Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
QuickTake:
U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken found the plaintiffs’ allegations serious but not yet well-enough substantiated to grant a temporary restraining order.
This post has been updated to include a statement from the legal firm representing the plaintiffs.
A U.S. district judge in Oregon on Wednesday denied a request by two immigrant advocacy organizations for a temporary restraining order against federal immigration officials and agencies.
The case was brought by an immigrant rights group and an Oregon clinic providing free legal services to immigrants. They argued that the defendants — which include the Department of Homeland Security and its secretary, Kristi Noem, as well as Immigration Customs and Enforcement — have blocked or delayed detainees’ access to lawyers by transferring them to facilities out of state.
The plaintiffs asked for a temporary restraining order to prohibit ICE from impeding access to counsel, allow “constitutionally sufficient” access for attorneys, and require a 72-hour waiting period before detainees can be transferred out of state. They later withdrew the request for the waiting period.
The defendants argued that there is no policy barring attorneys from ICE offices. Any limits on attorney access happen for legitimate operational, security or transport reasons and are not deliberate efforts to deny counsel, the government argued.
In her denial of the plaintiffs’ motion, Senior U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken found the plaintiffs’ allegations serious but not yet well-enough substantiated to justify granting the temporary restraining order.
The temporary restraining order is a court order that requires someone to either do something or stop doing something before a full trial happens. Aiken cautioned that mandatory injunctions are an “extraordinary and drastic” remedy only to be used if the “law and facts clearly favor” that position.
She said the plaintiffs presented declarations that suggest ICE policies might have violated detainees’ constitutional rights or conflicted with the government’s own policies, but she said their testimony and the evidence does not show that the law would “clearly favor” the plaintiffs.
“It may be that evidence from other witnesses, or the addition of a party is necessary to establish a more concrete connection between the injured party and the rights Plaintiffs seek to enforce,” Aiken wrote in her opinion.
The judge asked the sides to submit additional briefs in preparation for an evidentiary hearing she scheduled for Dec. 12.
“ICE is trampling due process and ignoring the Constitution by blocking attorneys from accessing their clients,” Isa Peña, director of strategy at Innovation Law Lab, the Portland-based firm representing the plaintiffs, said in an email. “We will keep the court informed of ongoing constitutional violations.”
Attorneys representing the defendants did not immediately return Lookout Eugene-Springfield’s requests for comment.
