Post New

Welcome to Popular Information, a newsletter dedicated to accountability journalism.


A legal black hole
JUDD LEGUM AND REBECCA CROSBY
JUL 31






"We're surrounded by miles of treacherous swampland," President Trump said earlier this month, referring to the new detention camp in the Florida Everglades known as Alligator Alcatraz. "The only way out is really deportation."

According to a class action lawsuit, that turned out to be literally true. Hundreds of people are being held at the facility without charges, without access to attorneys, and without the ability to contest their detention in court.

The plaintiffs in the case filed an emergency motion last Friday to protect their clients' rights. Under the Fifth Amendment, "No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, immigration detention is a federal matter and, therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts. But in affidavits submitted with Friday's filing, attorneys representing the detainees state they are being locked out of the legal system.

When attorneys representing clients being held at the Everglades detention center attempt to contest their confinement in federal court, they are told that the federal court lacks jurisdiction because the facility is being run by the state government. Attorney Z. Zareefa Khan submitted this account of his efforts to seek the release of his clients, G.T.C. and R.T.F., on bond:

On July 24, 2025, I appeared virtually on behalf of G.T.C. at the [federal] Krome Immigration Court. When I logged into the hearing, [Immigration Judge] Lerner said, “what is going on?” and told me that no hearing for G.T.C. was included on the docket. I then had an off-the-record conversation with IJ Lerner and the government’s counsel. The government counsel stated that my clients had been detained at Alligator Alcatraz since July 3, and that the immigration court had no jurisdiction over their cases… because G.T.C. was in state, not federal custody. IJ Lerner then went back on the record, and stated that the immigration court did not have jurisdiction over their cases. G.T.C. was not brought to the hearing in person or virtually.

Khan added that when he later checked a federal online portal to review the status of his clients' cases, it stated that "their bond motions had been withdrawn on July 21, 2025, although I had not withdrawn either of their motions."

Under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can "delegate to state and local law enforcement officers the authority to perform specified immigration officer functions under the agency’s direction and oversight." Authorities say that the Everglades detention camp is operating under such an agreement. But the existence of a 287(g) agreement does not extinguish the constitutional rights of the detainees or their ability to challenge their detention in federal court.

The plaintiffs also contend that detainees are prevented "from communicating confidentially with legal counsel." The only contact with the outside world that is permitted is "via infrequent access to collect pay phone calls that are monitored and recorded, and last approximately five minutes." According to attorneys representing individuals at the Everglades detention camp, "[a]n email address provided by officials reported to be used for arranging attorney-client communication at the facility results in bounced-back messages." Attorneys who traveled to the facility to speak to their clients in person were "greeted at a military checkpoint and barred from entry."

https://popular.info/p/a-legal-black-hole?r=dw3qb&...

If this is true, the government is now playing a shell game con with the lives of immigrants.

With the caveat that I am not an immigration lawyer, those all seem like serious legal violations.

People who are present in the country unlawfully are subject to more stringent limits on their personal freedom (in the colloquial sense, not the legal sense) than other folks: if you're in the country unlawfully, the government has the right to put you in civil detention at any time. That's not kidnapping, and it's not a violation of their rights - if you're present in the country illegally, you do not have any right to be free from civil detention.

However, even if you are in civil detention, you still have a number of due process rights that apply to anyone physically present in the country. My understanding is that having access to the federal courts to challenge your deportation (or even your detention), access to counsel (subject to the rules of the detention facility), and access to certain basic conditions of confinement are among them. If those are being denied, it would violate the constitutional rights of the folks there.

That said, though, the government is certainly going to argue that these are just logistical issues. That it's a new facility, and they're ramping everything up on the fly - so there will be problems and complications in scheduling things like attorney-client meetings and the like. Not sure the federal courts will really buy that, but I expect that's what they'll say.

"The only way out is really deportation."

At Auschwitz, Jews were told that the only way out was through the chimney.

I don't recall where I read the account, but an encounter with ICE apparently resulted in a quote "you don't have any rights" from an ICE agent.

That appears to be the attitude all the way to the top.

I'm pretty sure (though you would know better) that if you are in this country, you have rights. Even if you are here illegally. To my knowledge, no exception in made is the Constitution's restraints on the federal for illegal immigrants. I think the only carve-out is foreign militias/armies present on US soil. IIRC.

This was one of my apprehensions while I'm overseas. Many Americans are under the idea that the USA will protect you, look into your case, and make efforts to get you freed. This does happen in some cases, but for someone like me, my case would have to go viral to some degree - a cause celebre.

If you get arrested and jailed in the Philippines, you get a visit from someone in the embassy, and a list of attorneys - that's pretty much it. they may help your family communicate with you, but many fellows are estranged from their families. I followed a case of an American who liked trans and was caught with enough shabu (crystal) to be accused of being a dealer. Through another source I found that his attorneys managed to get the evidence tossed out because of a bad evidentiary trail. I was impressed and gave them a retainer.

At one point I was going to write a story on another fellows incarceration. While getting his story, and going over what he considered his mistakes to be, it became clear you should have someone on call - looking for the attorney after your jailed is risky - lotsa not so good attorneys. I didn't know anyone else who did this. I always carefully obeyed the law... Philippine jails are terrible.

At Auschwitz, Jews were told that the only way out was through the chimney.

Quibble. They were told it was work.

"Arbeit macht frei".

The reality was the chimney.

You may have read, "You don't have any rights," in this story.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/shows/...

Chavarria said he was held for four to five hours and interrogated by numerous people in plain clothes, some of whom never displayed badges or identification. He said he was told he had no constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen at a port of entry, which is incorrect. “Even when I was not a U.S. citizen, I was never put through something like that,” he said.

Chavarria said the officials questioned whether his marriage was legal, something the federal government would have confirmed and examined during his naturalization process. And they questioned whether he was indeed a school superintendent.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.