article: On April 29, 2019, the Middlesex County District Attorney, Suffolk County District Attorney, Committee for Public Counsel Services (“CPCS”), and the Chelsea Collaborative, Inc., filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs sued U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and several officials under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), and the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226(a), 1357(a). The plaintiffs sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, claiming violations of common-law privilege against civil arrests in courthouses and the Tenth Amendment. The plaintiffs alleged that in 2017, ICE authorized a nationwide campaign to target state courthouses as sites for civil-immigration enforcement. The plaintiffs further alleged that this policy undermined the administration of justice in Massachusetts, as many permanent residents refused to appear in court out of fear of ICE interference. On April 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction that sought to enjoin ICE from authorizing and conducting civil arrests on parties, witnesses, and others attending Massachusetts courthouses on official business. The plaintiffs alleged that by authorizing civil arrests in courthouses, ICE ignored the well-settled common-law privilege against such civil arrests and exceeded its statutory jurisdiction under the Immigrant and Nationality Act. Thus, the practice is unlawful and should be set aside under the Administrative Procedure Act. While the motion included other claims, the plaintiffs sought preliminary injunctive relief only on this claim. On May 15, 2019, the defendants filed an Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. In the Opposition, the defendants disputed the existence of a common-law privilege against civil arrest in courthouses. Furthermore, the defendants argued that even if the common-law privilege existed, Congress erased the privilege when it passed the INA. On June 20, 2019, Judge Indira Talwani granted the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction and issued a memorandum. See 382 F. Supp. 3d 142 (2019). Judge Talwani found that plaintiffs had standing to bring the suit, were likely to succeed on the merits of their Administrative Procedure Act claim, and the injunction was of public interest. Thus, the defendants were enjoined from implementing the Courthouse Civil Arrest Directive and from civilly arresting parties, witnesses, and others attending Massachusetts courthouses on official business while they are going to, attending, or leaving the courthouse. Defendants appealed; the appeal is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
summary: In April 2019, two District Attorneys in Massachusetts and two public interest organizations filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs alleged that ICE's practice of conducting civil arrests inside state courthouses violated their common-law privilege against such arrests and Tenth Amendment Rights. In June 2019, Judge Indira Talwani granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and enjoined ICE from continuing with this practice. The order for Preliminary Injunction is currently pending appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.