legal team behind the lawsuit will be provided with electronic rosters of detainees to determine their length of stay. The team has also been granted permission to make occasional visits to the facility to check that there are no violations of the agreement. Inside the facility, every manager and new employee will be made aware of the terms of the agreement, so that they can ensure there is full compliance.
“This agreement shows that the government can create a clean, safe and constitutionally run detention facility, and we hope that the settlement reflects a new priority of the Obama administration,” said Toliver Besson, a partner at Paul, Hastings. “If the administration is truly committed to immigrants’ rights, this facility will be the norm, not the exception, for detention facilities around the country.”
In addition to those named above, counsel for plaintiffs in the case included: Marisol Orihuela, formerly of the ACLU/SC; Linton Joaquin of NILC; Jamie Broder, James W. Gilliam Jr., Stephen J. Turanchik, Eleanor Mercado, Amanda Gilman, Nick Begakis and Morgan Pietz, all of Paul, Hastings.
 
 
 
 
 
 

SANTA ANA, Calif. – The ACLU of Southern California and the law firm of Hadsell, Stormer, Keeny, Richardson and Renick LLP have settled a lawsuit against Orange County’s Newport-Mesa Unified School District and Corona del Mar High School over a sexist and homophobic atmosphere that officials permitted to flourish at the school.

The settlement agreement filed today in Orange County Superior Court resolves a lawsuit over an environment that led to despicable threats of violence against Hail Ketchum, a senior at Corona del Mar High School at the time. Under the agreement, district officials will provide a written apology to Ms. Ketchum.

The district also will provide mandatory training sessions for administrators, teachers and students that will focus on the harmful impact of sexual discrimination and harassment, as well as on federal law and district complaint protocols to be followed whenever anyone experiences discrimination or harassment based on sex, sexual orientation and gender identity.

“The mandated training will make it clear to administrators, teachers and students not only what constitutes sexism and homophobia, but what school officials must do to deal with it – and prevent it from spreading – according to the law,” said Hector Villagra, director of the ACLU/SC’s Orange County office.

Ms. Ketchum, who agreed to be publicly identified for the first time today, said that while the district’s apology to her is important, she’s been primarily interested in ensuring that district officials do everything they can to prevent other students from being the target of vitriolic comments and threats like those she experienced. Those attacks “were disgusting and very disturbing to me personally,” she said. “But what was really disheartening is that when I complained about them, the administrators did little to deal with them. I’m happy that the settlement provides the school with a road map of how to address situations like this more appropriately.”

The training mandated by the settlement will be conducted under the direction and guidance of the Orange County/Long Beach regional office of the Anti-Defamation League. It includes an eight-hour program later this year for all district managers, school-site administrators, principals and assistant principals. Teachers and staff at Corona del Mar will get two two-hour training sessions during the current school year, as will students.

“It’s important for high school students to be educated about bullying and homophobia. It’s crucial for school administrators and teachers not only to be aware of these issues, but how to deal with them,” said Katherine Darmer, a Chapman University law professor who is on the board of the Orange County Equality Coalition, which focuses on LGBT issues. “It’s shameful that Ms. Ketchum had to suffer through the threats and comments she did, but I’m hopeful that with this new training, school officials will be better prepared to deal with a situation like this if it comes up again.”

“California law guarantees a safe and bias-free learning environment for all students,” added Anne Richardson, a partner with Hadsell Stormer. “School officials must understand that they have a duty to take affirmative steps to change a school culture that ignores or promotes harassment and discrimination.”

Image: Karyl Ketchum and Michael Wiggins, parents of former Corona del Mar High School student Hail Ketchum.

This is my first case in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. I’ve argued in front of the California Supreme Court, and also seven or eight times before the 9th Circuit. But you sense that this is an even higher level, so yes, I’m nervous.
There are a lot of different issues in this case, and it’s very hard to know what the justices will focus on. Lower courts have already decided that the placement of the cross on federal property violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and the government did not ask the Court to review that decision. One of the issues to be considered by the justices now is whether that violation is meaningfully eradicated by the government’s proposal to transfer ownership of the small patch of land on which the cross stands to a local veteran’s group, even though the cross will remain designated a national memorial.
It’s utterly clear that the government’s proposal does not live up to its obligation not to favor any particular religion. The cross is unquestionably a sectarian religious symbol, signifying the divinity of Jesus. As a congressionally designated national memorial to World War I veterans – one of only 49 national memorials in the country – this cross would convey the message that the military values the sacrifices of Christian war dead over those of service members from other faith traditions. This would be true even if the property were to be transferred to private owners.
The cross’s message would not be, as the memorial’s defenders claim, one of commemoration for all war dead and veterans, or for all veterans of World War I. Thousands of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and members of other faiths who have served their country with honor do not regard the cross as a “universal symbol.” That’s one reason the military allows soldiers and their families to choose which religious symbol to put on headstones in military cemeteries – a policy the ACLU staunchly supports, by the way.
Another issue the justices will consider is whether the plaintiff in the case, Frank Buono, a military veteran, former assistant superintendent of Mojave National Preserve and someone who visits the area of the preserve near the cross regularly, has standing to sue. And there’s also an issue over whether the question of standing has even been properly presented to the court, since the government did not ask the Supreme Court to review the lower courts’ ruling that Mr. Buono had standing when those decisions became final in 2004.
Clearly, Mr. Buono is directly affected. And anyone who is directly affected by government favoritism of one religion can and should be able to sue, if our constitutional freedom of religion is to mean anything. Otherwise, a Jewish student “offended” by school-sponsored Christian prayers, for example, would have no legal recourse.
I’ve done a tremendous amount of preparatory work for this hearing in recent months. You always wonder, “Is there some question I haven’t thought of?” But by and large, I feel ready. I’ve done two moot courts at Harvard, one at NYU and one at Georgetown University. The moots are indispensable to preparation. They are a chance to test your arguments and how well you know them, but also to see what people who are smart think of them.
I drink decaf coffee, so tomorrow before I head to the court, I’ll have a cup or two. There’s really nothing you can do at the last minute before a major case like this except get yourself as grounded and relaxed as you can be, and try to keep your head clear.
Peter Eliasberg is the Manheim Family Attorney for First Amendment Rights for the ACLU/SC, as well as our managing attorney.