QuickTake:

Attorney advocates want more access to detainees, but a judge noted that rights to representation for immigrants are tied to court proceedings rather than what takes place in immigration enforcement field offices.

A federal judge denied immigration legal advocates’ push for mandatory access to clients held in Oregon U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field offices.

A lawsuit seeking “meaningful” access to detainees was filed by the Portland-based Innovation Law Lab after attorneys, including in Eugene, said they were routinely denied access to detainees at field offices.

U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken, in a ruling Thursday, Oct. 1, declined to grant a preliminary injunction to provide such access; the judge noted it would require imposing multiple new rules for ICE in how it processes detainees. 

Aiken’s ruling Thursday is not the end of the lawsuit, but means the court has declined to intervene before trial.

Advocates argued that detainees are pressured by ICE officers to waive important rights or to agree to voluntary deportation.

Separately from the lawsuit, Lookout Eugene-Springfield found court transcripts in which a 19-year-old detainee with a disability testified under oath in court he was pressured at the Eugene ICE field office to sign a voluntary deportation order so as not to be separated from his father.

But in her ruling Thursday, Aiken said the evidence failed to support the claim that ICE officers are “pressuring individuals to waive important rights.” 

Aiken noted the evidence presented did not include testimony from anyone detained at an ICE field office, though it did include statements made by attorneys.

“In sum, Plaintiffs make an assertion in their motion about what is happening inside Oregon field offices, but the five evidentiary documents they cite provide minimal, if any, support for the proposition,” Aiken wrote.

Oregon has three ICE field offices, including one in Eugene. The other two are in Medford and Portland. None are designed to hold detainees for more than 12 hours.

Imposing a 72-hour hold for detainees in Oregon to try to ensure attorney access, as a court in Minnesota has done — “would clearly create issues of sanitation, food, and bedding,” Aiken wrote.

“This is trading one alleged constitutional violation for others,” Aiken said in the order.

The judge also noted that attorneys do have some access to clients, and cited statements made by ICE as part of the lawsuit.

“Based on the record before the Court, Defendants limit meetings between persons and detainees for a list of reasons — logistics, security, space constraints, and processing — not for particular content, such as legal advice,” Aiken wrote in response to claims that the current limits on attorney access violate the First Amendment.

“The record shows that attorneys have been able to access clients, though not to the degree or for the length of time that they wish, nor at all hours that Plaintiffs wishes,” Aiken said.

Aiken noted that the Innovation Law Lab, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of a legal organization, CLEAR Clinic, a community advocacy group, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, and an individual identified as Leon X, sought in part to “to set the hours of operations for all Oregon Field Offices, including having them open on weekends and holidays, and until 8 p.m. every night.”

The judge wrote that the motion for a preliminary injunction amounted to a request for what she called a mandatory injunction, which requires a higher burden of proof. 

In a separate opinion, Aiken also declined to certify the case as a class action lawsuit.