This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
Freedom of Information Act
ICE Reports

ACLU of Southern California v. United States Department of Homeland Security; United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a component of the Department of Homeland Security

Published: Apr. 3, 2020 | Result Date: Feb. 4, 2020 | Filing Date: Feb. 8, 2019 |

Case number: 2:19-cv-00983 JAK (JEMx) Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

John A. Kronstadt

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Neal J. Gauger

Jason P. Gonzalez


Defendant

Matthew J. Barragan
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)


Facts

The ACLU of California filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking the release of all Immigration and Customs Enforcement Reports relating to or concerning inspections, audits, and reports conducted by the American Bar Association and corresponding ICE responses. The request was limited to information gathered from 2008 to the point of the complaint. ICE allegedly released the requested information from 2001 through 2008, but did not release any post-2008 reports from the ABA inspections. The ACLU filed a lawsuit alleging ICE violating the FOIA by not releasing the requested information to it.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that through its request, it sought to inform the public of the treatment of immigrants and asylum seekers in the care of the federal government and Defendant violated FOIA by not complying with its proper request. Plaintiff also contended that the government's treatment of this group was a matter of vital public concern that the public is entitled to know. Plaintiff further contended that the sheer volume and intensity of the widespread media coverage, governmental reporting, public outrage and debate, and known violations regarding the rights and treatment of immigrants in detention plainly demonstrated an overriding public interest in disclosure of the defendant's post-2008 reports.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the contentions.

Result

The parties stipulated to dismissing the case with prejudice.


#134358

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390