U.S. immigration officials and lawyers representing detainees settled a lawsuit concerning the use of shackles during immigration hearings.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the settlement reached was in response to a suit filed in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of detainees in Northern California. Reportedly, the Northern District of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had a policy of shackling all immigrants held in detention at the wrists, waists, and ankles for all court appearances. This shackling policy varied throughout the different ICE administrative districts with no uniform guidelines. The ACLU argued that the restraints were painful and made it difficult for detainees to communicate effectively with their lawyers at their hearings.
In the terms of the settlement, ICE agreed to not shackle detainees during deportation or bail hearings unless they become disruptive, violent or are deemed an escape risk.
The settlement still allows for shackles during appearances for an initial hearing (known as the master calendar) where there are large numbers of detainees appearing in court at the same time. Such hearings are usually brief and typically used for scheduling and other administrative matters. The settlement allows detainees to request that shackles be removed or loosened for medical reasons and prohibits detainees from being chained together. The government also agreed to pay $350,000 in attorney fees and court expenses.
Although the settlement applies only to the Northern District of California, an attorney for the ACLU, Julia Harumi Mass, thinks it will have a lasting impact throughout the entire agency. In an interview with San Francisco Chronicle reporter Bob Egelko, Harumi Mass opined that ICE officials from now on will “think twice before overusing restraints elsewhere.”
Harumi Mass also noted that immigration cases are civil cases, not criminal, and in criminal courts, routine shackling is prohibited.
In December 2011, ICE tried to have the lawsuit dismissed, but U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg rejected the motion.
In a statement released by ICE and reported by the SF Chronicle, the agency reaffirmed its commitment to “preserving the dignity and welfare of all those in our custody,” while maintaining the security of courthouse visitors and staff. “[The settlement] affords the agency the flexibility to do both.”
