QuickTake:

The decision to drop the lawsuit comes after a federal district judge denied a preliminary injunction, stating that attorneys have been able to access clients. CLEAR Clinic, a legal organization that was a plaintiff in the lawsuit, pledged to continue to fight for “due process for all.”

Legal advocates Thursday, Nov. 5, dropped their lawsuit asking a judge to order “meaningful’ access for attorneys seeking to meet with clients at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement field offices in Oregon.

Portland-based Innovation Law Lab filed the notice of voluntary dismissal after U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken last month denied a request for a preliminary injunction. They filed the lawsuit on behalf of the legal organization, CLEAR Clinic, a community advocacy group, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste, and an individual identified as Leon X.

“Although we have chosen to voluntarily dismiss our lawsuit following the court’s disappointing denial of our preliminary injunction, the case succeeded in exposing the severe, systemic barriers ICE creates to block access to justice for our community members,” Leni Tupper, executive director of CLEAR Clinic, based in Portland, said in a statement to Lookout Eugene-Springfield.

“This case has brought to light how ICE routinely denies detained Oregonians their right to counsel. And documenting these unlawful practices creates an evidentiary foundation that we will continue to build on in our fight for due process for all,” Tupper said.

In her Oct. 1 opinion, Aiken said the evidence failed to support the claim that ICE officers are “pressuring individuals to waive important rights.” 

The judge cited a lack of testimony from anyone detained at an ICE field office.

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

Aiken wrote that the lawsuit 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.” This amounted to what Aiken called a mandatory injunction, which she said requires a higher burden of proof.

“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.