State of Washington et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants (Receipt # 0981-5372043) Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party Commonwealth of Massachusetts(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party Commonwealth of Pennsylvania(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party Commonwealth of Virginia(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of California(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Delaware(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Illinois(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Iowa (pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Maryland(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Minnesota (pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of New Jersey(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of New Mexico(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of New York(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of North Carolina(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Oregon(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Rhode Island (pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Vermont(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party State of Washington(pty:pla), Attorney Laura K Clinton added to party The District of Columbia(pty:pla), filed by State of Minnesota, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Delaware, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, State of Washington, The District of Columbia, State of North Carolina, Commonwealth of Virginia, State of New Mexico, State of California, State of Iowa, State of Rhode Island, State of New York, State of Vermont, State of New Jersey, State of Maryland, State of Illinois, State of Oregon. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibits 1-40, #2 Exhibit Exhibits 41-80, #3 Exhibit Exhibits 81-100, #4 Exhibit Exhibits 101-110, #5 Exhibit Exhibits 111-131, #6 Civil Cover Sheet, #7 Summons, #8 Summons, #9 Summons, #10 Summons, #11 Summons, #12 Summons, #13 Summons, #14 Summons, #15 Summons, #16 Summons, #17 Summons, #18 Summons, #19 Summons)(Clinton, Laura)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Noah G. Purcell, WSBA #43492 Solicitor General Colleen M. Melody, WSBA #42275 Division Chief, Civil Rights Unit Laura K. Clinton, WSBA #29846 Megan D. Lin, WSBA #53716 Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 464-5342 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 STATE OF WASHINGTON; COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF MARYLAND; STATE OF OREGON; STATE OF NEW MEXICO; COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY; STATE OF IOWA; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; STATE OF NEW YORK; STATE OF VERMONT; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF DELAWARE; and THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NO. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DONALD TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 HUMAN SERVICES; OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT; KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, in her official capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; THOMAS HOMAN, in his official capacity as Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; ALEX AZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; SCOTT LLOYD, in his official capacity as Director of Office of Refugee Resettlement; and JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS III, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the United States, Defendants. 11 I. 12 13 1. INTRODUCTION The States of Washington, California, Maryland, Oregon, New Mexico, New 14 Jersey, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, North Carolina, and 15 Delaware; the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia; and the District 16 of Columbia (collectively, the States) bring this action to protect the States and their residents 17 against the Trump Administration’s practice of refusing entry to asylum applicants who present 18 at Southwestern border ports of entry and its cruel and unlawful policy of forcibly separating 19 20 21 families who enter the country along our Southwestern border. 2. Widespread news reports, as well as interviews of detainees in Seattle and 22 elsewhere, confirm that families fleeing violence and persecution in their home countries who 23 try to present themselves at Southwestern ports of entry to seek asylum are being refused entry 24 25 into the United States. Border officials are unlawfully turning away these families on the pretext that the United States is “full” or no longer accepting asylum seekers. This unlawful practice 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 exacerbates the trauma already suffered by refugee families while simultaneously artificially increasing illegal entry violations. 3 3. For those families that do enter the United States along the Southwestern border, 4 5 6 immigration officials have implemented the Trump Administration’s policy of forcibly separating parents from their children – regardless of the family’s circumstances or the needs of 7 the children. As of June 20, 2018, the new policy had already resulted in the separation of over 8 two thousand children from their parents at the Southwestern border, most recently at a rate of 9 50-70 families separated every day. Defendants have taken children as young as infants from 10 their parents, often with no warning or opportunity to say goodbye, and providing no information 11 about where the children are being taken or when they will next see each other. The States’ 12 13 interviews of detainees in their respective jurisdictions confirm the gratuitous harm that this 14 policy inflicts on parents and children and the immediate and deleterious impact it has on 15 families and communities. 16 17 18 4. As of June 25, 2018, emerging reports suggest that immigration officials are now using the children taken from their parents as leverage to coerce parents to withdraw their asylum claims. 19 5. Defendants have repeatedly and publicly admitted that a policy of intentionally 20 21 separating immigrant children from their parents would be “cruel, “horrible,” and “antithetical 22 to child welfare.” But they have alternately claimed that they have no such policy, or that it is 23 somehow mandated by federal law or prior court decisions. 24 25 6. In truth, however, Defendants have embraced a policy of separating parents from their children for the express purpose of deterring immigration along the Southwestern border 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 (the “Policy”). No law or court decision requires such separation. Rather, Defendants have chosen to adopt the Policy as part of their “zero tolerance” or “100 percent prosecution” approach to individuals who enter the country unlawfully, irrespective of circumstances, and to then use 4 5 6 such misdemeanor criminal charges to detain parents indefinitely in federal facilities that cannot accommodate families. 7. 7 Hundreds of children are left to languish in makeshift detention facilities – where 8 staff are sometimes told not to comfort them – until a placement is found for the child. 9 Defendants have moved the children and parents to different locations all over the country. While 10 the parents are held in federal facilities to await further immigration proceedings, their children 11 are sent elsewhere to group shelters or family placements. 12 8. 13 Defendants have made clear that the purpose of separating families is not to 14 protect children, but rather to create a public spectacle designed to deter potential immigrants 15 from coming to the United States. As Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway said 16 recently: “Nobody likes seeing babies ripped from their mothers’ arms . . . but we have to make 17 sure that DHS’ laws are understood through the soundbite culture that we live in.” KellyAnne 18 Conway: ‘Nobody likes’ Policy Separating Migrant Kids at the Border (June 17, 2018) available 19 at https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/conway-nobody-likes-policy-separating- 20 21 migrant-kids-border-n884016, attached hereto as Ex. 1. Defendants’ Policy is causing severe, 22 intentional, and permanent trauma to the children and parents who are separated in furtherance 23 of an illegitimate deterrence objective. 24 25 9. On June 20, 2018, President Trump signed an Executive Order purporting to suspend the Policy, but any relief offered by the Order is illusory. The Order says nothing about 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 4 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 reuniting the families already ripped apart by the federal government, and Trump Administration officials have made clear the Order will have no impact on the thousands of families who have already been traumatized. 4 5 6 10. Moreover, based on its text and contemporaneous statements by Administration officials, it is clear the Order does not require the end of family separation. In fact, the 7 Administration currently lacks both the capacity and the legal authority to detain families 8 together for indefinite periods of time, which is what the Order contemplates as the alternative 9 to separating families. 10 11. On June 21, 2018, as required by the Order, Attorney General Sessions filed an 11 Ex Parte Application for relief from the Flores Settlement (a 1997 agreement which sets national 12 13 standards regarding the detention, release, and treatment of all children in DHS custody). That 14 request seeks rescission of Flores’ protections so that families may be detained indefinitely 15 during the pendency of any immigration proceedings involving their members, a plan that raises 16 the specter of internment camps. 17 18 12. Moreover, the Flores application seeks a “determin[ation] that the Agreement’s state licensure requirement does not apply to ICE family residential facilities.” The government’s 19 attempt to modify the Flores settlement terms by removing States’ licensing authority and 20 21 22 jurisdiction over such facilities is a direct attack on the States’ sovereign powers. 13. Neither the Order nor the Administration’s Flores application offer any assurance 23 that the Administration will not return to a family separation policy when its efforts to intern 24 families together fail. In response to the public outcry against family separation, in recent days 25 President Trump has proposed that Homeland Security simply deport immigrants without 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 5 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 hearing or legal process instead of, or perhaps in addition to, interning thousands of families in military facilities. 14. The Policy, and the Trump Administration’s subsequent attempt to shield their 4 5 6 facilities from state licensing standards, is an affront to States’ sovereign interests in enforcing their laws governing minimum standards of care for children, declaring the family unit to be a 7 fundamental resource of American life that should be nurtured, and requiring the preservation of 8 the parent-child relationship unless the child’s right to basic nurture, health, or safety is 9 jeopardized. The Policy also adversely affects the States’ proprietary interests, forcing States to 10 expend resources to remediate the harms inflicted by the Policy, some of which are likely to be 11 permanent. State programs, including child welfare services, social and health services, courts, 12 13 and public schools are all experiencing fiscal impacts due to family separation that will only 14 increase. The Policy, and the Administration’s related conduct, has caused severe and immediate 15 harm to the States and their residents, including parents who are detained, released, or otherwise 16 reside in the States after being forcibly separated from their children; children who are placed in 17 facilities, shelters, sponsor homes, foster care, or who otherwise reside in the States after being 18 separated from their parents; extended families and sponsors in the States; and the States’ 19 immigrant communities. 20 21 15. The Court should declare the practice of refusing to accept asylum seekers who 22 present at Southwestern points of entry and the related Policy of family separation illegal and 23 order Defendants to stop implementing them immediately. The Court should order Defendants 24 to reunite every family separated by these unlawful acts immediately, and to take such other 25 actions as are warranted by the time of hearing. Defendants’ conduct has caused real harms to 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 6 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 the States and our residents, harms that will only increase unless Defendants are enjoined from continuing. 3 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4 16. 5 6 The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201(a). The United States’ sovereign immunity is waived by 5 U.S.C. § 702. 17. 7 Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2) and 8 1391(e)(1). Defendants are the United States of America and United States agencies or officers 9 sued in their official capacities. The State of Washington is a resident of this judicial district, and 10 a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this Complaint occurred within the 11 Western District of Washington. For example, as of June 18, 2018, parents who were recently 12 13 refused entry and then victimized by the Policy were being detained at the Federal Detention 14 Center – SeaTac, which is located in King County. At that time, a number of children who were 15 separated from their parents pursuant to the Policy also were being detained in Seattle and other 16 nearby locations. 17 18. 18 The States bring this action to redress harms to their sovereign, proprietary, and parens patriae interests. 19 III. PARTIES 20 21 22 A. Plaintiffs 19. The Plaintiff States of Washington, California, Maryland, Oregon, New Mexico, 23 New Jersey, Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, North Carolina, 24 Delaware, and the Commonwealths of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, represented 25 by and through their Attorneys General, are sovereign states of the United States of America. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 7 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 The District of Columbia, represented by and through its Attorney General, is a municipal corporation organized under the Constitution of the United States and the local government for the territory constituting the permanent seat of the federal government. 4 20. 5 6 7 injuries to the States caused by the Policy, including immediate and irreparable injuries to their sovereign, proprietary, and quasi-sovereign interests. 8 9 10 The States are aggrieved and have standing to bring this action because of the 21. Nothing in the June 20 Executive Order remedies these harms, and the June 21 application to modify Flores is a direct attack on the sovereign powers of the States. B. Defendant Federal Agencies and Officers 11 22. Defendant the United States of America includes government agencies and 12 13 departments responsible for the implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) 14 and the admission, detention, and removal of non-citizens who are traveling or returning to the 15 United States via air, land, and sea ports across the United States. 16 17 18 23. Defendant Donald Trump is the President of the United States, and he is sued in his official capacity. 24. Defendant Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is a federal cabinet agency 19 responsible for implementing and enforcing the INA. DHS is a Department of the Executive 20 21 22 Branch of the U.S. Government, and is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 552(f). 25. Defendant Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is the component 23 agency of DHS that is responsible for carrying out removal orders; operating adult immigration 24 detention facilities; and contracting for the detention of immigrants in removal proceedings, 25 including with public and private operators of detention centers, jails, and prisons. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 8 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 26. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is an Operational and Support Component agency within DHS. CBP is responsible for detaining and/or removing non-citizens arriving at air, land, and sea ports across the United States. 4 5 6 27. Defendant U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is a component agency of DHS that, through its Asylum Officers, conducts interviews of certain individuals 7 apprehended at the border to determine whether they have a credible fear of persecution and 8 should be permitted to apply for asylum. 9 10 28. Defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is a department of the executive branch of the U.S. government. 11 29. Defendant Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is a component of HHS which 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 provides care for and placement for unaccompanied noncitizen children. 30. Defendant Kirstjen Nielsen is the Secretary of DHS. She is sued in her official capacity. 31. Defendant Thomas Homan is the acting Director of ICE and is sued in his official capacity. 32. Defendant Kevin K. McAleenan is the Commissioner of CBP and is sued in his 19 official capacity. 20 33. Defendant Alex Azar is the Secretary of HHS and is sued in his official capacity. 22 34. Defendant Scott Lloyd is Director of ORR and is sued in his official capacity. 23 35. Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is sued in his official capacity as the 21 24 Attorney General of the United States. In this capacity, he has responsibility for the 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 9 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 administration of the immigration laws pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103 and oversees the Executive Office of Immigration Review. 3 IV. ALLEGATIONS 4 5 6 7 A. Federal Immigration Policy Has Traditionally Emphasized Family Reunification, Recognizing that Children Belong with their Families 36. When DHS, typically through ICE or CBP, detains an undocumented child who is traveling alone, i.e., unaccompanied by a parent, the relevant federal agencies follow an 8 established process. Specifically, ICE or CBP may detain an unaccompanied alien child (UAC) 9 10 for up to 72 hours, as other federal agencies locate an appropriate shelter facility for that child. 11 8 U.S.C. § 1232(b)(3). ICE or CBP then must turn the child over to the ORR for shelter 12 placement. Id. 13 14 15 37. Once in ORR custody, children are placed in ORR-funded and supervised shelters, where staff must attempt to locate a parent and determine if family reunification is possible. If ORR is unable to find a parent, ORR staff will try to locate another family member, 16 17 18 19 relative, family friend, or caretaker in the United States to serve as a sponsor who can care for the child during the pendency of any subsequent immigration proceeding. 38. Unaccompanied children in ORR custody for whom no sponsor placement can 20 be made are moved to secondary ORR-contracted and state-licensed group care facilities, which 21 can be anywhere in the country. In such cases, if ORR assesses that the child has a pathway to 22 legal immigration status, ORR will place the child in an ORR-contracted and state-licensed long 23 term foster care program while the immigration process continues. If ORR determines that a 24 25 26 pathway does not exist, the child may remain in a shelter or ORR-contracted and state-licensed group care during removal proceedings. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 10 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 39. Thus, unaccompanied children typically arrive in the individual states in three ways: they may be placed initially in a state-licensed shelter located in the state while ORR determines if a family member can be found in the country; they may arrive when ORR releases 4 5 6 7 them to the care of an in-state sponsor while their immigration proceeding goes forward; or they can be moved into a placement in an ORR-contracted and state-licensed long term foster care program as they await their immigration proceeding. 8 9 10 40. While ORR’s initial shelter care placement and long term foster care programs are largely federally funded, an unaccompanied child’s in-state placements impose burdens on the receiving state, discussed below. 11 13 After Almost a Year of Threats, Defendants Adopted an Official Policy of Separating Families Who Cross the Southwestern Border, Creating a New Class of “Unaccompanied” Children 14 41. 12 15 16 17 B. For over a year, the Trump Administration has made clear in numerous public statements that it was considering an official Policy to separate families at the Southwestern border in an effort to deter immigrants from Latin America from coming to the United States. 42. As early as March 2017, a senior DHS official stated that Defendants were 18 19 20 considering a proposal to separate children from their parents at the Southwestern border. See Mary Kay Mallonee, DHS Considering Proposal to Separate Children From Adults at Border 21 (March 4, 2017) available at https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/03/politics/dhs-children-adults- 22 border/, attached hereto as Ex. 2. 23 24 43. On March 7, 2017, John Kelly, the then-Secretary of DHS, confirmed that DHS was considering a policy of separating children from their parents: “I am considering that. They 25 will be well cared for as we deal with their parents.” See Daniella Diaz, Kelly: DHS Considering 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 11 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 Separating Undocumented Children From Their Parents at the Border (March 7, 2017) available at https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/john-kelly-separating-children-from- parents-immigration-border/index.html, attached hereto as Ex. 3. 4 5 6 44. Then-Secretary Kelly publicly backed away from those statements after harsh criticism from the press, human-rights advocates, and members of Congress. See Tal Kopan, 7 Kelly Says DHS Won’t Separate Families at the Border (March 29, 2017) available at 8 https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/29/politics/border-families-separation-kelly/index.html 9 attached hereto as Ex. 4. An inside source, however, reported that the family separation proposal 10 and was still on the table for discussion at DHS as of August 2017. See Jonathan Blitzer, How the 11 Trump Administration Got Comfortable Separating Immigrant Kids From Their Parents, The 12 13 New Yorker (May 30, 2018) available at https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how- 14 the-trump-administration-got-comfortable-separating-immigrant-kids-from-their-parents, 15 attached hereto as Ex. 5. 16 17 18 45. In fact, DHS secretly piloted the Policy in the El Paso sector of the border in western Texas from July to November 2017. See Dara Lind, Trump’s DHS is Using an Extremely Dubious Statistic to Justify Splitting up Families at the Border, Vox (May 8, 2018) 19 available at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/8/17327512/sessions-illegal- 20 21 22 immigration-border-asylum-families, attached hereto as Ex. 6. 46. It was later reported that between October 2017 and April 2018, 700 families 23 were separated at the Southwestern border, including at least 100 children under the age of four. 24 See Ex. 3. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 12 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 47. On February 12, 2018, 33 U.S. Senators also a letter to DHS Secretary Nielsen, concerned that DHS was carrying out “a systematic and blanket policy to separate a child from a parent” upon arrival to the United States—a policy the Senators condemned as “cruel” and 4 5 6 “grotesquely inhumane.” The letter is attached hereto as Ex. 7. The letter notes that Secretary Nielsen “failed to repudiate” such a policy during a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, 7 and points to “numerous [documented] cases in which parents have been separated from their 8 children.” Id. 9 10 48. In the spring of 2018, an influx of families seeking to enter the United States may have catalyzed the Administration to finally embrace the Policy. In March and April of 2018, 11 the number of families from Latin America apprehended at the Southwestern border increased 12 13 dramatically, going from 5,475 in February to 8,873 in March (a 62% increase) and 9,653 in 14 April (a 76% increase from February). See Southwest Border Migration FY2018, U.S. Dept. of 15 Homeland Security available at https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration, 16 attached hereto as Ex. 8 and Southwest Border Migration FY2017, U.S. Dept. of Homeland 17 Security available 18 at https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration-fy2017#, attached hereto as Ex. 9 1. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 CBP tracks “apprehensions” and “inadmissibles” separately and adds these together to count “total enforcement actions.” See CBP Enforcement Statistics FY2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection available at https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics, attached hereto as Ex. 10. “Inadmissibles refers to individuals encountered at ports of entry who are seeking lawful admission into the United States but are determined to be inadmissible, individuals presenting themselves to seek humanitarian protection under our laws, and individuals who withdraw an application for admission and return to their countries of origin within a short timeframe.” Id. “Apprehensions refers to the physical control or temporary detainment of a person who is not lawfully in the U.S. which may or may not result in an arrest.” Id. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 13 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 49. The number of family units deemed to be inadmissible went from 3,941 in February to 5,162 in March (a 31% increase) and 5,445 in April (a 38% increase from February). See Ex. 8. These numbers include all persons who enter at ports of entry but are deemed to be 4 5 6 inadmissible; asylum seekers; and individuals who apply for admission but subsequently return to their countries of origin within a short time frame. See Ex. 9. The numbers reflected an 7 increase of 672% in March 2018 in comparison to March 2017, and 697% in April 2018 in 8 comparison to April 2017. Compare Exs. 8 and 9. 9 10 50. According to at least one source, the President’s frustration with the rising numbers of Latino immigrants at the Southwestern border in March and April of 2018 was the 11 impetus for publicly adopting the Policy. See Ex. 5. When asked what had changed since the 12 13 prior year – when the Administration backed away from adopting such a policy – the person 14 pointed to the President: “What you’re seeing now is a President’s frustration with the fact that 15 the numbers are back up.” Id. 16 17 18 51. In early April 2018, President Trump reportedly expressed frustration with DHS Secretary Nielsen for failing to stop or decrease immigration at the Southwestern border. Several officials stated that one persistent issue was President Trump’s belief that Secretary Nielsen and 19 DHS were resisting his direction that parents be separated from their children when crossing 20 21 unlawfully at the US-Mexico border. See Shear and Pearlroth, Kirstjen Nielsen, Chief of 22 Homeland Security, Almost Resigned After Trump Tirade (May 10, 2018) available at 23 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/10/us/politics/trump-homeland-security-secretary- 24 resign.html, attached hereto as Ex. 11. The President and his aides had been pushing a family 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 14 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 separation policy for weeks as a way to deter families from crossing the Southwestern border illegally. Id. 3 52. On April 6, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum directing Attorney 4 5 6 7 General Sessions and DHS Secretary Nielsen to detail all measures and identify any resources or steps “needed to expeditiously end ‘catch and release’ practices” that allow undocumented immigrants to be released into the community pending resolution of their immigration cases. 8 9 10 53. That same day, Attorney General Sessions formally announced a “zero-tolerance” policy “for offenses under 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a), which prohibits both attempted illegal entry and illegal entry into the United States by an alien.” See Attorney General 11 Announces Zero-Tolerance Policy for Criminal Illegal Entry, U.S. Department of Justice (April 12 13 14 15 6, 2018) available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-announces-zero- tolerance-policy-criminal-illegal-entry, attached hereto as Ex. 12. 54. In a memorandum also issued April 6, Attorney General Sessions “direct[ed] each 16 United States Attorney’s Office along the Southwest Border . . . to adopt immediately a 17 zero-tolerance policy for all offenses referred for prosecution under section 1325(a)” and made 18 clear that this directive “superseded any existing policy.” See Memorandum for Federal 19 Prosecutors Along the Southwest Border (April 6, 2018), attached hereto as Ex. 13. 20 21 55. On May 7, 2018, DHS adopted an official Policy of “referring 100 percent of 22 illegal Southwest Border crossings to the Department of Justice for prosecution,” and Attorney 23 General Sessions publicized that children would be automatically separated from parents or other 24 adults with whom they were traveling. See Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks 25 Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration, Justice News 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 15 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 (May 7, 2018) available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessionsdelivers-remarks-discussing-immigration-enforcement-actions, attached hereto as Ex. 14. 56. With that, Attorney General Sessions and Secretary Nielsen carried out President 4 5 6 Trump’s directive: Under the new federal law enforcement priority, all undocumented adults crossing the U.S.-Mexico border at unauthorized locations would be referred by DHS to the 7 Department of Justice. DOJ would then charge each adult with misdemeanor illegal entry or 8 reentry. 9 circumstances or asylum claims, and children would be automatically separated from their 10 Everyone so referred would be prosecuted and detained regardless of familial parents and transferred to the custody of ORR for placement elsewhere. 11 57. Accordingly, Defendants have thus created a new category of “unaccompanied” 12 13 14 15 children – those who came into the country with a parent but were, pursuant to the Policy, forcibly separated by ICE or CBP immediately thereafter. 58. Perhaps emboldened by the directive, DHS officers at ports of entry along the 16 Southwestern border have been refusing to let immigrants present themselves and request 17 asylum, turning people away because the United States is “full.” See Alfredo Corchado, Asylum 18 Seekers Reportedly Denied Entry at Border as Trump Tightens ‘Zero Tolerance’ Immigration 19 Policies (June 6, 2018) available at 20 21 https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/06/reports-turning-back-asylum- 22 seekers-border-crossings-trump-tightens-grip-zero-tolerance-immigration-policies, 23 hereto as Ex. 15. 24 59. 25 attached One report describes immigrants who were turned away on the bridge in El Paso by CBP officers before they reached the border checkpoint, so they were unable to make their 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 16 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 asylum request at the port of entry. Id. Ruben Garcia, founder of a nonprofit that assists immigrants in El Paso explains: “If you look indigenous and you look Central American, they will stop you . . . They never ask why they are coming. They just say we can’t receive you.” 4 5 6 Id. When asked why they are refusing to allow immigrants to reach checkpoints to request asylum, CBP officials state that centers are “full.” Id. 60. 7 Recent interviews with detained parents held in federal facilities in Seattle 8 confirm these reports. For example, one mother presented herself and her 15-year old son at the 9 Laredo, Texas port of entry and requested asylum for herself and safe passage for her American- 10 citizen son. Officials at the port of entry detained her, separated her from her son, and told her 11 that the United Sates “will not give [her] asylum” and that she “w[ould] not see [her] son again 12 13 until he turns 18” because he would be taken to a shelter or given to an American family for 14 adoption. Another mother claiming asylum was told, in front of her 14-year-old daughter, that 15 she would be “punished with jail time” for having come to the United States. 16 17 18 61. The effect of this conduct is an increasing influx of entrants at locations other than ports of entry, which Defendants construe as violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1325 and its implementing regulations. The adults are then routed into the criminal system while the children 19 are turned over to ORR for placement – thereby separating the family and implementing the 20 21 22 Policy. 62. Since announcing the Policy, Defendants have repeatedly acknowledged its 23 existence and cruelty. For example, President Trump, tweeting on May 26, 2018, referred to the 24 Policy as a “horrible law.” The May 26, 2018 tweet is attached hereto as Ex. 16. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 17 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 63. On May 29, 2018, Devin O’Malley, a Justice Department spokesman, recapped the Policy, telling reporters that suspected crossers “will not be given a free pass,” and will face criminal prosecution and federal detention “irrespective of whether or not they have brought a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 child with them.” See Ted Hesson, White House’s Miller blames Democrats for border crisis, Politico (May 29, 2018) available at https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/29/stephen-millerdemocrats-border-574537, attached hereto as Ex. 17. 64. On June 16, 2018, it was reported that Senior Advisor to the President Stephen Miller was a driving force in adoption and implementation of the Policy. See Chas Danner, Separating Families at the Border Was Always Part of the Plan (June 17, 2018) available at 11 http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/separating-families-at-border-was-always-part12 13 of-the-plan.html, attached hereto as Ex. 18. While others acknowledge the controversial nature 14 of the Policy, Mr. Miller unapologetically embraced it, calling it “a simple decision by the 15 administration . . . . The message is that no one is exempt from immigration law.” Id. 16 17 18 65. On June 17, 2018, Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway acknowledged the existence of the Policy in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press,” stating, “As a mother, as a Catholic, as somebody who has a conscience . . . I will tell you that nobody likes this policy.” 19 See Ex. 1. She continued, “Nobody likes seeing babies ripped from their mothers’ arms, from 20 21 22 23 24 25 their mothers’ wombs, frankly, but we have to make sure that DHS’ laws are understood through the soundbite culture that we live in.” Id. 66. On June 18, 2018, President Trump characterized the Policy as one of the United States’ “horrible and tough” immigration laws. See Hains, Tim, President Trump: “The United States Will Not be a Migrant Camp”, “Not On My Watch” (June 18, 2018) available at 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 18 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/06/18/president_trump_the_united_states_will_n ot_be_a_migrant_camp.html, attached hereto as Ex. 19. 3 67. Also on June 18, 2018, in remarks before the National Sheriffs’ Association 4 5 6 (NSA), Attorney General Sessions promoted the deterrent effect of family separation: “We cannot and will not encourage people to bring their children or other children to the country 7 unlawfully by giving them immunity in the process.” See Luis Sanchez, Sessions on separating 8 families: If we build a wall and pass legislation, we won’t have these ‘terrible choices’, The Hill 9 (June 18, 2018) available at http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/392785-sessions-on- 10 separating-families-if-we-build-a-wall-and-pass, attached hereto as Ex. 20. 11 68. And in her remarks to the NSA, DHS Secretary Nielsen also confirmed the 12 13 existence of the Policy, stating: “Illegal actions have and must have consequences. No more 14 free passes, no more get out of jail free cards.” See Tal Kopan, ‘We will not apologize’: Trump 15 DHS 16 https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/18/politics/kirstjen-nielsen-immigration-policy/index.html, 17 attached hereto as Ex. 21. 18 chief defends immigration policy (June 18, 2018) available at 69. The Policy has resulted in thousands of brutal familial separations. 70. For example, during a briefing call on June 15, 2018, DHS officials admitted that 19 20 21 1,995 children were separated from 1,940 adults at the U.S.-Mexico border from April 19 22 through May 31, 2018. The adults were all referred for prosecution. See How Trump Family 23 Separation 24 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-trumps-family-separation-policy-has-become-what- 25 Policy Became What it is Today (June 14, 2018) available at it-is-today, attached hereto as Ex. 22. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 19 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 71. According to DHS data released on June 18, 2018 by Senator Dianne Feinstein, federal immigration officials separated 2,342 children from adults at the border between May 5 and June 9, 2018. See Louis Nelson, Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family 4 5 6 separations, Politico (June 18, 2018) available at https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-immigration-child-separations-650875, 7 attached hereto as Ex. 23. 8 C. 9 10 The President’s Executive Order Does Not End Family Separation 72. On June 20, 2018, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled, “Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation” (the Order). The Order is 11 attached hereto as Ex. 24. While purporting to suspend the practice of separating families, the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Order offers illusory relief. Indeed, the language of the Order itself does not actually require an end to family separation, and in fact, it implicitly recognizes that the Policy will continue. 73. By its own terms, the Order states that it does not confer any enforceable right or benefit on any person. 74. The Order appears to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to detain families together “during the pendency of any criminal proceedings for improper entry or immigration 19 proceedings involving their members,” while continuing the practice of prosecuting and 20 21 22 detaining all unauthorized border crossers. 75. At the same time, the Order acknowledges that Defendants do not have the 23 resources or facilities necessary to effectuate its terms. Indeed, every provision of the Order is 24 to be carried out only “where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.” 25 These terms are undefined, leaving familial detention largely discretionary. Likewise, the Order 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 20 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 repeatedly affirms that family unity is “subject to the availability of appropriations,” but provides no parameters on when appropriations will be sought or even how much funding is needed. 76. Similarly, the Order directs the Secretary of Defense to provide existing available 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 facilities to house immigrant families, or to construct them, but again there is no indication that appropriate federal facilities exist and are available, or that construction of new family internment facilities is feasible. 77. The Order also acknowledges that Defendants cannot lawfully carry out its terms until they receive a court order “that would permit” the family detention scheme contemplated. Because almost every provision in the Order is subject to the availability of non-existent 11 resources and legal authority for indefinite detention that is contrary to settled law, it fails to 12 13 14 provide any actual relief. 78. The Order also is silent as to the thousands of families already separated by the 15 Policy. It does nothing to require their reunification or redress the harms inflicted on those 16 families. As a spokesperson for HHS’ Administration for Children and Families explained, 17 “There will not be a grandfathering of existing cases … I can tell you definitively that is going 18 to be policy.” See Michael D. Shear, Abby Goodnough and Maggie Haberman, Trump Retreats 19 on Separating Families, but Thousands May Remain Apart, (June 20, 2018) available at 20 21 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-immigration-children-executive- 22 order.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a- 23 lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news, attached as Ex. 25. 24 25 79. Defendants have confirmed that the Order will not end family separation, ostensibly because only Congress can reverse the Policy. Notably, the Order poses a striking 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 21 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 contrast with the Administration’s previous statements that Congressional legislation is the sole means of ending family separation, including President Trump’s explicit statement that “You can’t do it through executive order.” See “Trump said only legislation could stop family 4 5 6 separation. He just issued an executive order,” the Washington Post (June 20, 2018) clip available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-said-only-legislation-could- 7 stop-family-separation-hes-about-to-issue-an-executive-order/2018/06/20/c4f93aea-74a9-11e8- 8 bda1-18e53a448a14_video.html?utm_term=.d6843e5acc54, and Adam Edelman, Trump signs 9 order stopping his policy of separating families at border (June 20, 2018) available at 10 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-says-he-ll-sign-order-stopping- 11 separation-families-border-n885061, attached hereto as Ex. 26. 12 13 80. Likewise, just days prior to issuance of the Order, Defendants stated numerous 14 times their position that only Congress could end a policy of separating families. For example, 15 on June 18, 2018, Secretary Nielsen announced: “Until these loopholes are closed by Congress, 16 it is not possible, as a matter of law, to detain and remove whole family units who arrive illegally 17 in the United States. Congress and the courts created this problem, and Congress alone can fix 18 it. Until then, we will enforce every law we have on the books to defend the sovereignty and 19 security of the United States.” See Matthew Nussbaum, Trump falsely claimed for days that he 20 21 couldn’t end family separations (June 20, 2018) available 22 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/20/trump-false-claims-family-separations-656011, 23 at attached hereto as Ex. 27. 24 25 81. Also on June 18, 2018, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders stated: “There’s only one body here that gets to create legislation and it’s Congress. Our job is 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 22 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 to enforce it, and we would like to see Congress fix it. That’s why the President has repeatedly called on them to work with him to do just that.” Id. 3 82. And on June 20, 2018, contemporaneous with announcing the Order, Vice 4 5 6 President Pence claimed that changing the law was the only way to end family separation: “I think the American people want the Democrats to stop the obstruction, to stop standing in the 7 way of the kind of reforms at our border that will end the crisis of illegal immigration. We can 8 solve this issue of separation.” See Vice President Mike Pence: Democrats Can Fix Family 9 Separation at Border (June 20, 2018) available at https://kdkaradio.radio.com/articles/vice- 10 president-mike-pence-democrats-can-fix-family-separation-border, attached hereto as Ex. 28. 11 83. When President Trump signed the Order, Vice President Pence and Secretary 12 13 Nielsen again called on Congress to end separating families at the border; Vice President Pence 14 suggested that the Order is only applicable “in the immediate days forward” and “call[ed] on 15 Congress to change the laws” for a more permanent fix. 16 span.org/video/?447373-1/president-trump-signs-executive-order-halting-family-separation- 17 policy. 18 84. See clip at https://www.c- Later that day, at a briefing organized by the White House, Gene Hamilton, a 19 counselor to Attorney General Sessions, sidestepped a question about whether a family that 20 21 crosses the border now would be separated, stating that an “implementation phase” would occur, 22 but that he was not sure precisely what DHS or HHS would do in the immediate future. Mr. 23 Hamilton echoed President Trump’s, Nielsen’s, and Sessions’ statements that “Congress needs 24 to provide a permanent fix for this situation.” Mr. Hamilton stated that if Congress does not act, 25 it would be up to the Flores judge to decide whether the Administration could keep families 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 23 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 together. See Charlie Savage, Explaining Trump’s Executive Order on Family Separation, (June 20, 2018) available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/family-separationexecutive-order.html, attached hereto as Ex. 29. 4 5 D. 6 Pursuant to the Order, the Attorney General Has Launched an Attack on State Sovereignty 85. The Order directs the Attorney General to “promptly file a request with the U.S. 7 District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores 8 9 10 11 v. Sessions,” making rescission of Flores’ protections a predicate to the maintenance of family unity. 86. The Flores Agreement, which has been in place since 1997, “sets out nationwide 12 policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody of the INS,” including 13 both accompanied and unaccompanied minors. Stipulated Settlement Agreement, ¶ 9, attached 14 hereto as Ex. 30. Among other things, Flores prevents the DHS from detaining children in 15 restricted facilities for long periods and it requires federal detention centers to meet state 16 17 18 licensing requirements for childcare facilities. 87. As Vice President Pence previously conceded, the Flores agreement provides 19 only two options for the long term placement of families—(1) parental detention and family 20 separation, or (2) keeping families together, by releasing them into the community. See clip 21 22 available at https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4736625/pence-options-law). 88. On June 21, 2018, Attorney General Sessions filed an ex parte application 23 24 25 26 seeking relief from the Flores Settlement Agreement to allow the federal government to detain families indefinitely at non-licensed facilities. Flores, et al. v. Sessions, et al., Case No. CV 854544-DMG (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 435-1 at 1, 13, attached hereto as Ex. 31. COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 24 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 89. In his application, Attorney General Sessions admits that mass internment of families by the federal government is currently illegal: “this Court’s construction of the Flores Settlement Agreement eliminates the practical availability of family detention across the nation 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 . .” Ex. 31 at 2. “Under current law and legal rulings, including this Court’s, it is not possible for the U.S. government to detain families together during the pendency of their immigration proceedings. It cannot be done.” Id. at 3. 90. Nevertheless, Attorney General Sessions argues that indefinitely detaining families is necessary for deterrence. Specifically, he asserts that, without family detention, there is “a powerful incentive for aliens to enter this country with children.” Id. at 1. Attorney General 11 Session claims that, “[u]ndeniably the limitation on the option of detaining families together and 12 13 marked increase of families illegally crossing the border are linked.” Id. at 2. “‘[D]etaining 14 these individuals dispels such expectations, and deters others from unlawfully coming to the 15 United States.’” Id. at 13 (internal citations omitted). 16 17 18 91. Attorney General Sessions also requests an exemption from state licensing requirements, “because of ongoing and unresolved disputes over the ability of States to license these types of facilities.” Ex. 31 at 17-18. 19 92. The district court and the Ninth Circuit in Flores rejected almost identical 20 21 arguments advanced by the federal government in 2015. See Flores v. Lynch, 212 F. Supp. 3d 22 907, 913 (C.D. Cal. 2015), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded, 828 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 23 2016); Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898, 910 (9th Cir. 2016). At that time, the government 24 requested that the trial court modify the Flores agreement to allow DHS to hold female-headed 25 families with their children indefinitely in family detention centers in Texas and New Mexico. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 25 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 Rather than grant that request, the district court confirmed that Flores requires that “Defendants must house children who are not released in a non-secure facility that is licensed by an appropriate state agency to care for dependent children.” Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG (C.D. 4 5 6 Cal.), Dkt. 177 at 12. The court stated: “The fact that the [Texas and New Mexico] family residential centers cannot be licensed by an appropriate state agency simply means that, under 7 the Agreement, [children] … cannot be housed in these facilities except as permitted by the 8 Agreement.” Id. at 12-13. 9 10 93. The district court also found that the alleged “influx” of immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border did not constitute changed circumstances warranting the requested 11 modification and rejected the government’s stated rationale that the “family detention policy 12 13 [would] deter[] others who would have come.” Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG (C.D. Cal.), Dkt. 14 177 at 23. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, stating: “The Settlement expressly anticipated an influx 15 . . . and, even if the parties did not anticipate an influx of this size, we cannot fathom how a 16 ‘suitably tailored’ response to the change in circumstances would be to exempt an entire category 17 of migrants from the Settlement, as opposed to, say, relaxing certain requirements applicable to 18 all migrants.” Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898, 910 (9th Cir. 2016). 19 20 21 22 E. Defendants’ Recent Statements Call Into Question the Administration’s Commitment to the Rule of Law 94. Neither the Order nor the Flores application offer any assurance that the Administration will not once again return to a family separation policy when its efforts to inter 23 24 25 26 families together fail. 95. To the contrary, on June 25, 2018, Attorney General Sessions told an audience in Reno, NV that DOJ would continue carrying out President Trump’s “zero-tolerance” directive COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 26 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 because to do otherwise “would encourage more adults to bring more children illegally on a dangerous journey.” The same day, CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan stated that his agency would stop referring parents with children for prosecution but that this is a “temporary” 4 5 6 halt. See Shannon Pettypiece and Toluse Olorunnipa, Border Patrol Halts Prosecution of Families Crossing Illegally (June 25, 2018) available 7 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-25/border-patrol-halts-prosecution-of- 8 at families-crossing-illegally. 9 10 96. Further, the Trump Administration’s statements from June 20, 2018-June 26, 2018 raise the specter of further unconstitutional and unlawful acts. 11 97. For example, in response to the public outcry against family separation, the 12 13 Administration appears to be preparing to intern thousands of families in military facilities. As 14 Commissioner McAleenan explained, he is unable to refer parents for prosecution without 15 separating them from their children due to lack of resources, but that he and his agency are 16 working on a plan to resume criminal referrals. See Shannon Pettypiece and Toluse Olorunnipa, 17 Border Patrol Halts Prosecution of Families Crossing Illegally (June 25, 2018) available at 18 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-25/border-patrol-halts-prosecution-of- 19 families-crossing-illegally. 20 21 98. On June 21, 2018, at DHS’s request, the Pentagon agreed to host up to 20,000 22 unaccompanied migrant children on military bases. See Dan Lamothe, Seung Min Kim and Nick 23 Miroff, Pentagon will make room for up to 20,000 migrant children on military bases, the 24 Washington 25 Post (June 21, 2018) available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/06/21/pentagon-asked-to-make- 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 27 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 room-for-20000-migrant-children-on-military-bases/?utm_term=.decab089f684, attached hereto as Ex. 32. 3 99. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis confirmed on June 24, 2018, that the military is 4 5 6 preparing to construct camps for migrants on at least two military bases. See Phil Stewart, Pentagon eyes temporary camps for immigrants at two bases, Reuters (June 24, 2018) available 7 at 8 camps-for-immigrants-at-two-bases-idUSKBN1JL015, attached hereto as Ex. 33. Moreover, a 9 planning document from the United States Navy details “temporary and austere” tent cities that 10 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-military/pentagon-eyes-temporary- would be able to house 25,000 migrants on abandoned airfields. See Philip Elliott, Exclusive: 11 Navy Document Shows Plan to Erect ‘Austere” Detention Camps, Time (June 22, 2018) 12 13 14 15 http://time.com/5319334/navy-detainment-centers-zerol-tolerance-immigration-familyseparation-policy/, attached hereto as Ex. 34. 100. Emerging reports as of June 25, 2018, suggest that immigration officials are using 16 the children taken from their parents as leverage to coerce parents to withdraw their asylum 17 claims. The family reunification Fact Sheet released by the Department of Homeland Security 18 on June 23, 2018, provides for family reunification only for adults “who are subject to removal” 19 so that they may be “reunited with their children for the purposes of removal.” See Fact Sheet: 20 21 Zero Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification (June 23, 2018) available at 22 https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHS/bulletins/1f98ad8, attached hereto as Ex. 35. 23 In other words, parents who hope to be quickly reunited with their children must abandon their 24 own asylum claims and agree to withdraw their children’s claims to remain in the United States. 25 See Dara Lind, Trump will reunite separated families – but only if they agree to deportation, 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 28 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 Vox (June 25, 2018) available at https://www.vox.com/2018/6/25/17484042/children-parentsseparate-reunite-plan-trump, attached hereto as Ex. 36. 3 101. Parents have felt compelled to act accordingly. On June 24, 2018, a DHS official 4 5 6 stated that parents separated from their children “were quickly given the option to sign paperwork leading to their deportation. Many chose to do so.” The June 24, 2018 tweet is 7 available at https://twitter.com/jacobsoboroff/status/1010862394103328771, and attached 8 hereto as Ex. 37. This is consistent with other accounts of parents signing voluntary deportation 9 paperwork out of “desperation” because officials had suggested that it would lead to faster 10 reunification with their children. See, e.g., Jay Root and Shannon Najmabadi, Kids in exchange 11 for deportation: Detained migrants say they were told they could get kids back on way out of 12 13 U.S., Texas Tribune (June 24, 2018) available at https://www.texastribune.org/2018/06/24/kids- 14 exchange-deportation-migrants-claim-they-were-promised-they-could/?utm_campaign=trib- 15 social-buttons&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social, attached hereto as Ex. 38. 16 17 18 102. Likewise, on June 24, 2018, a senior administrative official speaking on the condition of anonymity confirmed that defendants do not plan to reunite families until after a parent has lost his or her deportation case, effectively punishing parents who may otherwise 19 pursue an asylum claim or other relief request and creating tremendous pressure to abandon such 20 21 claims so that parents may be reunited with kids. See Maria Saccherri, Michael Miller and 22 Robert Moore, Sen. Warren visits detention center, says no children being returned to parents 23 there, 24 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/desperate-to-get-children-back-migrants- The Washington Post (June 24, 2018) available at 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 29 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 are-willing-to-give-up-asylum-claims-lawyers-say/2018/06/24/c7fab87c-77e2-11e8-80be6d32e182a3bc_story.html, attached hereto as Ex. 39. 3 103. In recent days, President Trump has proposed deporting immigrants without 4 5 6 hearing or legal process as his favored alternative. On June 21, 2018 President Trump stated: “We shouldn’t be hiring judges by the thousands, as our ridiculous immigration laws demand, 7 we should be changing our laws, building the Wall, hire Border Agents and Ice and not let people 8 come into our country based on the legal phrase they are told to say as their password.” See 9 https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1009770941604298753. 10 104. On June 24, 2018, President Trump again proposed that immigrants who cross 11 into the United States should be sent back immediately without due process or an appearance 12 13 before a judge: “We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody 14 comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where 15 they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most 16 children come without parents...” See Katie Rogers and Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Trump Calls for 17 Depriving Immigrants Who Illegally Cross Border of Due Process Rights, The New York Times 18 (June 24, 2018) available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/us/politics/trump- 19 immigration-judges-due-process.html, attached hereto as Ex. 40. 20 21 105. On June 25, 2018, President Trump continued: “Hiring manythousands [sic] of 22 judges, and going through a long and complicated legal process, is not the way to go – will 23 always be disfunctional [sic]. People must simply be stopped at the Border and told they cannot 24 come into the U.S. illegally. Children brought back to their country…..” The June 25, 2018 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 30 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 tweet is available at https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1011228265003077632, and attached hereto as Ex. 41. 3 106. On June 25, 2018, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders 4 5 6 confirmed that CPB’s halt of prosecution referrals “is a temporary solution. This isn’t going to last. . . This will only last a short amount of time, because we’re going to run out of space, we’re 7 going to run out of resources to keep people together.” Secretary Sanders reiterated: “We’re 8 not changing the policy . . . We’re simply out of resources. And at some point, Congress has to 9 do what they were elected to do, and that is secure our border, that is stop the crime coming into 10 our country.” Secretary Sanders dodged questions regarding President Trump’s recent 11 suggestion that immigrants be afforded no due hearing or due process prior to deportation. See 12 13 Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders (June 25, 2018), available at 14 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/press-briefing-press-secretary-sarah-sanders- 15 062518/. 16 F. 17 18 19 Defendants’ Policy Causes Devastating Harm To Children and Parents 107. Separating families when a child’s safety is not at risk causes immediate, acute trauma as well as foreseeable long term damage and harm to both the parents and the children. The negative effects and consequences of the Policy are likely to be long-lasting and in some 20 21 22 cases debilitating. 108. Unless required to protect a child’s safety, forced separation from their parents is 23 likely to cause immediate and extreme psychological harm to young children, and the resulting 24 cognitive and emotional damage can be permanent. Parental separation is a traumatic loss for 25 the child; as a result they are likely to experience post-traumatic symptoms such as nightmares, 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 31 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 and other manifestations of anxiety and depression, all of which are likely to increase in severity the longer the separation lasts and lead to the potential development of problematic coping strategies in both the near and long term. This trauma may be exacerbated for children who are 4 5 fleeing persecution or violence in their home countries. 109. 6 Observations by those who have seen children recently separated pursuant to 7 Defendants’ Policy suggest that conditions created by Defendants will further exacerbate the 8 separation trauma. By way of example, after touring a shelter along the Texas border to Mexico, 9 Dr. Colleen Kraft, President of the American Academy of Pediatrics, described a “screaming” 10 girl, “no older than 2” who could not be comforted because shelter workers had been told they 11 are not allowed to touch the children, not even to hold a crying child and convey some semblance 12 13 of compassion. See Immigrant children: What a doctor saw in a Texas shelter, The Washington 14 Post 15 nation/wp/2018/06/16/america-is-better-than-this-what-a-doctor-saw-in-a-texas-shelter-for- 16 migrant-children/?utm_term=.e1e5566675e9, attached hereto as Ex. 42. 17 18 (June 110. 17, 2018) available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post- These reports are also consistent with the observations of State employees who recently interviewed separated children living in Seattle. Every child displayed significant 19 distress when relaying their experience and broke down when describing their separation. Some 20 21 22 23 24 25 reported ongoing nightmares, others were so traumatized they could not continue the brief interviews. 111. Similarly, parents who arrive together with their children at the U.S. border and then are separated from their children by the U.S. government are likely to experience immediate and acute psychological injury as a result. Under the Policy, many parents are being separated 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 32 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 from their children suddenly without the chance to prepare the child or even say goodbye, without knowing where they or their children will be taken, without any guarantee of reunification, and often without contact with their children or with long gaps in that contact. 4 5 6 When parents and children are allowed to speak, it is only briefly – ten minutes or so – by telephone. 112. 7 These otherwise fit parents are likely to experience deterioration of their mental 8 and physical health in the aftermath of the forcible separation from their children with symptoms 9 including anxiety, depression, PTSD, and other trauma-related disorders. In some cases, parental 10 trauma from separation from their children will become unbearable because their available 11 coping mechanisms may be overwhelmed by the sudden loss of the important role of parent and 12 13 protector of the child. Indeed, at least one parent, distraught after officials pried his 3-year-old 14 son from his arms, is reported to have committed suicide following the separation. See Nick 15 Miroff, A family separated at the border, and this distraught father took his own life, (June 9, 16 2018) available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-family-was- 17 separated-at-the-border-and-this-distraught-father-took-his-own-life/2018/06/08/24e40b70- 18 6b5d-11e8-9e38-24e693b38637_story.html?utm_term=.96a4606e47c7, attached hereto as Ex. 19 43. 20 113. 21 These general observations were confirmed by interviewers who recently spoke 22 with mothers detained in a federal facility in King County, Washington. The mothers were 23 visibly upset, with some expressing panic and desperation, because they lacked information 24 about their children’s safety and did not know whether or when they would see their children 25 again. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 33 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 G. The Policy Is Expressly Intended to Use Traumatized Children and Families to Deter Migration of Latina/o Immigrants and for Political Leverage 114. Defendants have changed public positions on the Policy numerous times over the 4 last few weeks, but what has remained consistent throughout is Defendants’ unambiguous 5 adoption of a policy at the Southwestern border that uses trauma as deterrence, and their 6 insistence that Congress overhaul immigration laws to codify President Trump’s immigration 7 agenda, including building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border. See JM Rieger, The Trump 8 Administration Changed its Story on Family Separation no Fewer than 14 Times Before Ending 9 10 the Policy (June 20, 2018) available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- 11 fix/wp/2018/06/20/the-trump-administration-changed-its-story-on-family-separation-no-fewer- 12 than-14-times-before-ending-the-policy/?utm_term=.6719a188344f, 13 contradictory statements). Confirmation of these two goals is reflected in statements from a year 14 15 Ex. 44 (collecting ago and continued even after issuance of the Executive Order. 115. As early as March 7, 2017, then-Secretary of DHS John Kelly confirmed that the 16 17 18 Policy was intended to “to deter movement” along the Southwestern border. See Ex. 3. Later that year, a source who attended a DHS meeting to discuss ways to “deter immigrants from 19 coming to the U.S. illegally” reported that the Policy was still being considered, but kept getting 20 “bogged down” because of how “difficult and controversial it was.” See Ex. 4. 21 22 116. On December 5, 2017, Kirstjen Nielsen replaced John Kelly as DHS Secretary. 117. On February 8, 2018, 75 members of Congress wrote a letter to DHS Secretary 23 Nielsen expressing “deep[] concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is 24 25 26 separating families, including parents and their minor children . . . along the U.S.-Mexico border.” DHS’ “reported justification of this practice as a deterrent to family migration suggests COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 34 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 a lack of understanding about the violence many families are fleeing in their home countries” and “[m]ore pointedly, the pretext of deterrence is not a legally sufficient basis for separating families.” The letter is attached hereto as Ex. 45. 4 5 6 118. The letter details two complaints filed in December 2017 that confirmed DHS was “intentionally separating families for purposes of deterrence and punishment.” In particular, 7 the second complaint documented “instances of infants and toddlers as young as one and two 8 years old separated from their parents and rendered ‘unaccompanied’”—among these was “a 9 father separated from his one-year-old son, Mateo, despite presenting appropriate documents to 10 establish their relationship.” Id. 11 119. Attorney General Sessions has confirmed that the Policy is intended to deter other 12 13 families from entering the United States. For example, on April 6, 2018, he issued a warning to 14 immigrants crossing the Southwestern border that “illegally entering this country will not be 15 rewarded, but instead will be met with the full prosecutorial powers of the Department of Justice” 16 and children “will be separated from [their parents].” See Ex. 12. 17 18 120. In May 2018, DHS announced the results of its pilot at the El Paso border sector from July to November 2017. Its report—later found to be inaccurate—further confirms that 19 deterrence is the primary purpose of the Policy. When asked about the Policy, DHS reported that 20 21 “[t]he number of illegal crossings between ports of entry of family units dropped by 64 percent. 22 This decrease was attributed to the prosecution of adults amenable to prosecution for illegal entry 23 while risking the lives of their children. Of note, the numbers began rising again after the 24 initiative was paused.” See Ex. 6. Notably, public reporting suggests that, based on DHS’ own 25 statistics, these numbers are wrong and that there was, in fact, a 64% increase in apprehensions. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 35 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 Id.; see also US Border Patrol Southwest Border Apprehensions by Section FY2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection available at https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/usbp-swborder-apprehensions-fy2017#field-content-tab-group-tab-9, attached hereto as Ex. 46 and US 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Border Patrol Southwest Border Apprehensions by Section FY2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection available at https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/usbp-sw-border- apprehensions#field-content-tab-group-tab-1, attached hereto as Ex. 47. 121. On May 11, 2018, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly was interviewed by National Public Radio. When asked whether he was in favor of the Policy, he acknowledged that “the vast majority of the people that move illegally into United States are not bad people. 11 They’re not criminals. They’re not MS-13. . . . They’re not bad people. They’re coming here 12 13 for a reason. And I sympathize with the reason. . . . But a big name of the game is deterrence.” 14 See White House Chief of Staff John Kelly’s Interview with NPR (May 11, 2018) available at 15 https://www.npr.org/2018/05/11/610116389/transcript-white-house-chief-of-staff-john-kellys- 16 interview-with-npr, transcript attached hereto as Ex. 48. He noted that the Policy “would be a 17 tough deterrent” but that “this is a technique that no one hopes will be used extensively or for 18 very long.” Id. 19 122. On June 5, 2018, Attorney General Sessions was asked whether it was “absolutely 20 21 necessary” to “separate parents from children when they are detained or apprehended at the 22 border.” He responded, “yes” and “[i]f people don’t want to be separated from their children, 23 they should not bring them with them. We’ve got to get this message out.” See Hugh Hewitt, 24 US Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Children Separated From Parents at Border, F-1 Visas For 25 PRC Students, and Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision (June 5, 2018) available at 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 36 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 http://www.hughhewitt.com/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-on-the-immigration-policiesconcerning-children-apprehended-at-he-border-and-f-1-visas/, transcript attached hereto as Ex. 49. 4 123. 5 6 On June 14, 2018, Attorney General Sessions quoted a Bible verse ostensibly to justify the Policy to leaders of the faith community and added: “Having children does not give 7 you immunity from arrest and prosecution.” See Adam Edelman, Sessions Cites Bible in Defense 8 of Breaking up Families, Blames Migrant Parents (June 14, 2018) available at 9 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/sessions-cites-bible-defense-breaking- 10 families-blames-migrant-parents-n883296, attached hereto as Ex. 50. 11 124. Public statements suggest that the Trump Administration intends to use the 12 13 Policy as a negotiating tool to force congressional acquiescence to its proposed immigration 14 legislation. For example, President Trump tweeted on May 26, 2018 that Democrats should “end 15 the horrible law that separates children from there [sic] parents once they cross the Border.” The 16 May 17 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1000375761604370434, and attached hereto as Ex. 18 26, 2018 tweet is available at 51. 19 125. On May 29, 2018 Senior Advisor to the President Stephen Miller confirmed that 20 21 families are intentionally being traumatized for political gain: “If we were to have those 22 [Republican sponsored] fixes in federal law, the migrant crisis emanating from Central America 23 would largely be solved in a very short period of time,” and “[f]amilies would then therefore be 24 able to be kept together and could be sent home expeditiously and safely.” See Ted Hesson, 25 White House’s Miller Blames Democrats for border crisis, Politico (May 29, 2018) available at 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 37 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/29/stephen-miller-democrats-border-574537, attached hereto as Ex. 52. 126. On June 16, 2018, President Trump confirmed that he is using the Policy to push 4 5 6 lawmakers to enact immigration legislation more in line with his own agenda: “Democrats can fix their forced family breakup at the Border by working with Republicans on new legislation.” 7 See Kate Sullivan, Trump suggests separation of families at border is a negotiating tool (June 8 16, 2018) available at https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/16/politics/trump-separation-families- 9 negotiating-tool/index.html, attached hereto as Ex. 53. 10 127. On June 18, 2018, President Trump complained that “[w]e have the worst 11 immigration laws in the entire world. Nobody has such sad, such bad and actually, in many 12 13 cases, such horrible and tough – you see about child separation, you see what’s going on there.” 14 See Ex. 19. He suggested, “[i]f the Democrats would sit down, instead of obstructing, we could 15 have something done very quickly, good for the children, good for the country, good for the 16 world. It could take place quickly.” Id. But in the meantime, he stated, “The United States 17 will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility, it won’t be.” Id. 18 128. On June 18, 2018, in remarks before the National Sheriffs’ Association, Attorney 19 General Sessions also suggested that if lawmakers would simply acquiesce to President Trump’s 20 21 demands to fund a wall on the Southwestern border, Defendants would stop separating families: 22 “We do not want to separate parents from their children,” “[i]f we build the wall, if we pass 23 legislation to end the lawlessness, we won’t face these terrible choices.” See Ex. 20. 24 25 129. DHS Secretary Nielsen also linked the Policy with demands the Administration has made on Congress: “We are enforcing the laws passed by Congress, and we are doing all 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 38 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 that we can in the executive branch to protect our communities. It is now time that Congress act to fix our broken immigration system.” See Ex. 21. 4 Defendants’ Family Separation Policy Targets Immigrant Families Based on Their National Origin 5 130. 6 7 H. Defendants’ Policy is directed only at “Southwest Border crossings” (see Ex. 13), the majority of which consist of immigrants from Latin America. Indeed, in its reports on recent “Southwest Border Apprehensions,” CBP only tracks family unit apprehensions for immigrants 8 from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. See U.S. Border Patrol Southwest Border 9 10 Apprehensions by Sector FY2018, available at https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/usbp-sw- 11 border-apprehensions, attached hereto as Ex. 54. Defendants do not track whether the Policy is 12 impacting family unit migration from any other countries. 13 14 15 131. Defendants’ stated rationale for adopting the Policy—i.e., to deter migration—is ineffective and not a legitimate law enforcement tactic. Rather than deter migration, the number of families and unaccompanied children apprehended has steadily increased since Defendants 16 17 18 have implemented the Policy. According to Defendants’ own statistics, in March 2018, the number of families apprehended at the Southwestern border was 37,385; in April 2018, 38,278; 19 and in May 2018, 40,344. See Ex. 8. The number of family units arriving at ports of entry 20 determined to be inadmissible also stayed relatively stable; in March 2018, the number was 21 5,162, in April, 5,445, and in May 4,718. Id. 22 132. Defendants also report that U.S. border agents made more than 50,000 arrests in 23 each of the months of March, April and May 2018—“an indication that escalating enforcement 24 25 26 tactics by the Trump Administration—including separating immigrant parents from their children—has not had an immediate deterrent effect.” See Nick Miroff, Border arrests exceed COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 39 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 50,000 for third month in a row (June 6, 2018), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/border-arrests-exceed-50000-forthird-month-in-a-row/2018/06/06/db6f15a6-680b-11e8-bea7- 4 5 6 c8eb28bc52b1_story.html?utm_term=.72b8f43a7470, attached hereto as Ex. 55. 133. On May 23, 2018, Steven Wagner, Acting Secretary of the Administration for 7 Children and Families testified before a Senate committee, stating: “In FY 2017, 84 percent of 8 [unaccompanied alien minors] referred to ORR came from Honduras, Guatemala, and 9 El Salvador. To date in FY 2018, 93 percent of referred children come from those countries.” A 10 copy of the Wagner Statement is attached as Ex. 56. 11 134. On April 6, 2018, President Trump signed a memorandum ordering agencies to 12 13 “expeditiously end” the practice of “catch and release,” a pejorative phrase that refers to the 14 practice of allowing immigrants to be released into the community pending resolution of their 15 immigration cases. See Jesse Byrnes, Trump signs memo ordering end to ‘catch and release” 16 practices, The Hill, available at http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/382054-trump- 17 signs-memo-ordering-end-to-catch-and-release-practices, attached hereto as Ex. 57. For 18 example, the memo orders DHS to submit a report within 45 days “detailing all measures that 19 their respective departments have pursued or are pursuing to expeditiously end ‘catch and 20 21 release’ practices.” Id. It also requests “a detailed list of all existing facilities, including military 22 facilities, that could be used, modified, or repurposed to detain aliens for violations of 23 immigration law” and specifically directs Attorney General Sessions and DHS Secretary 24 Nielsen to identify any resources “that may be needed to expeditiously end ‘catch and release’ 25 practices.” Id. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 40 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 135. The Policy—announced shortly thereafter—targets only the immigrants at the Southwestern border, the vast majority of whom are from Latin American countries. See Ex. 12. 136. In stark contrast to Defendants’ Southwestern border actions, DHS’ updated 4 5 6 Northern Border Strategy, announced on June 12, 2018, aims “to facilitate the flow of lawful cross-border trade and travel, and strengthen cross-border community resilience.” Although the 7 Northern Border Strategy is intended, in part, to “safeguard our northern border against terrorist 8 and criminal threats,” the strategy does not demand prosecution and family separation for all 9 unauthorized entrants at the northern border of the United States. See Department of Homeland 10 Security Northern Border Strategy available at 11 https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0612_PLCY_DHS-Northern-Border12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Strategy.pdf, attached hereto as Ex. 58. 137. The Policy is intended to target immigrants by their country of origin and is consistent with the demonstrated anti-Latina/o bias repeatedly shown by President Trump. 138. Members of the Trump Administration repeatedly disparaged Latin American countries during the presidential campaign and during the Trump presidency. When Mr. Trump announced his campaign at Trump Tower in June 2015, he announced: “When Mexico sends its 19 people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. 20 21 They’re rapists.” See Z. Byron Wolf, Trump basically called Mexicans rapists again, available 22 at https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/06/politics/trump-mexico-rapists/index.html, attached hereto 23 as Ex. 59. In that same speech, he first proposed the idea of building a wall along the 24 Southwestern border and “mak[ing] Mexico pay for that wall.” 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 41 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 139. During the first Republican presidential debate, then-candidate Trump again stated his distaste for immigrants from Mexico: “The Mexican government is much smarter, much sharper, much more cunning. And they send the bad ones over because they don’t want 4 5 6 to pay for them. They don’t want to take care of them.” See Andrew O’Reilly, At GOP debate, Trump says ‘stupid’ U.S. leaders are being duped by Mexico, Fox News (Aug. 6, 2015) available 7 at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/08/06/at-republican-debate-trump-says-mexico-is- 8 sending-criminals-because-us.html, attached hereto as Ex. 60. 9 10 140. Soon after, on August 25, 2015, then-candidate Trump refused to answer questions about immigration posed by Jorge Ramos, a Mexican-American and the top news anchor at 11 Univision, a Spanish-language news network. After sending his bodyguard to physically remove 12 13 Mr. Ramos, then-candidate Trump derisively told Mr. Ramos to “Go back to Univision.” See Phillip 14 Rucker, First, Trump booted Univision anchor Jorge Ramos out of his news conference. Then things 15 got 16 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/25/first-trump-booted- 17 univision-anchor-jorge-ramos-out-of-his-news-conference-then-things-got- 18 interesting, The Washington Post, (Aug. 25, 2015) available at interesting/?utm_term=.33965c195aca, attached hereto as Ex. 61. 19 141. In May 2016, then-candidate Trump referred to anti-Trump protestors who 20 21 carried the Mexican flag as “criminals” and “thugs.” Donald Trump, “The protestors in New 22 Mexico were thugs who were flying the Mexican Flag.” The May 25, 2016 tweet is attached 23 hereto as Ex. 62. Donald Trump, “Many of the thugs that attacked peaceful Trump supporters 24 in San Jose were illegals.” The June 4, 2016 tweet is attached hereto as Ex. 63. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 42 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 142. In June 2016, then-candidate Trump impugned the integrity of a federal judge presiding over a lawsuit against one of his businesses. Trump commented that Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s rulings against him “[H]as to do with perhaps that I’m very, very strong on the border. 4 5 6 . . . Now, he is Hispanic, I believe. He is a very hostile judge to me.” See Jose A. DelReal and Katie Zezima, Trump’s personal, racially tinged attacks on federal judge alarm legal experts, 7 The 8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/06/01/437ccae6-280b-11e6-a3c4- 9 0724e8e24f3f_story.html?utm_term=.c82ec7177a13, attached hereto as Ex. 64. 10 Washington 143. Post (June 1, 2016) available at U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan publicly rebuked his own party’s presumptive 11 presidential nominee, stating: “Claiming a person can’t do the job because of their race is sort 12 13 of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. 14 It’s absolutely unacceptable.” See Tom Kertscher, Donald Trump’s racial comments about 15 Hispanic judge in Trump University case, Politifact (June 8, 2016) available at 16 http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments- 17 about-judge-trump-un/, attached hereto as Ex. 65. 18 144. In an interview with CBS News on June 5, 2016, then-candidate Trump reiterated 19 his views, noting that “[Judge Curiel]’s a member of a club or society very strongly, pro-Mexican, 20 21 which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias.” See CBS News, Transcript of Face the Nation (June 22 5, 2016) available at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-june-5-2016- 23 trump/, attached hereto as Ex. 66. Judge Curiel is a member of the San Diego Chapter of the La 24 Raza Lawyers Association. See Michelle Ye Hee Lee, Trump Supporters’ False Claim That 25 Trump U Judge Is a Member of a Pro-immigrant Group, The Washington Post (June 7, 2016) 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 43 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/07/trump- supporters-false-claim-that-trump-u-judge-is-a-member-of-a-pro-immigrantgroup/?utm_term=.07b5b0148791, attached hereto as Ex. 67. 4 145. 5 6 On August 21, 2015, two men urinated on a sleeping Latino man and then beat him with a metal pole. They later told police that “Donald Trump was right; all these illegals need to 7 be deported.” When asked about the incident, then-candidate Trump failed to condemn the men, 8 instead describing them as “passionate.” See Adrian Walker, ‘Passionate’ Trump fans behind 9 homeless 10 man’s beating? (Aug. 21, 2015) available at https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/20/after-two-brothers-allegedly-beat-homeless- 11 man-one-them-admiringly-quote-donald-trump-deporting12 13 illegals/I4NXR3Dr7litLi2NB4f9TN/story.html, attached hereto as Ex. 68. Specifically, Trump 14 stated, “[i]t would be a shame . . . I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. 15 They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.” Id. 16 17 18 146. In October 2016, during a presidential debate, then-candidate Trump responded to a question about immigration by stating: “We have some bad hombres here and we’re going to get them out.” See Katie Zezima, Trump on immigration: There are ‘bad hombres’ in the 19 United States, The Washington Post (Aug. 30, 2017) available at 20 21 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/19/trump-on-immigration- 22 there-are-bad-hombres-in-the-united-states/?utm_term=.e24f12fed08a, attached hereto as Ex. 23 69. 24 25 147. On January 27, 2017, newly-inaugurated President Trump and Mexico’s President Peña Nieto discussed President Trump’s proposal for a border wall over the phone. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 44 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 During that transcribed conversation, President Trump again referred to “hombres” stating: “You have some pretty tough hombres in Mexico that you may need help with, and we are willing to help you with that big-league. But they have to be knocked out and you have not done 4 5 6 a good job of knocking them out.” See Greg Miller et. al., Full Transcripts of Trump’s Calls with Mexico and Australia, The Washington Post (Aug. 3, 2017) available at 7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/you-cannot-say-that-to-the-press- 8 trump-urged-mexican-president-to-end-his-public-defiance-on-border-wall-transcript- 9 reveals/2017/08/03/0c2c0a4e-7610-11e7-8f39- 10 eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.85f36aa7a876, attached hereto as Ex. 70. 11 148. In August 2017, President Trump pardoned Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona 12 13 sheriff who oversaw operations that consistently targeted and harassed Latino residents in 14 Maricopa County. After a thorough investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a report 15 in 2011 finding that Mr. Arpaio’s office had committed numerous civil rights violations by, inter 16 alia, conducting immigration sweeps that routinely violated the Fourth Amendment; detaining 17 Latino residents based on fabricated charges; placing Spanish-speaking inmates in solitary 18 confinement as punishment for not speaking English; refusing to accept requests for basic 19 services written in Spanish; pressuring Latino inmates to sign deportation forms; and referring 20 21 to Latino inmates as “wetback,” “Mexican bitches,” and “stupid Mexicans.” See Letter/Report, 22 attached hereto as Ex. 71. The report found that Mr. Arpaio’s own actions “promoted a culture 23 of bias in his organization and clearly communicated to his officers that biased policing would 24 not only be tolerated, but encouraged.” Id. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 45 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 149. A federal judge ruled twice that Mr. Arpaio’s deputies unlawfully deprived detainees of food and medical care, and tortured inmates by locking them in unbearably hot solitary confinement cells in violation of the Eighth Amendment. See Mark Joseph Stern, White 4 5 6 Nationalist Rule is Already Here (Aug. 15, 2017), available at http://www.slate.com/news-andpolitics/2018/06/district-court-judge-rules-that-trump-administration-child-separations-would- 7 be-unconstitutional.html, attached hereto as Ex. 72. The vast majority of individuals jailed by 8 Mr. Arpaio’s office were Latinos detained on suspicion of being undocumented. Id. In issuing 9 the pardon, President Trump stated that Mr. Arpaio “has done a lot in the fight against illegal 10 immigration. He’s a great American patriot and I hate to see what has happened to him.” Id. 11 150. In February 2018, President Trump referred to nations such as El Salvador as 12 13 “shithole countries” in a meeting with lawmakers, and suggested that the U.S. preferred to 14 receive immigrants from countries like Norway. See David Boddiger, Trump falsely links 15 Central American Immigrants to Drug Trafficking, Again (Feb. 3, 2018) available at 16 https://splinternews.com/trump-falsely-links-central-american-immigrants-to-drug- 17 1822692216, attached hereto as Ex. 73. 18 151. That same month, President Trump said of undocumented immigrants from 19 Mexico and Central America, “You know they’re bad. They’re pouring in from El Salvador, 20 21 22 Honduras, Mexico, all over.” See Ex. 73. He added, “These countries are not our friends.” Id. 152. In April 2018, President Trump expressed repeated frustration with immigration 23 numbers at the Southwestern border, and made a number of racially charged comments around 24 the time he issued the memorandum directing DHS Secretary Nielsen and Attorney General 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 46 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 Sessions to end catch-and-release practices. For example, President Trump again insinuated that Mexican immigrants are rapists. See Ex. 59. 3 153. President Trump also commented multiple times about a “caravan” of Central 4 5 6 American immigrants aiming to reach the Southwestern border, many of whom planned on seeking asylum. He stated that “Mexico has the absolute power to not let these large ‘Caravans’ 7 of people enter our country.” See Edgard Garrido, Migrant ‘caravan’ that angers Trump nears 8 U.S.-Mexico border, Reuters (April 23, 2018), available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us- 9 usa-immigration-caravan/migrant-caravan-that-angers-trump-nears-u-s-mexico-border- 10 idUSKBN1HU2ZB, attached hereto as Ex. 74. The “caravans” are an apparent reference to a 11 contingent of Latin American immigrants traveling through Mexico. Id. President Trump stated: 12 13 “If it reaches our border, our laws are so weak and so pathetic . . . it’s like we have no border.” 14 See Klein, Starr, Shoichet, Trump: ‘We’re going to be guarding our border with the military’ 15 until 16 https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/03/politics/trump-border-wall-military/index.html, 17 hereto as Ex. 75. He added, “[t]he caravan makes me very sad that this could happen to the 18 wall complete (April 3, 2018) available at attached United States.” Id. 19 154. After expressing frustration regarding the “caravan,” President Trump announced 20 21 that he planned to dispatch U.S. troops to guard the U.S.-Mexico border because “we have very 22 bad laws for our border” so “we’re going to do some things militarily, until we can have a wall 23 and proper security—we’re going to be guarding our border with the military.” See Ex. 75. 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 47 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 155. “illegal On June 19, 2018, President Trump tweeted that without strong border policies immigrants” would “pour into and infest our Country.” See https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1009071403918864385. 4 156. 5 6 On June 20, 2018, shortly after signing the Executive Order, at a rally in Duluth, Minnesota amid chants of “Build the Wall,” President Trump repeated: “They’re not sending 7 their finest. We’re sending them the hell back. That’s what we’re doing.” See Katie Rogers and 8 Jonathan Martin, ‘We’re Sending them the Hell Back,’ Trump Says of Securing the County’s 9 Borders, 10 The New York Times (June 20, 2018) available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-minnesota-rally.html, attached hereto 11 as Ex. 76. 12 13 I. The Policy Has Been Widely Denounced by the United Nations, Professional Organizations, Public Figures, and Religious Leaders 14 15 157. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has called for an end to the Policy, saying, “The thought that any state would seek to deter parents by inflicting such 16 17 18 abuse on children is unconscionable. I call on the United States to immediately end the practice of forcible separation of these children.” See Stephanie Nebehay, U.N. rights boss calls for an 19 end 20 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-un-rights/un-rights-boss-calls-for-end-to-trumps-policy-of- 21 family-separation-idUSKBN1JE0NA, attached hereto as Ex. 77. A spokesperson for the U.N. 22 to Trump’s policy of family separation, (June 18, 2018) available at also said that the Policy “amounts to arbitrary and unlawful interference in family life, and is a 23 serious violation of the rights of the child.” See Nick Cumming-Bruce, Taking Migrant Children 24 25 From Parents Is Illegal, U.N. Tells U.S., available at 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 48 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/05/world/americas/us-un-migrant-children-families.html, attached hereto as Ex. 78. 158. Numerous professional and religious organizations have also denounced the 4 5 6 Policy. On June 12, 2018, the American Bar Association (ABA) expressed “strong opposition” to Defendants’ “separation of children from their parents when arriving at the southern border,” 7 calling the practice “unfair, inhumane, and, in the end, ineffective.” See ABA letter attached 8 hereto as Ex. 79 (noting “that the primary purpose of the ‘zero tolerance’ Policy is to serve as a 9 deterrent for migrant parents” at the Southwestern border, and “that family separation is not a 10 collateral consequence of regular law enforcement” but “an explicitly intentional goal.”). 11 159. The Policy has also been widely condemned by the medical community. For 12 13 example, the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP) recently denounced Defendants’ Policy, 14 writing: 15 pediatricians – protecting and promoting children’s health. In fact, highly stressful experiences, 16 like family separation, can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child’s brain architecture and 17 affecting his or her health. This type of prolonged exposure to serious stress - known as toxic 18 “Separating children from their parents contradicts everything we stand for as stress - can carry lifelong consequences for children.” See AAP Statement Opposing Separation 19 of Mothers and Children at the Border (March 4, 2017), available at https://www.aap.org/en20 21 us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/immigrantmotherschildrenseparation.aspx, attached 22 hereto as Ex. 80; See also AAP Statement Opposing Separation of Children and Parents at the 23 Border (May 8, 2018), available at https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press- 24 room/Pages/StatementOpposingSeparationofChildrenandParents.aspx, attached hereto as Ex. 25 81; The American Academy of Family Physicians also released a statement in opposition, urging 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 49 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 the federal government to “withdraw its policy” and “instead, give priority to supporting families and protecting the health and well-being of the children within those families.” See American Academy of Family Physicians Statement Regarding the United States Department of Homeland 4 5 6 Security’s Policy to Separate Children from Adult Caregivers available at https://www.aafp.org/dam/AAFP/documents/advocacy/prevention/equality/ST- 7 DHSPolicyChild-AdultSeparation-061618.pdf, attached hereto as Ex. 82. Further, the American 8 Medical Association “strongly urge[d]” the Defendants to withdraw the Policy, writing, “It is 9 well known that childhood trauma and adverse childhood experiences created by inhumane 10 treatment often create negative health impacts that can last an individual’s entire lifespan.” See 11 AMA Urges Administration to Withdraw “Zero Tolerance” Policy (June 20, 2018) available at 12 13 14 https://www.ama-assn.org/ama-urges-administration-withdraw-zero-tolerance-policy, attached hereto as Ex. 83. 160. 15 On June 13, 2018, Daniel Cardinal DiNardo of the United States Conference of 16 Catholic Bishops (USCCB) “join[ed] Bishop Joe Vásquez, Chairman of USCCB’s Committee 17 on Migration, in condemning the continued use of family separation at the U.S./Mexico border: 18 “Families are the foundational element of our society” and separating parent from child “is not 19 the answer” to “protecting our borders.” See A Statement from Daniel Cardinal DiNardo, United 20 21 22 23 24 25 States Conference of Catholic Bishops, (June 13, 2018) available at http://www.usccb.org/news/2018/18-098.cfm, attached hereto as Ex. 84. 161. Likewise, the Southern Baptist Convention recently passed a resolution affirming that immigrants be treated “with the same respect and dignity as those native born,” and emphasizing “maintaining the priority of family unity.” See Sasha Ingber, Faith Leaders Oppose 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 50 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 Trump’s Immigration Policy of Separating Children From Parents, available at https://www.npr.org/2018/06/16/620651574/faith-leaders-oppose-trumps-immigration-policyof-separating-children-from-paren, attached hereto as Ex. 85. 4 162. 5 6 Prominent figures from both political parties have denounced the Policy. For example, on June 17, 2018, former First Lady Laura Bush wrote: “Our government should not 7 be in the business of warehousing children in converted box stores or making plans to place them 8 in tent cities in the desert outside of El Paso. These images are eerily reminiscent of the Japanese 9 American internment camps of World War II, now considered to have been one of the most 10 shameful episodes in U.S. history.” See Laura Bush: Separating Children from Their Parents at 11 the Border Breaks my Heart, The Washington Post, available at 12 13 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/laura-bush-separating-children-from-their-parents- 14 at-the-border-breaks-my-heart/2018/06/17/f2df517a-7287-11e8-9780- 15 b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.84b533c697a8, attached hereto as Ex. 86. Likewise, Jeb 16 Bush, former Florida Governor, recently stated: “Children shouldn’t be used as a negotiating 17 tool.” The June 18, 2018 tweet is attached hereto as Ex. 87. 18 163. At least one federal court has found that Defendants’ practice of separating 19 immigrant families “arbitrarily tears at the sacred bond between parent and child” and “is brutal, 20 21 offensive, and fails to comport with traditional notions of fair play and decency.” Ms. L. v. U.S 22 Immigration & Customs Enf’t, No. 18-cv-0428 DMS, 2018 WL 2725736, at *12 (S.D. Cal. 23 June 6, 2018). 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 51 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 J. Defendants’ Policy Harms the States’ Sovereign Interests 164. Defendants’ Policy and subsequent actions harm the States’ sovereign interests by interfering with their licensing authority and rendering the States unable to honor their own 4 5 6 policies favoring family unity. 165. Even for residential facilities that are federally funded, States have sovereign 7 responsibility for the licensing, inspection, and monitoring of out-of-home care providers (i.e., 8 providers who care for children away from their parents). The States conduct periodic licensing 9 monitoring visits to these facilities, meeting with the staff and children in their care, to ensure 10 that these facilities meet minimum safety standards, including background check approvals, 11 facility safety standards, and ensuring the facilities provide necessary and appropriate care to the 12 13 14 children. 166. For example, in Washington State, any agency that cares for children on a 24-hour 15 basis away from their parents must be licensed. See, e.g. RCW 74.15.020, 74.15.090. Under 16 RCW 74.15.030(7) and .080, the state’s department of social and health services has the 17 authority and duty to access and inspect the facility’s records for the purpose of determining 18 whether or not there is compliance with state licensing requirements. See also ch. 388-145 WAC 19 (the licensing requirements for group homes and youth shelters). These licensing requirements 20 21 apply to all private facilities, even those operated by a private agency contracting with the federal 22 government. 23 167. 24 25 In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, no “agency or institution of the federal government” may operate a “[foster care] placement agency, group care facility, or temporary shelter facility” for children unless licensed by the Department of Early Education and Care 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 52 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 (EEC). Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 15D, § 1A, 6. EEC “may, at any reasonable time, visit and inspect any facility” subject to such licensure. Id, § 9. 168. Likewise, New York State has licensing and oversight responsibilities over the 4 5 6 facilities where immigrant children who are separated from their parents are placed. Specifically, the Bureau of Child Welfare and Community Services (“CWCS”) of the New York State Office 7 of Children and Family Services (“OCFS”) has regulatory, licensing, inspection and supervisory 8 authority over residential programs that care for foster children. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 460-b, 9 460-c, 462-a. OCFS issues operating certificates to non-profit agencies in New York State that 10 provide residential care in a congregate setting to UACs, including the children who have been 11 separated from their parents at the border. OCFS, as the licensing state agency of child residential 12 13 programs in New York, retains the authority to conduct building, equipment, fire and safety 14 inspections of these facilities. Also, OCFS has the statutory authority to establish regulatory 15 standards for the certification or approval of foster homes, and the authority of an agency to 16 certify or approve foster homes. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 378, 460-a, N.Y. Not-for-Profit Corp. 17 Law § 404(b). Provider agencies in New York that contract with ORR place UACs in foster 18 homes that the agency has approved or certified pursuant to this authority from the state. 19 169. In the State of North Carolina, “[n]oTo s person shall operate, establish or provide 20 21 foster care for children or receive and place children in residential care facilities, family foster 22 homes, or adoptive homes without first applying for a licensure to the Department” of Health 23 and Human Services]. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 131D-10.3. In addition to other powers and duties, the 24 North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services also has the authority to “[i]nspect 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 53 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 facilities and obtain records, documents, and other information necessary to determine compliance with” North Carolina law and regulations. Id. § 131D-10.6(6). 170. Likewise, Delaware licenses, registers, and monitors all residential and 4 5 6 nonresidential childcare facilities including . . . child placement and adoption agencies . . .” 29 Del. C. § 9003 (7). Delaware’s monitoring scheme includes the right of entrance, inspection, 7 and access to the papers of childcare facilities operating within Delaware and entities that operate 8 within Delaware and place children in other states. 31 Del. C. §§ 343, 344. 9 circumstances, a violation of Delaware’s childcare licensing requirements may constitute a 10 In certain criminal act. 31 Del. C. § 345. 11 171. Other States have similar licensing authority and statutory regimes. These 12 13 14 15 provisions are intended to protect children from substandard housing and care, and are essential to the wellbeing of minors placed in facilities located in the States. 172. The United States’ Ex Parte Application for relief from the Flores Settlement is 16 a frontal attack on that sovereign interest. That request seeks rescission of Flores’s protections 17 and a “determin[ation] that the Agreement’s state licensure requirement does not apply to ICE 18 family residential facilities.” The United States has thus sought to extinguish state licensing 19 powers over federally contracted out-of-home care providers, leaving those facilities wholly 20 21 unregulated at the local level. The government’s attempt to modify the Flores settlement terms 22 by removing States’ licensing authority and jurisdiction interferes with the States’ sovereign 23 powers. 24 25 173. Moreover, each of the States is required to respect family integrity absent a finding that a parent is unfit or unavailable to care for a child. Here, the federal government has 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 54 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 intentionally separated parents from children and is leaving it to the States’ court systems to establish alternative guardianships for them, or relying on state-licensed foster care facilities to care for the children, rendering the States unable to enforce the legal mandates and public 4 5 6 7 policies that require keeping families together unless the best interests of the child dictate otherwise. 174. For example, the State of Washington has a longstanding public policy affirming 8 the importance of family integrity and the primacy of the parent-child relationship. Wash. Rev. 9 Code § 13.34.020 “declares that the family unit is a fundamental resource of American life which 10 should be nurtured” and mandates “that the family unit should remain intact unless a child’s right 11 to conditions of basic nurture, health, or safety is jeopardized.” Wash. Rev. Code § 26.09.002 12 13 likewise “recognizes the fundamental importance of the parent-child relationship to the welfare 14 of the child” and requires “that the relationship between the child and each parent [] be fostered 15 unless inconsistent with the child’s best interests.” Similarly, Washington’s child abuse and 16 neglect law, contained in chapter 26.44 RCW, enshrines the state’s policy that “[t]he bond 17 between a child and his or her parent . . . is of paramount importance[.]” RCW 26.44.010. Under 18 Washington law, the state is justified to intervene in that relationship only when a child is 19 deprived of the right to conditions of minimal nurture, health, and safety. 20 21 175. Washington also has recognized that children in government custody have 22 substantive due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. See Braam v State of Washington, 23 150 Wn.2d 689, 81 P.3d 851 (2003) (foster children possess substantive due process rights). 24 While these rights are not coextensive with parental rights in every context, Washington 25 recognizes a child’s constitutional rights “to be free from unreasonable risk of harm, including a 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 55 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 risk flowing from the lack of basic services, and a right to reasonable safety.” Id. The intentional exposure of a child to an unreasonable risk of harm, including physical or mental injury, violates these rights. 4 5 6 176. Washington has also declared that practices that discriminate against any of its inhabitants because of race, creed, color, or national origin are matters of public concern that 7 threaten the rights and proper privileges of the State and harm the public welfare, health, and 8 peace of the people. See Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.010. 9 10 177. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has long committed itself to the promotion and safeguarding of the family unit. Massachusetts law, for example, notes that “the 11 family is the best source of child rearing,” 110 C.M.R. 1.02, and holds that “the policy of this 12 13 commonwealth [is] to direct its efforts, first, to the strengthening and encouragement of family 14 life for the care and protection of children.” Mass. Gen. Laws c. 119, § 1. Normally, therefore, 15 “the interest of the child is best served by a stable, continuous environment with his or her own 16 family.” Adoption of Frederick, 405 Mass. 1, 4 (1989). As a result, the Commonwealth allows 17 “state intervention into a family unit [to] be used only when it is clearly needed to protect a 18 child.” 110 C.M.R. 1.02. 19 178. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has also long protected the civil rights and 20 21 liberties of its residents, outlawing practices that harm or discriminate individuals based on race, 22 color, religious creed, or national origin. See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws c. 151B, § 4; c. 151C, § 2; 23 c. 76, § 5; and c. 272, § 98. 24 25 179. The State of Oregon has statutorily codified a number of deeply-rooted public concerns that are grossly undermined by defendants’ unlawful actions, thus harming Oregon’s 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 56 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 sovereign interests. Oregon recognizes the intrinsic value of family relationships and prioritizes protecting them. For example, Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.007 states the policy of Oregon is to “preserve family life” by “stabilizing the family.” In addition, Oregon has declared there is a 4 5 6 “strong preference” that children live “with their own families.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(5). Similarly, custody determinations are based on the best interest of the child, including “[t]he 7 emotional ties between the child and other family members” as well as “[t]he desirability of 8 continuing an existing relationship.” Id. Oregon thus places great value on the parent-child 9 relationship, on “interaction, companionship, interplay and mutuality, that fulfilled the child’s 10 psychological needs for a parent” in addition to a child’s physical needs. Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.119 11 (10)(a). 12 13 180. Oregon further recognizes that children are individuals who have legal rights. 14 Among those rights are “freedom from…emotional abuse or exploitation.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 15 419B.090(1). To that end, Oregon has enacted laws and policies to protect children’s rights. For 16 example, “[i]t is the policy of the State of Oregon to safeguard and promote each child’s right to 17 safety, stability and well-being and to safeguard and promote each child’s relationships with 18 parents, siblings, grandparents, other relatives and adults with whom a child develops healthy 19 emotional attachments.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(3). 20 21 181. Moreover, Oregon acknowledges the importance of due process rights afforded 22 to parents facing “interference” with their right to “direct the upbringing of their children” 23 because the policy of Oregon is to “guard the liberty interest of parents protected by the 24 Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and to protect the rights and interests 25 of children.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.090(4). Oregon requires appointment of legal counsel for 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 57 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 parents whenever due process so requires, and courts must consider “[t]he duration of and degree of invasiveness of the interference with the parent-child relationship” that could result from legal proceedings as well as the “effects” the proceedings may have on later proceedings or events 4 5 6 that may interfere with the parent-child relationship. Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.205(1). Pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.165, a child taken into custody must be released to a parent unless a court 7 order prevents it or there is probable cause to believe the child may be endangered by immediate 8 release. 9 10 182. When parents and children are separated, Oregon prioritizes a child’s existing relationships in considering placement alternatives. For example, “there shall be a preference 11 given to placement of the child or ward with relatives and persons who have a caregiver 12 13 relationship with the child.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.192(1). Oregon law also recognizes the value 14 of sibling relationships and requires state social agencies to make “diligent efforts” to keep 15 siblings together when they have been separated from their parents. 16 419B.192(2). 17 18 183. Or. Rev. Stat. § Children separated from families in Oregon are entitled to participate in age and developmentally appropriate activities. Specifically, this includes activities that are reflective 19 of and promote “development of cognitive, emotional, physical and behavioral capacities that 20 21 are typical for an age or age group.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.194(a)(A). Moreover, Oregon 22 requires appropriate activities for a specific child separated from family “based on the 23 developmental stages attained by the child.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.194(a)(B). In making these 24 determinations, the “reasonable and prudent parent standard” applies. 25 Or. Rev. Stat. § 419B.194(b). The standard is characterized by “careful and sensible parental decisions that 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 58 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 maintain the health, safety and best interests of a child or ward while encouraging the emotional and developmental growth of the child or ward…” Id. 184. Oregon has also codified anti-discrimination policies that protect all Oregon 4 5 6 residents from disparate treatment based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age. Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403(1). Further, it is unlawful for any person 7 to deny another full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of any 8 place of public accommodation. Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.403(3). 9 10 185. The State of California similarly has a long history of preserving the integrity of the family unit and the parent-child relationship. For example, California Welfare and 11 Institutions Code section 11205 declares “the family unit is of fundamental importance to society 12 13 in nurturing its members,” and states “[e]ach family has the right and responsibility to provide 14 sufficient support and protection of its children.” California’s policy to “preserve and strengthen 15 a child’s family ties whenever possible” and to remove a child from the custody of his or her 16 parents “only when necessary for his or her welfare or for the safety and protection of the public” 17 is delineated in California Welfare and Institution Code section 201, subdivision (a), and section 18 16000, subdivision (a). 19 186. California’s interests in protecting the physical, emotional and psychological 20 21 health of minors and in preserving and fostering the parent-child relationship “are extremely 22 important interests that rise to the level of ‘compelling interests’ for purposes of constitutional 23 analysis.” American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 16 Cal. 4th 307, 348 (1997). 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 59 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 187. It is California policy that social services programs must prevent or reduce inappropriate institutional care by providing community-based care, home-based care, or other forms of less intensive care. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 13003(4). 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 188. In California, per statute, any out-of-home placement of children must be in the “least restrictive family setting,” and should promote “normal childhood experiences that [are] suited to meet the child's or youth's individual needs.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 16000(a). 189. California also has robust constitutional and statutory protections against discrimination. For example, the California Constitution protects against discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color or national or ethnic origin. Cal. Const. art. I, § 8. California law also 11 protects against discrimination on the basis of ancestry, citizenship, primary language, and 12 13 immigration status. Cal. Civ. Code § 51. California is also committed to developing strategic 14 polices and plans regarding health issues affecting immigrants and refugees. Cal. Health & Saf. 15 Code § 131019.5. 16 17 18 190. The State of New Mexico’s laws embody a public policy dedicated to the preservation of the family unit. NMSA 1978, Sec. 32A-1-3 (2009). To “the maximum extent possible, children in New Mexico shall be reared as members of a family unit.” Id. See also 19 NMSA 1978, Section 40-15-3 (2005) (“It is the policy of the state that its laws and programs 20 21 shall: support intact, functional families and promote each family's ability and responsibility to 22 raise its children; strengthen families in crisis and at risk of losing their children, so that children 23 can remain safely in their own homes when their homes are safe environments and in their 24 communities…help halt the breakup of the nuclear family[.]”). Further, New Mexico’s Family 25 Preservation Act clearly indicates the purpose of the Act is to “confirm the state’s policy of 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 60 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 support for the family” as a “institution” and that the Act is “intended to serve as a benchmark against which other legislation may be measured to assess whether it furthers the goals of preserving and enhancing families in New Mexico.” NMSA 1978, Section 40-15-2 (2005). New 4 5 6 7 Mexico case law affirms there is a clearly established right to familial integrity embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment. Oldfield v. Benavidez, 1994-NMSC-006, ¶ 14, 116 N.M. 785. 191. The New Mexico Children’s Code also ensures that New Mexican parents have 8 substantial due process protections prior to losing the right to care of and custody of their own 9 children. See NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-28. The sole fact that a parent is incarcerated is not 10 a basis for terminating parental rights. Id. A parent's fundamental liberty interest in the care, 11 custody, and management of their children is well established. See State ex rel. Children, Youth 12 13 & Families Dep't v. Mafin M., 2003–NMSC–015, ¶ 18, 133 N.M. 827, 70 P.3d 1266; State ex 14 rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Joe R., 1997–NMSC–038, ¶ 29, 123 N.M. 711, 945 15 P.2d 76. “[T]he parent-child relationship is one of basic importance in our society ... sheltered 16 by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or 17 disrespect.” State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Anne McD., 2000–NMCA–020, ¶ 18 22, 128 N.M. 618, 995 P.2d 1060 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation 19 omitted). Thus, we have recognized that process is due when a proceeding affects or interferes 20 21 with the parent-child relationship. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Stella P., 22 1999–NMCA–100, ¶ 14, 127 N.M. 699, 986 P.2d 495; State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families 23 Dep't v. Rosa R., 1999–NMCA–141, ¶ 13, 128 N.M. 304, 992 P.2d 317 (recognizing that 24 constitutionally adequate procedures must be in place before the State can investigate or 25 terminate the parent-child relationship). 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 61 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 192. New Mexico custody determinations are also driven by the best interests of the child. See Schuermann v. Schuermann, 1980-NMSC-027, ¶ 6, 94 N.M. 81 (“In any proceeding involving custody, the courts' primary concern and consideration must be for the child's best 4 5 6 interests.”) (citing NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-9(A) (1977)). “In any case in which a judgment or decree will be entered awarding the custody of a minor, the district court shall, if the minor is 7 under the age of fourteen, determine custody in accordance with the best interests of the child.” 8 Id. 9 10 193. The laws of the State of New Mexico dictate that the best interests of a child, if not properly within the custody of their parents, then lies in the custody of other family members. 11 This policy is not only rooted in the best interests of children generally, but is designed to protect 12 13 both family unity as well as unique cultural heritage. Under the State’s Kinship Guardianship 14 Act, family members have a protected interest in raising a child when neither parent is available. 15 NMSA 1978, Section 40-10B-2 (2001). Where the United States’ policy of family separation 16 does not provide a meaningful opportunity for children who are separated from their parents to 17 unite with other members of their family, it is direct contravention of the laws of this state and 18 the policy principles that underlying those laws. Further, because “a kinship guardian possesses 19 the same legal rights and responsibilities of a biological parent,” members of separated children’s 20 21 families should be afforded the opportunity to seek custody of their relatives. State ex rel. 22 Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Djamila B., 2015-NMSC-003. To reiterate, any policy or 23 practice of the federal government that would serve to deny or otherwise disrupt any family 24 member’s ability to take custody of their child relative is an affront to the laws of a sovereign 25 state and the views of the people therein. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 62 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 194. New Mexico’s Children’s Code is structured to promote child safety, recognize cultural diversity, and to ensure that civil and criminal justice systems are coordinated. NMSA 1978, Section 32A-1-3 (2009). All children are to be provided services sensitive to their cultural 4 5 6 needs. Id.; see also NMSA 1978, Section 32A-18-1 (2009) (requiring cross-cultural training for all caregivers and service-providers under the children’s code). Families seeking asylum do 7 not face allegations of abuse, neglect, or a crime that allows children to be removed from the 8 custody of their parents under New Mexico law. In New Mexico, the mental and physical 9 wellbeing of children is paramount. NMSA 1978, Section 32A-1-3(A)(2009). Children removed 10 from the home in New Mexico because of a parent’s criminal behavior are afforded due process 11 and representation of counsel in every proceeding other than probation. State v. Doe, 197712 13 NMCA-234, 91 N.M. 232, 572 P.2d 960,cert. denied 91 N.M. 249, 572 P.2d 1257 (1978). See 14 also NMSA 1978, § 32A–1–7. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dept. v. Lilli L., 1996- 15 NMCA-014, ¶ 14, 121 N.M. 376.“[F]ailure to appoint either counsel or a guardian ad litem to 16 protect the interests of a minor may constitute a denial of due process, thereby invalidating such 17 proceedings.” 18 195. The State of New Jersey has a longstanding public policy confirming the 19 importance of family integrity and the primacy of the parent-child relationship. New Jersey law 20 21 declares that “the preservation and strengthening of family life is a matter of public concern as 22 being in the interest of the general welfare.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-1(a). It also includes a 23 mandate “to make reasonable efforts … to preserve the family in order to prevent the need for 24 removing the child” from his or her parents, and to return the child safely to his or her parents if 25 possible. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-11.1. In determining whether removal of a child is required, 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 63 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 “the health and safety of the child shall be of paramount concern to the court.” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-11.2. Moreover, any proceeding which may result in even a temporary loss of custody of a child implicates a parent’s state constitutional right to appointed counsel. In re 4 5 6 Guardianship of Dotson, 72 N.J. 112, 123 (1976). 196. New Jersey has also long protected the civil rights and civil liberties of its 7 residents, including by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, or national 8 origin. See, e.g., N.J. Stat. Ann. § 10:5-12. 9 10 197. The State of Rhode Island has a longstanding public policy affirming the importance of family integrity and the primacy of the parent-child relationship. For example, 11 R.I. Gen. Law § 42-72-2 (1979) declares that “the state has a basic obligation to promote, 12 13 safeguard and protect the social well-being and development of the children of the state through 14 a comprehensive program providing for” such items as “the strengthening of the family unit” 15 and “making the home safe for children by enhancing the parental capacity for good child care 16 and services to children and their families to prevent the unnecessary removal of children from 17 their homes”. See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-72-2 (1979). 18 198. Rhode Island has declared that practices that discriminate against any of its 19 persons within the state on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, age, or country of 20 21 ancestral origin are matters of public concern that threaten the rights and proper privileges of the 22 State and harm the public welfare, health, and peace of the people. See. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42- 23 112-1 (1990). 24 25 199. The State of Vermont has a fundamental, sovereign interest in the welfare of children and families. Vermont has the authority and obligation to intervene where children are 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 64 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 “without proper parental care or subsistence, education, medical, or other care necessary for [their] well-being.” 33 V.S.A. § 5102(3)(B). That duty includes bearing “such expenses for the proper care, maintenance, and education of a child, including the expenses of medical, surgical, 4 5 6 or psychiatric examination or treatment” as deemed necessary in connection with juvenile care proceedings. 33 V.S.A. § 5116(a). Vermont authorities owe a corollary duty “to preserve the 7 family and to separate a child from his or her parents only when necessary to protect the child 8 from serious harm or in the interests of public safety.” 33 V.S.A. § 5101(a)(3). 9 10 200. Where children require foster care, Vermont strives to ensure their placement in a healthy, loving environment through strict licensing requirements. See 33 V.S.A. § 4905; Vt. 11 Admin. Code § 12-3-501. The Vermont Department of Children and Families closely regulates 12 13 14 15 not only the child’s physical environment but also the individuals who may be entrusted to care for the child. See Vt. Admin. Code §§ 12-3-501:20; 12-3-501:40. 201. Vermont has long protected its residents from discrimination on the basis of race, 16 color, and national origin — irrespective of their citizenship status. See, e.g., 9 V.S.A. §§ 4502- 17 4503 (public accommodations and housing); 21 V.S.A § 495 (employment); and 13 V.S.A. § 18 1455 (bias-motivated crimes). Vermont continues to reaffirm this commitment through 19 legislation. See, e.g., Vermont Act. 5 (S. 79) (March 28, 2017) (“In Vermont, we celebrate the 20 21 rich cultural heritage and diversity of our residents. . . . All Vermont residents should be free 22 from discrimination on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, 23 race, color, religion, national origin, immigration status, age, or disability.”). 24 25 202. The State of Minnesota’s public policy also affirms the importance of family integrity. For example, Minnesota Statutes section 252.32 declares that it is the State’s policy 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 65 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 “that all children are entitled to live in families that offer safe, nurturing, permanent relationships, and that public services be directed toward preventing the unnecessary separation of children from their families.” Minn. Stat. § 252.32, subd. 1. In addition, Minnesota Statutes section 4 5 6 7 260C.001 recognizes the importance of “preserv[ing] and strengthen[ing] the child’s family ties whenever possible and in the child’s best interests . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 260C.001, subd. 1(b)(3). 203. Minnesota has also declared that the State’s public policy is that persons be free 8 from discrimination in employment, housing and real property, public accommodations, public 9 services, and education on the basis of, among other things, race, color, creed, or national origin. 10 Minn. Stat. § 363A.02, subd. 1(a). “Such discrimination threatens the rights and privileges of 11 the inhabitants of this state and menaces the institutions and foundations of democracy.” Id. 12 13 14 subd. 1(b). 204. The State of Iowa has a longstanding policy that favors the protection of the 15 family unit. The State of Iowa only separates parents and children in the most exceptional of 16 circumstances because when we do so we “inflict[] a unique deprivation of a constitutionally 17 protected liberty interest[.]”In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 677-78 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). “An 18 innocent man can be set free. The landowner can be justly compensated. The childless parent 19 has no recourse.” Id. To that end, Iowa’s child welfare system strives to ensure that every child 20 21 receives the care, guidance, and control she needs in her own home, with her own parents, 22 whenever possible. Iowa Code § 232.1. “[T]he custody, care, and nurture of the child reside 23 first in the parents” and it is presumed to be in a child’s best interest to remain in parental custody. 24 In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 677-78 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016); In re N.M., 528 N.W.2d 94, 96 (Iowa 25 1995). Under Iowa law, a family cannot be broken up simply upon proof that a parent has 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 66 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 “engaged in immoral or illegal conduct[.]” In re M.S., 889 N.W.2d 675, 677-78 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). “Indeed, due process would be violated if the State ‘attempt[ed] to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 unfitness’” as a parent. Id. 205. The State of Iowa prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or religion. See Iowa Code chapter 216. 206. The State of Illinois has a longstanding policy recognizing the importance of maintaining the family relationship. 207. The Illinois Juvenile Court Act of 1987, for example, declares that the State 11 should “secure for each minor subject hereto such care and guidance, preferably in his or her 12 13 own home, as will serve the safety and moral, emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the 14 minor and the best interests of the community; [and] preserve and strengthen the minor’s family 15 ties whenever possible, removing him or her from the custody of his or her parents only when 16 his or her safety or welfare or the protection of the public cannot be adequately safeguarded 17 without removal.” 705 ILCS 405/1-2. 18 208. The Illinois Abused and Neglected Child Reporting Act likewise instructs the 19 Department of Children and Family Services to “protect the health, safety, and best interests of 20 21 the child in all situations in which the child is vulnerable to child abuse or neglect, offer 22 protective services in order to prevent any further harm to the child and to other children in the 23 same environment or family, stabilize the home environment, and preserve family life whenever 24 possible.” 325 ILCS 5/2(a). 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 67 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 209. In addition, the State of Illinois has a longstanding policy affirming the importance of assisting the state’s immigrant population. 210. The Illinois Attorney General Act declares that “[i]t is imperative that State 4 5 6 government is aware of the needs of the State’s immigrant community and sensitive to the barriers that may prevent them from seeking and obtaining services.” 15 ILCS 205/6.6(a). The 7 Act further directs the Office of the Illinois Attorney General to “assist immigrants by increasing 8 accessibility to the Office and providing outreach services to the community, which will serve 9 to educate immigrants as to their rights and responsibilities as residents of the State.” Id. 10 211. New York State has a strong interest in family unity. It is the long-established 11 policy and practice of the State to prioritize keeping a child with his or her parent or parents. 12 13 OCFS operates under the principal that families staying together is the most desired outcome for 14 children. Children are some of the most vulnerable residents in New York State and they best 15 develop their unique potential in a caring and healthy family environment with their birth parents 16 or other relatives. The State’s first obligation is to help the family with services to prevent its 17 break-up, or to quickly reunite the family if the child has already been separated from his parents. 18 That is because the child’s need for a normal family life will usually best be met with his or her 19 birth parent, and parents are entitled to bring up their own children unless the best interests of 20 21 22 the child would thereby be endangered. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 384-b(1); N.Y. Exec. Law § 990. 212. New York State has a strong interest in promulgating and operating under non- 23 discriminatory policies. In fact, the legislature has declared that non-discrimination is a guiding 24 principal of policy in New York State. New York’s legislature has found that “the state has the 25 responsibility to act to assure that every individual within this state is afforded an equal 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 68 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life and that the failure to provide such equal opportunity, whether because of discrimination, prejudice, intolerance or inadequate education, training, housing or health care not only threatens the rights and proper privileges of its 4 5 6 inhabitants but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state and threatens the peace, order, health, safety and general welfare of the state and its inhabitants.” N.Y. Exec. 7 Law § 290. Thus, it is unlawful to discriminate against any person in New York State on the 8 basis of age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, disability, 9 predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, marital status, domestic violence victim 10 status, gender identity, transgender status, and gender dysphoria. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296; 9 N.Y. 11 Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 9 § 466.13(c)(2)-(3). 12 13 213. This principal of non-discrimination is also applied at the agency level. For 14 example, OCFS promulgates regulatory standards that expressly prohibit discrimination or 15 harassment of adults or children involved in child welfare programs and services based on race, 16 creed, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, 17 marital status or disability. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 10 §§ 421.6, 423.4, 441.24 18 214. The State of Maryland has longstanding policies affirming the importance of 19 family integrity and of protecting the wellbeing of children to the greatest extent 20 21 possible. Maryland’s Legislature has declared that “it is the policy of this State to promote 22 family stability, [and] to preserve family unity[.]” Md. Code Ann., Fam. Law § 4- 23 401(1). Maryland’s statute governing custody proceedings for children in need of assistance is 24 intended to “conserve and strengthen the child’s family ties and to separate a child from the 25 child’s parents only when necessary for the child’s welfare,” and to “provide for the care, 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 69 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 protection, safety, and mental and physical development of” children. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-802(a)(3), (1). And under state law, various social programs must be administered to “preserve family unity” or “preserv[e] family integrity.” Md. Code Ann., Health-Gen. § 7- 4 5 6 702(b); Code of Md. Regs. 07.02.01.01; Code of Md. Regs. 11.02.13.01. 215. Maryland also has a public policy prohibiting discrimination against any of its 7 inhabitants because of their race, age, color, creed, or national origin, and has enacted anti- 8 discrimination laws in a wide array of contexts, ranging from public accommodations, see Md. 9 Code Ann., State Gov’t §§ 20-304, to employment, id. § 20-602, to residential housing, id. § 20- 10 702. Maryland law also prohibits any person from retaliating against any person because he or 11 she has exercised or enjoyed the rights granted or protected by Maryland’s anti-discrimination 12 13 14 laws, id. § 20-708(2). 216. It is the policy of the State of Maryland, “in the exercise of its police power for 15 the protection of the public safety, public health, and general welfare, for the maintenance of 16 business and good government, and for the promotion of the State’s trade, commerce, and 17 manufacturers,” to “assure all people equal opportunity in receiving employment” regardless of 18 race, color, religion, age, ancestry, or national origin. Md. Code Ann., State Gov’t § 20-602. 19 217. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a longstanding public policy 20 21 recognizing the significance of family integrity and the parent-child relationship. For example, 22 Pennsylvania law declares that “[t]he family is the basic institution in society in which our 23 children’s sense of self-esteem and positive self-image are developed and nurtured” and that 24 “[t]hese feelings and values are essential to a healthy, productive and independent life during 25 adulthood.” 62 P.S. § 2172(a)(1). Similarly, Pennsylvania’s Domestic Relations Act states that 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 70 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 “[t]he family is the basic unit in society and the protection and preservation of the family is of paramount public concern.” 23 Pa.C.S. § 3102(a). 218. Pennsylvania law further recognizes that children who are separated from their 4 5 6 parents are deprived “of the unique bond which exists in the parent-child relationship, leaving emotional scars on such children which may never fully heal” because “children are better off 7 emotionally when their needs can be met by their biological parents.” 62 P.S. § 2172(a). This 8 reality is recognized throughout Pennsylvania law. For instance, the Commonwealth’s Juvenile 9 Act seeks to “preserve the unity of the family whenever possible” and to separate “the child 10 from parents only when necessary for his welfare, safety or health or in the interests of public 11 safety.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 6301(b). 12 13 219. To separate a child from her family is among the most intrusive acts that the 14 government can initiate. North Carolina has long committed itself to separating families only as 15 a last resort, and only after exhausting other options, and taking all appropriate measures to 16 ensure the safety of children. In North Carolina, protection of the family unit is guaranteed not 17 only by the U.S. Constitution but also by North Carolina law. Adams v. Tessner, 354 N.C. 57, 18 60 (N.C. 2001). As a result, taking a child away from its parent requires “a showing that the 19 parent is unfit to have custody.” Id. at 62. 20 21 220. Parents of children in North Carolina have due process rights that require 22 “reasonable efforts [to be] made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child” from 23 her parents, but only to allow removal when “necessary to protect the safety and health of the 24 child.” In re Dula, 143 N.C. App. 16, 17 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001). A parent’s “right to retain 25 custody of their child and to determine the care and supervision suitable for their child is a 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 71 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 fundamental liberty interest which warrants due process protection.” In re Montgomery, 311 N.C. 101, 106 (N.C. 1984). 221. The people of North Carolina, in their Declaration of Rights, have stated that 4 5 6 “[n]o person . . . shall be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin.” N.C. Const. Art. I, § 19. The State of North Carolina reiterates this 7 commitment in numerous statutes that make it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of, inter 8 alia, race, color, religion, or national origin. See, e.g., N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75B-2, 41A-4, 95-151, 9 126-16, 143-422.2. 10 222. In the State of Delaware, “parents have the primary responsibility for meeting 11 the needs of their children and the State has an obligation to help them discharge this 12 13 responsibility . . .” 29 Del. C. § 9001. Delaware law explicitly declares that “the State has a 14 basic obligation to promote family stability and preserve the family as a unit….” Id. Delaware 15 law also recognizes that preservation of the family as a unit is “fundamental to the maintenance 16 of a stable, democratic society.” 10 Del. C. § 902(a). To that end, the state has directed its 17 courts, when possible consistent with the safety of family members, to ensure that homes 18 “remain unbroken.” Id. The express statutory child welfare policy of the State is to “serve to 19 advance the interests and secure the safety of the child, while preserving the family unit 20 21 22 whenever the safety of the child is not jeopardized.” 16 Del. C. § 901. 223. The State of Delaware has comprehensively prohibited discrimination based on 23 race and national origin in its laws, including the areas of public accommodations (6 Del. C. § 24 4501, housing (6 Del. C. § 4601), and employment (19 Del. C. § 711). While children forcibly 25 separated from their parents pursuant to the Trump Administration’s policy are not presently 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 72 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 located within any facility within the State of Delaware, a business entity that has facilitated such placements has a business location within the State of Delaware. Upon information and belief, this entity has assisted in placing children forcibly separated from their parents in other co- 4 5 6 plaintiff States. Should separated children ultimately be placed within Delaware, its education and child welfare systems may be saddled with unanticipated fiscal and operational burdens due 7 to the need to provide care for children who have been psychologically traumatized by 8 involuntary separation from their parents. In order to ensure a complete injunction, to eliminate 9 the chilling effect on the exercise of the fundamental rights of documented and undocumented 10 immigrants presently residing in the State of Delaware, to protect the sovereignty of the State of 11 Delaware by protecting its obligation to assist parents in meeting the needs of children, and to 12 13 14 15 maintain the appropriate licensure and supervision of childcare facilities within the State, Delaware joins this action. 224. The District of Columbia is uniquely situated among the Plaintiff States, as it 16 has no sovereign interest to claim as against the Federal Government. See Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17 17; N. Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 76 (1982); District of 18 Columbia ex rel. Am. Combustion, Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 797 F.2d 1041, 1046 (D.C. 19 Cir. 1986) (Congress acts “as sovereign of the District of Columbia”). Rather, the District asserts 20 21 its quasi-sovereign interests and its authority to enforce its laws and uphold the public interest 22 under its Attorney General Act, which was intended to incorporate the common law authority of 23 states’ attorneys general. D.C. Code. § 1-301.81. See also Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto 24 Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 608 n.15 (1982) (recognizing that Puerto Rico “has a claim to 25 represent its quasi-sovereign interests in federal court at least as strong as that of any State”). 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 73 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 K. Defendants’ Policy Harms the States’ Proprietary Interests 225. The Policy also harms the States’ proprietary interests. ORR places thousands of unaccompanied minors with sponsors (adults who can care for the child during the pendency of 4 5 6 immigration proceedings) in the States every year. In FY 2016, ORR placed 52,147 individual children in such placements nationwide. In FY 2017, there were 42,497 placements, and so far 7 there have been almost 20,000 in FY 2018 (October-April). See Unaccompanied Alien Children 8 Released 9 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/unaccompanied-alien-children-released-to-sponsors-by- 10 to Sponsors by State (June 30, 2017) available at state, attached hereto as Ex 88. These ORR data are inclusive of children who were separated 11 as a result of the Policy. 12 13 226. The States are receiving and will continue to receive an increasing number of 14 separated immigrant parents and children if Defendants are allowed to continue implementing 15 their Policy. The federal government’s separation of these families and transfer of separated 16 persons into the States places increased burdens on state resources, particularly because of the 17 acute trauma that children and parents have experienced due to Defendants’ unlawful policy. 18 Children who have been separated from their parents and are awaiting immigration proceedings 19 (for example the adjudication of an asylum application or adjustment of status) are entitled to 20 21 access a variety of state-funded programs. Providing the necessary services to address the legal, 22 educational, physical, and psychological needs of parents and children who have been separated 23 will burden the state systems. The following are non-exclusive examples of state systems that 24 are impacted. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 74 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 227. Courts. Many of the sponsors of these children will need to obtain guardianship through the States’ juvenile and family courts. This is not discretionary: ORR’s agreement with sponsors requires “best efforts” to establish such guardianships, and sponsors in many states 4 5 6 would be unable to access medical and educational records and make important decisions for the children in their care without such court-ordered guardianships. See Sponsor Care Agreement 7 available 8 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/orr/frp_4_sponsor_care_agreement_05_14_18.pdf, 9 and attached hereto as Ex. 89. 10 228. at Children who have been separated from their parents will also access the State 11 courts to obtain orders necessary for their immigration proceedings. For example, some such 12 13 children are eligible for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS), pursuant to federal law. See 14 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) §203(b)(4); INA §101(a)(27)(j); Trafficking Victims 15 Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), P.L. 110-457 §235. In these proceedings, the 16 federal immigration system relies on the expertise of state courts in making determinations 17 regarding a child’s welfare, requiring SIJS-eligible children to seek SIJS predicate findings from 18 a state’s juvenile court. 19 229. Education. Public elementary and secondary schools have a constitutional 20 21 obligation to educate students irrespective of immigration status. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 22 202 (1982), and various statutory obligations to provide particularized services to high needs 23 students, such as through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Children 24 separated from their parents and placed with sponsors will attend the States’ public schools and 25 receive a variety of educational services, including special education, ESL programs, mental 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 75 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 health services, and other programs delivered within the school district. Such programs are funded in large part through local levy funds and state dollars. Indeed, state funding for general education delivered in public schools is calculated in part on a per-student basis. 4 5 6 230. The trauma of forcible separation from a parent renders public schooling more difficult and expensive for the States to provide. Research shows that the experience of trauma 7 may severely undercut a child’s ability to learn and function in the classroom. See Helping 8 Traumatized 9 content/uploads/2013/06/Helping-Traumatized-Children-Learn.pdf, attached hereto as Ex. 90. 10 Children Learn, available at https://traumasensitiveschools.org/wp- Children may require additional mental health services through school guidance counselors and 11 social workers; they may have behavioral problems and trauma-related learning disabilities that 12 13 would need to be addressed; and they lack the critically important educational advocacy and 14 partnership that parents can provide. Students without parents to care for them are also more 15 likely to arrive at school with housing and food insecurity and require additional attention and 16 resources to address hunger, exhaustion, and increased levels of stress and anxiety. 17 18 231. Healthcare. Such children are also often eligible for State-funded healthcare programs, including mental health care treatment. Health care costs will be exacerbated for the 19 states because of the Policy, as children who suffer prolonged and unexpected separation from 20 21 their parents experience particular health effects, including higher levels of anxiety, more 22 susceptibility to physical and emotional illness, and decreased capacity to manage their 23 emotions. These health effects may result in higher levels of care and increase costs to the state. 24 See Burke and Mendoa, At Least 3 tender age shelters set up for child migrants, the AP (June 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 76 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 20, 2018) available at https://apnews.com/dc0c9a5134d14862ba7c7ad9a811160e, attached hereto as Ex. 91. 232. Other programs. Many States also have programs that provide services 4 5 6 7 specifically directed at helping immigrants and refugees, as well as programs designed to address the consequences of trauma. Some have limited available group care facilities that they stand to lose to ORR placements because of the increase in separated families. 8 233. The plaintiff States are already experiencing some of these proprietary harms. 9 234. Washington. For example, ORR places hundreds of unaccompanied minors with 10 sponsors in the state of Washington every year. For FY 2017, the last year for which complete 11 data are available, ORR placed almost 500 children with Washington resident sponsors. As of 12 13 April 30, 2018, ORR’s available data show that Washington has already received 278 14 unaccompanied 15 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/unaccompanied-alien-children-released-to-sponsors-by- 16 state. See Ex. 88. 17 18 235. children during this fiscal year. See Washington has almost 300 public school districts and serves well over a million children. Per pupil expenditures for 2016-17, for example, were more than $11,800 per 19 child. Of this total, slightly more than 90% of school funding came from state and local 20 21 resources. See Statewide Average Financial Tables and Charts available at 22 http://k12.wa.us/safs/PUB/FIN/1617/1617Section1Full.pdf, attached hereto as Ex. 92. For the 23 2017-19 biennium, state spending for basic education will total over $22 billion, with over $16 24 billion allocated to basic general education services. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 77 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 236. Washington State children residing in households with an income less than 312 percent of the federal poverty level are eligible for the Apple Health program, regardless of citizenship and/or documented status. Qualifying children receive access to the full scope of 4 5 6 health care coverage including medical, dental, behavioral health, vison, hearing and pharmaceutical benefits. Of the $7.3 billion that Washington state spent in state fiscal year 2017 7 to support the entire Apple Health program, the cost to cover minor children was $1.6 billion. In 8 state fiscal year 2017, the cost to cover undocumented immigrant children was $31 million. The 9 average cost per undocumented child in state fiscal year 2017 was $1,552 per year. 10 237. Washington’s Office of Refugee and Immigrant Assistance (ORIA) is part of the 11 State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS). ORIA coordinates and 12 13 facilitates the provision of services for people who are refugees and immigrants to enable them to 14 achieve economic stability and integrate into Washington communities. To do this, ORIA braids 15 federal funding from the ORR with other federal and state dollars, for a total annual budget of 16 $27,925,874. This funding provides services to more than 10,000 refugees and immigrants each 17 year through contracts with more than 60 different organizations across the state to offer 11 distinct 18 programs and services. National immigration policies affect the state’s access to federal funding. 19 For example, around August of 2014, the nation experienced an influx of unaccompanied 20 21 immigrant children being apprehended by immigration officials, and ORR reduced 22 Washington’s federal funding to provide refugee social services to cover an increase in costs at 23 the national level. 24 25 238. Massachusetts. Since 2014, ORR has placed 3,803 unaccompanied children with sponsors in Massachusetts. See Ex. 88. These numbers are particularly high in part because 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 78 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 of Massachusetts’ large population of residents from which UACs most often come (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, in particular). See Office of Refugee Resettlement Facts & Data, available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/about/ucs/facts-and-data, attached hereto as Ex. 93. For 4 5 6 example, Massachusetts has the eighth largest Salvadoran population in the country. See Profiles of Boston’s Latinos available at http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/e0019487-138b- 7 4c73-8fe5-fbbd849a7fba, attached hereto as Ex. 94. These residents are more likely than the 8 general population to become sponsors of UACs because sponsors are often family members. 9 10 239. A non-profit foster care agency in Massachusetts, which is licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Early Education and Care, also provides long term foster care 11 services to UACs in Massachusetts foster homes. See Office of Refugee Resettlement Division 12 13 of Children Services Legal Resource Guide – Legal Service Provider List for UAC in ORR Case, 14 available 15 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/orr/legal_service_provider_list_for_uac_in_orr_care 16 _english_092016.pdf, attached hereto as Ex. 95. 17 18 240. at In Massachusetts, all children regardless of immigration status are entitled to a free public education. On average, per pupil expenditures amount to more than $16,000. See 19 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education School Finance Statistical 20 21 Comparisons FY13-FY17 Per Pupil Expenditures All Funds, available at 22 http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/statistics/ppx13-17.html, attached hereto as Ex. 96. Of this 23 total, over 95 percent comes from state and local funding resources, with 39 percent from the 24 state alone. See https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/econ/school-finances/secondary- 25 education-finance.html. In Massachusetts’ Gateway Cities, where a higher population of 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 79 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 immigrants live, state funding amounts to an even higher percent of total per pupil spending. See http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/chapter70/chapter-17.html. For Fiscal Year 2017, state spending on education programs totaled more than $7 billion. See 4 5 6 http://massbudget.org/browser/index.php. 241. All undocumented children in Massachusetts are eligible for state-funded health 7 insurance through the Children’s Medical Security Plan, MassHealth Limited, or the Health 8 Safety Net. Immigrant children with SIJS and other statuses may be eligible for more robust 9 state-funded health insurance. See Understanding the Affordable Care Act: Non-Citizens’ 10 Eligibility for Mass Health & Other Subsidized Health Benefits (March 2018) available at 11 https://www.masslegalservices.org/system/files/library/Understanding%20eligibility%20of%2 12 13 14 0non-citizens_0.pdf, attached hereto as Ex. 97. 242. Children separated from their parents pursuant to the Policy will require 15 determinations from the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court or Juvenile Court for purposes 16 of SIJS, see Recinos v. Escobar, 473 Mass. 734 (2016), and determinations about guardianship 17 in the best interests of children. Mass. Gen. Laws c. 190B, § 5-206. 18 243. Undocumented children and other immigrant children who are not eligible for 19 mental health services through state-funded health insurance programs may qualify for mental 20 21 health services through the state’s Department of Mental Health (“DMH”). Under its statutory 22 mandate, DMH provides or arranges for the provision of services to residents who meet certain 23 clinical criteria. Mass. Gen. Laws c. 19 § 1. For Massachusetts youth to meet DMH’s clinical 24 criteria, they must have a “serious emotional disturbance…that has lasted or is expected to last 25 at least one year [and] has resulted in functional impairment that substantially interferes with or 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 80 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 limits the child's [or] adolescent’s role or functioning in family, school or community activities….”. 104 CMR 20.04(2)(b). Many if not all children separated from their parents under the Policy may suffer from such disturbances. 4 5 6 244. Oregon. Defendants’ Policy also harms Oregon’s proprietary interests, because it forces Oregon to expend resources and incur costs that would otherwise not be required. For 7 example, unaccompanied minors detained in Oregon have often suffered severe trauma in their 8 home countries. Children separated from their parents under this Policy have suffered additional 9 trauma from Defendants’ actions. Counsel for these minors can and do file petitions with the 10 juvenile court departments of the Oregon Circuit Courts on their behalf to obtain Special 11 Immigrant Juvenile status. This allows the court to transfer custody to the Oregon Department 12 13 of Human Services, where they can be placed in foster care and receive other necessary services, 14 such as healthcare, education, and other support. This process employs the financial and other 15 resources of the state of Oregon. 16 17 18 245. Children in Oregon, including those separated from parents, are entitled to a public education. The cost of that education as of 2016-17 was $11,715 per student, with 92% from state and local resources. 19 246. Children in Oregon, including those separated from parents, may be eligible for 20 21 health care funded in part by the state of Oregon. Children separated from parents who may 22 become wards of the state due to forced separation would become eligible for state-funded 23 healthcare at a cost of approximately $664 per-member per-month. Federal reimbursement is 24 not available for healthcare recipients in this population due to their immigration status. Some 25 children may not become wards of the state and would not have access to any state-funded 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 81 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 healthcare. The average cost of hospitalization for a child in Oregon is $9,370. Oregon bears the entire cost of providing healthcare and/or emergency-related care to children separated from their families. 4 5 6 247. California. ORR places more unaccompanied minors with resident sponsors in California than any other State in the country. For FY 2017, ORR placed 6,268 children with 7 California resident sponsors. As of April 30, 2018, California has already received 2,807 8 unaccompanied children during this fiscal year. See Ex. 88. 9 10 248. In California, any child, including children who have been separated from their parents, is entitled to a free public education. Per pupil expenditures in 2017-18 exceeded 11 $14,000 per child from all fund sources. Of this total, over 91% came from state and local 12 13 14 15 resources. California has also dedicated educational funds to meeting the needs of unaccompanied immigrant children. 249. In California, undocumented children receive healthcare coverage paid for 16 entirely by the State. See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 14007.8. These children are also eligible 17 for and benefit from other state funded public health programs. 18 250. Children separated from their parents because of the Policy may require 19 determinations by California courts in order to obtain a guardianship or a predicate order 20 21 22 23 24 25 enabling the child to apply for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. See Cal. Prob. Code § 1514; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 155. 251. The federal government has already placed a number of children separated from their parents pursuant to the Policy at nonprofit facilities in California, including facilities that also serve children in the State child welfare system. In California, both state and county 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 82 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 personnel license and approve homes and facilities for the placement of vulnerable children. Community Care Licensing (CCL) is the division within the California Department of Social Services that has regulatory oversight of the residential facilities for children in California, and 4 5 6 is responsible for the health, safety, and welfare of children in out-of-home care facilities, including those facilities who have contacts with ORR to house unaccompanied immigrant 7 children in California. In its role, CCL has three main functions: prevention, compliance, and 8 enforcement. 9 10 252. California’s Refugee Programs Bureau is part of the Immigration and Refugee Programs Branch of the California Department of Social Services (CDSS). This Bureau 11 provides assistance to newly arrived refugees to support long term social and economic 12 13 integration. In FY 2017, at least 12,058 refugees arrived in the state of California, and received 14 assistance from the State in the form of nutrition aid, cash assistance, employment services, 15 immigration legal services, medical services, and educational support. The Bureau administers 16 the Unaccompanied Refugee Minors (URM) Program, the Refugee School Impact Grant (RSIG), 17 and the California Newcomer Education and Well-Being (CalNEW), three programs exclusively 18 for minors. The URM provides foster care, case management, mental health, and medical 19 services to certain unaccompanied minors. Through RSIG and CalNEW, the RPB funds 20 21 programs in schools to provide supplementary educational and social adjustment support 22 services including academic, English-language acquisition, and mental and well-being supports. 23 The CalNEW is funded exclusively by the State. Combined, these programs help ensure that 24 immigrants coming to California are prepared to be full participants in California society and 25 culture, and that they are able to thrive in their new surroundings. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 83 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 253. California’s Immigration Services Unit is also a part of the Immigration and Refugee Programs Branch of the CDSS. The California Legislature has authorized this program to provide assistance to “persons residing in, or formerly residing in, California," including 4 5 6 “[s]ervices to obtain . . . immigration remedies." Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 13303(b)(1)(B). The program awards funding to California-based legal services organizations to assist in the 7 representation of undocumented immigrants in their immigration proceedings, including 8 targeted funding for unaccompanied undocumented minors present in California after release 9 from the care and custody of ORR pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 13300. The State has 10 invested $12,000,000 in services for unaccompanied minors since State FY 2014-2015. Legal 11 services providers have provided representation to 2,147 minors. 12 13 254. New Jersey. ORR released a total of 2,268 Unaccompanied Children (UAC) to 14 sponsors in New Jersey in FY 2017 (October 2016 – September 2017), and an additional 1,053 15 between 16 https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/unaccompanied-alien-children-released-to-sponsors-by- 17 state. This is more than any other state except Virginia, Texas, New York, Maryland, Florida 18 October 2017 and April 2018. See and California. 19 255. Rhode Island. In Rhode Island, all children regardless of immigration status are 20 21 entitled to free public education. Rhode Island has over 300 public schools that serve over 22 142,000 children. Per-pupil expenditures for 2013-14 were more than $15,000 per child. The 23 majority of these funds come from state and local funding resources. As forcible separation from 24 a parent renders public schooling more difficult and expensive for Rhode Island, Rhode Island 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 84 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 will experience harm. See InfoWorks! Rhode Island Education Data Reporting, Rhode Island Public Schools, available at http://infoworks.ride.ri.gov/state/ri. 3 256. Vermont. In Vermont, all children, regardless of immigration status, are entitled 4 5 6 to a free public education. On average, Vermont spends over $18,000 per pupil each year. See Vermont Agency of Education, Per Pupil Spending: FY 2017 Report (2018), available at 7 http://education.vermont.gov/documents/data-per-pupil-spending-fy2017, attached hereto as 8 Ex. 98. 9 10 257. Many immigrant children are also eligible to receive free or low-cost health care through Vermont’s children’s health insurance program, known as Dr. Dynasaur. See generally 11 Vt. Health Benefits Eligibility and Enrollment Rules §§ 2.03(b), 7.02(b), 7.03(a)(3), 17.02, 12 13 17.03, available at http://humanservices.vermont.gov/on-line-rules/hbee/hbee-all-parts-1-8- 14 adopted-with-toc.pdf. The program includes mental health services, which may face increased 15 demand in cases of family separation. 16 17 18 258. Since 2014, ORR has placed four unaccompanied minors in Vermont. See Ex. 88. However, the Policy has seen increasingly large numbers of children scattered across the nation, often in conditions of secrecy. See Exs. 23 & 25. 19 259. Vermont’s responsibility to protect the welfare of all children living in the State 20 21 includes those children who are separated from their parents and moved to Vermont pursuant to 22 the Policy. That responsibility includes, when appropriate, commencing juvenile judicial 23 proceedings and incurring significant costs to ensure that children are receiving safe and 24 adequate care. See generally 33 V.S.A. §§ 5102, 5103, and 5116. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 85 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 260. The Policy’s negative impact upon immigrants also threatens Vermont’s economic interests. For example, in 2014, immigrant households paid $57.9 million in state and local taxes. Of that amount, undocumented immigrants paid an estimated $2.9 million in state 4 5 6 and local taxes that year. Immigrants also greatly contributed to the economy with over $462.5 million in spending power. See The Contributions of New Americans in Vermont, New 7 American Economy (2016), available at https://research.newamericaneconomy.org/report/the- 8 contributions-of-new-americans-in-vermont/, attached hereto as Ex. 99. 9 Immigrants’ State & Local Tax Contributions, Institute of Tax and Public Policy (2017), 10 Undocumented available at https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-state-local-tax-contributions-2/, attached 11 hereto as Ex. 100. 12 13 261. Minnesota. For FY 2017, the last year for which complete data are available, 14 ORR placed over 300 children with Minnesota resident sponsors. As of April 30, 2018, ORR’s 15 available data show that Minnesota has already received 164 unaccompanied children during 16 this fiscal year. See Ex. 88. 17 18 262. In Minnesota, any child, including children who have been separated from their parents, is eligible to a free public education. On average, per pupil expenditures for the current 19 fiscal year is $12,251 per child. Of this total, approximately 96% comes from state and local 20 21 resources. If, as may be expected, an immigrant child requires services through the English 22 Learners program, the state funds an additional $700 or $950 per child. Children in Minnesota 23 may also require special education, mental health services, and other programs delivered within 24 the school district. Unaccompanied children, including those who are separated from their 25 parents, may also receive child care assistance in certain settings. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 86 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 263. In addition, unaccompanied children residing in Minnesota, including those who are separated from their parents, are also eligible to receive health care through Minnesota’s Emergency Medical Assistance program and support through the Women, Infants, and Children 4 5 6 program. They may also receive services through the state’s child protection system. 264. Unaccompanied children in Minnesota, including those who are separated from 7 their parents, may also be involved in state court proceedings related to the unaccompanied 8 child’s immigration status or the child’s sponsor’s legal authority. 9 10 265. Iowa. Likewise, since 2014, ORR has placed 980 unaccompanied children with sponsors in Iowa. See Ex. 93. 11 266. In Iowa, all children regardless of immigration status are entitled to a free public 12 13 education. On average, per pupil expenditures amounted to nearly $13,000 in federal FY2015. 14 See Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education: School Year 15 2014-15 (Fiscal Year 2015) available at https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018301.pdf, attached 16 hereto as Ex. 101. 17 coming from the state alone. Id. 18 267. Of this total, 93% came from state and local funding sources, with 53% Illinois. Illinois’s commitment to supporting its immigrant communities is also 19 evidenced by certain state expenditures. 20 21 268. In FY 2018, for example, the Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS) was 22 appropriated approximately $13,779,400 for various refugee and immigration services. These 23 funds came from General Revenue Funds and other state funds. See Pub. Act 100-21, at 15, 450 24 (2017), available at http://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/100/PDF/100-0021.pdf, attached 25 hereto as Ex. 102. In FY 2019, DHS, the Illinois Office of the Secretary of State, and the Illinois 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 87 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 Department of Public Health were appropriated approximately $37,477,900 for various refugee and immigration services. See Pub. Act 100-586, at 335, 343–44, 402–03, 433 (2018), available at http://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/100/PDF/100-0586.pdf, attached hereto as Ex. 103. 4 5 6 269. Services provided by DHS through the Bureau of Refugee and Immigrant Services include helping newly arrived refugees achieve self-sufficiency in the United States 7 and providing outreach and interpretation services to low-income and limited English-proficient 8 individuals requiring supportive services.” See Refugee & Immigrant Services, ILL. DEP’T OF 9 HUMAN SERVS., available at http://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=30363 (last visited June 10 22, 2018), and attached hereto as Ex. 104. 11 270. Similarly, within the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services 12 13 (DCFS) exists the Office of the DCFS Guardian. This Guardian serves as the legal parent of 14 every child in the custody of DCFS, “monitor[ing] and mak[ing] critical decisions based on the 15 child’s best interests regarding major medical treatment, … and all other decisions requiring 16 parental consent.” See ILL. DEP’T OF CHILDREN & FAMILY SERVS., BUDGET BRIEFING FY 2019, 17 at 34 (2018), https://www2.illinois.gov/dcfs/aboutus/newsandreports/Documents/FY19_Budget 18 Briefing.pdf, attached hereto as Ex. 105. To that end, the DCFS Guardian, with assistance from 19 the DCFS Special Counsel and the Immigration Services Unit, acquires adjustment of legal 20 21 22 status for foreign-born youth who are under its guardianship. Id. 271. Children reunited with a family member residing in Illinois will likely be entitled 23 to access certain state-funded programs. This is also true for children currently sheltered outside 24 of Illinois who are later reunited with a family member residing in Illinois. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 88 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 272. For example, every child residing in Illinois, including children who have been separated from their parents, is entitled to a free public education. In school year 2015–16, Illinois per-pupil expenditures exceed $12,900 per child. Of this total, over 92% comes from 4 5 6 7 state and local resources. See ILL. STATE BD. OF EDUC., ILLINOIS STATE REPORT CARD 3 (2017), http://webprod.isbe.net/ereportcard/publicsite/getReport.aspx?year=2017&code=2017StateRep ort_E.pdf, attached hereto as Ex. 106. 8 9 10 273. Moreover, separated children enrolled in Illinois schools may receive bilingual support services through Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) Programs and/or Transitional Programs of Instruction (TPI). These programs help English Learners achieve academically, 11 and provide classroom and other forms of support. In FY 2018 and FY 2019, Illinois 12 13 appropriated approximately $65,540,700 and $48,600,000, respectively to support bilingual 14 education programs in Illinois school districts. See Pub. Act 100-21, at 636–37 (Ex. 102); Pub. 15 Act 100-586, at 491 (Ex. 104). Currently, Illinois school districts receive funding on a per-pupil 16 allocation by level of service ranging from $304–758 per pupil. See ILL. STATE BD. OF EDUC., 17 FISCAL 18 YEAR 2018 PROPOSED BUDGET 14, 58 (2017), available at https://www.isbe.net/Documents/fy2018-budget-book.pdf, attached hereto as Ex. 107. Children 19 who are reunited with family members located in Illinois who attend Illinois schools are likely 20 21 22 to receive such services as English Learners. 274. As well, each child who qualifies is entitled to receive free breakfast and lunch 23 pursuant to the Illinois Free Lunch and Breakfast Program, 105 ILCS 125/1. Through this 24 program, the Illinois State Board of Education reimburses all public schools, nonprofit private 25 schools, and residential child care institutions that provided breakfast and lunch to children who 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 89 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 meet the income-level guidelines. In FY 2018 and FY 2019, the Board of Education received $9,000,000 in state funding to provide reimbursements. See Pub. Act 100-21, at 435, 634–35 (Ex. 102); See Pub. Act. 100-587, at 39, 450 (2018), available at 4 5 6 http://ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/100/PDF/100-0587.pdf, attached hereto as Ex. 108. Heartland Alliance is a participant in the Free Lunch and Breakfast Program and receives 7 reimbursement from the State of Illinois for breakfasts and lunches provided to unaccompanied 8 children in Illinois. 9 275. 10 Separated children may also be eligible for healthcare programs that are partially or fully funded by the State of Illinois, including Medicaid. In FY 2014, for example, Illinois 11 spent an average of approximately $2,108 per Medicaid-eligible child. See Medicaid Spending 12 13 Per Enrollee (Full or Partial Benefit), KAISER FAMILY FOUND., 14 https://www.kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/medicaid-spending-per-enrollee/ (last visited June 15 22, 2018). 16 17 18 276. In addition, children who have been separated from their parents may access state courts in Illinois in order to obtain Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). In order to petition the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services for a SIJS, a child must first obtain an order from a 19 state court finding that it is not in the child’s best interests to return to her home country or to 20 21 the country she last lived in, and that the child cannot be reunited with a parent because of abuse, 22 abandonment, or neglect. As additional children are brought to Illinois as a result of Defendants’ 23 child separation policy, Illinois courts will see an increase in the number of orders being sought. 24 25 277. New York. In FY 2017, ORR placed 3,938 children with New York resident sponsors. ORR placed another 1,577 UACs with New York resident sponsors from October 2017 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 90 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 through April 30, 2018. See Unaccompanied Alien Children Released to Sponsors by State, available at Ex. 88. 3 278. Once a UAC is placed with a sponsor who resides in New York State, the child 4 5 6 is entitled to a variety of services funded by the state, including educational services, early intervention services, and access to healthcare, among others. New York State makes these 7 services available to such children in support of the State’s interest in ensuring the health, safety, 8 and well-being of all residents. 9 10 279. New York State will incur expenses to educate UACs placed within the state because under state law, children ages six through sixteen who reside in New York must attend 11 school and are entitled to attend school up until age twenty-one. Moreover, the IDEA requires 12 13 the state to provide special education services to students with learning or emotional disabilities. 14 Under this federal law, children aged three to twenty-one are entitled to special education 15 services when clinically warranted. 20 U.S.C. § 1411. New York State law also entitles 16 qualified students to English Language Learner (ELL) services. N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. 17 Tit. 8, § 154. There are 692 public school districts in New York that serve approximately 2.6 18 million students. While costs will vary depending on the school district’s location and the child’s 19 needs, the statewide average to educate a student in New York is approximately $22,000 per 20 21 22 year. 280. New York State also provides a robust early intervention program which UACs 23 utilize when placed in New York State communities. The Part C Early Intervention Program 24 (EIP) was created by Congress in 1986 as part of the IDEA. The IDEA authorizes the 25 discretionary EIP for infants and toddlers with disabilities and requires states to provide a free 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 91 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 appropriate education for all students with disabilities, ages three to twenty-one. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1411, 1419. Each year, New York’s EIP serves over 60,000 children ages zero to three who have moderate to severe developmental delays. The EIP includes 1,279 providers that contract with 4 5 6 New York State to bill for EI services. Total annual expenditures for New York’s EIP total more than $644 million across all payers—45% is covered by Medicaid, 2% by commercial insurance, 7 26% by state funds, and 27% by county funds. While EIP costs and services vary based on the 8 child’s needs and the intensity of services offered, for the 2017 program year the average cost of 9 services delivered ranged from $5,820 to $22,000 per child. 10 281. New York State also incurs significant medical expenses for each UAC placed in 11 state. UACs who are placed with sponsors in the community are eligible to enroll in the 12 13 Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) operated by New York’s Office of Health 14 Insurance Programs. The yearly cost of CHIP per child is $2,607.36 and is financed exclusively 15 by New York State. 16 282. 17 18 An influx of UACs also carries with it increased costs for the New York State child welfare system. After a UAC is placed with a sponsor in the community, that placement may be disrupted for a number of reasons. If the child becomes at risk of entering foster care— 19 for example, because of allegations of abuse or neglect by the person now legally responsible 20 21 for the child—the child welfare system will provide preventive services to attempt to keep the 22 child safely in the new home; such services are funded, in part, by New York State. If those 23 services are unsuccessful and the child must be removed from the new home, New York State 24 will also partly fund the child’s placement and needed services while in the foster system. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 92 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 283. Maryland. For FY 2017, the last year for which complete data are available, ORR placed almost 3,000 children with Maryland resident sponsors—the fifth most of any state. As of April 30, 2018, ORR’s available data show that Maryland has already received 901 4 5 6 unaccompanied children during this fiscal year. See Ex. 88. Maryland is one of the states that is receiving children separated from their parents under the Trump Administration’s “zero 7 tolerance” policy. See Theresa Vargas, “I will kiss their boo-boos” Foster Families provide 8 small comforts (June 22, 2018), attached hereto as Ex. 109; I really miss my mom: What becomes 9 of a 5-year-old in Maryland and the other separated children now?, The Washington Post (June 10 21, 2018) available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/i-really-miss-my-mom-what- 11 becomes-of-a-5-year-old-in-maryland-and-other-the-separated-children12 13 now/2018/06/21/28afbd54-759d-11e8-9780- 14 b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.383bb9cc8a01, attached hereto as Ex. 110; “Bethany 15 Continues to Work to Reunify Families Separated at the Border,” available at 16 https://www.bethany.org/campaigns/refugee, attached hereto as Ex. 111. 17 18 284. The Office of Licensing and Monitoring within Maryland’s Department of Human Services licenses several organizations that operate shelters at which unaccompanied 19 children—including children separated from their parents under the federal government’s 20 21 policy—are being placed. At least one such organization receiving children in Maryland is under 22 contract with ORR to provide services for unaccompanied immigrant minors, including children 23 separated from their parents under the policy. 24 25 285. As the separated children are placed in foster homes, many will enter the Maryland’s public school system. Maryland’s 24 public school districts served nearly 900,000 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 93 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 students during the 2016-17 school year. Per pupil expenditures for 2016-17 were over $13,000 per child. Of this total, approximately 95% of school funding came from state and local resources. For the 2016-17 school year, state and local spending for basic education totaled over 4 5 6 $12 billion, with nearly $5 billion allocated to general instructional expenditures. See Selected Financial Data Maryland Public Schools 2016-2017 7 at http://marylandpublicschools.org/about/Documents/DBS/SFD/2016- 8 available 2017/SFD20162017Part3.pdf., attached hereto as Ex. 112. 9 10 286. Virginia. More than one hundred traumatized, unaccompanied alien children have been transported and are being housed at federal detention centers in Virginia. More than 11 a dozen of those children were separated from their parents at the southern border. See Nick 12 13 Anderson and Marissa J. Lang, Sen. Tim Kaine tours Virginia shelter housing about 15 separated 14 migrant 15 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/sen-tim-kaine-tours-virginia-shelter- 16 housing-about-15-separated-migrant-children/2018/06/22/7bc1e8f2-763b-11e8-b4b7- 17 308400242c2e_story.html?utm_term=.5be4b43f307c, attached hereto as Ex. 113. 18 children, 287. the Washington Post (June 22, 2018) available at ORR reports that they have placed hundreds of unaccompanied alien children 19 with sponsors in the Commonwealth of Virginia every year. For FY 2017, the last year for which 20 21 complete data are available, ORR placed 2,888 children with Virginia resident sponsors. As of 22 April 30, 2018, ORR’s available data show that Virginia has already received 931 23 unaccompanied alien children during this fiscal year. See Ex. 88. 24 25 288. Under federal law, states and local educational agencies are obligated to provide all children – regardless of immigration status – with equal access to public education at the 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 94 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 elementary and secondary level. This includes unaccompanied alien children who may be involved in immigration proceedings. Once these children are released to a sponsor, they have a right to enroll in Virginia schools regardless of their immigration status. In Virginia, some of 4 5 6 these unaccompanied alien children under 18 will be classified as homeless under applicable state and federal law. See Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-3. Virginia school divisions are required to 7 immediately enroll homeless students. The Virginia Department of Education provides the state 8 share, and the enrolling local school division is responsible for paying the local share of the cost 9 for educating students enrolled in public schools at a total per pupil statewide average 10 expenditure in excess of $10,000. 11 289. Unaccompanied alien children may seek a variety of health services in Virginia. 12 13 For example, they need childhood immunizations and may seek testing and treatment when they 14 present with symptoms of a communicable disease. In Virginia, school divisions are required to 15 help any child classified as homeless obtain necessary physical examinations and 16 immunizations. Va. Code § 22.1-271.2. Moreover, if an unaccompanied alien child needed to be 17 hospitalized for emergency care, including psychiatric care, then Virginia would provide and 18 bear the cost of that care in part by absorption of costs by state-owned hospitals. 19 290. ORR places hundreds of unaccompanied minors with sponsors in the State of 20 21 North Carolina every year. For FY 2017, ORR placed approximately 1,290 children with North 22 Carolina-resident sponsors. As of April 30, 2018, ORR’s available data show that North 23 Carolina has already received 565 unaccompanied children during this fiscal year. See Ex. 88. 24 25 291. North Carolina. The State of North Carolina has 11 State Refugee and Health Coordinators that are coordinated and organized through the State’s Department of Health and 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 95 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 Human Services Refugee Services program. North Carolina’s Refugee Services program integrates federal funding from ORR with other federal and state funding. The program services thousands of refugees across the State of North Carolina. 4 292. 5 6 District of Columbia. ORR places hundreds of unaccompanied minors with sponsors in the District of Columbia every year. For FY 2017, the last year for which complete 7 data are available, ORR placed almost 300 children with District of Columbia resident sponsors. 8 As of April 30, 2018, ORR’s available data show that the District of Columbia has already 9 received more than 80 unaccompanied children during this fiscal year. See Ex. 88. 10 293. In the District of Columbia, any child, including children who have been 11 separated from their parents, is entitled to a free public education. The District spends almost 12 13 $10,000 per child in D.C Public Schools. The overwhelming share of the money spent on public 14 education in the District comes from local taxes, fees, and resources. See, e.g., 15 https://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ocfo/publication/attachments/DCOCFO_FY17_Bu 16 dget_vol_3.pdf. 17 18 294. The District of Columbia offers comprehensive health insurance coverage to eligible children who have been separated from their parents through the Immigrant Children’s 19 Program, which provides coverage equal to that offered by Medicaid, including: doctor visits, 20 21 immunizations, mental health services, dental, vision, and prescription drugs. See Department of 22 Health Care Finance – DHCF Immigrant Children’s Program available 23 at https://dhcf.dc.gov/service/immigrant-childrens-program, attached hereto as Ex. 114. 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 96 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 L. Defendants’ Policy Harms the States’ Quasi-Sovereign Interests 295. States have a quasi-sovereign interest in protecting the health, safety, and well- being of their residents, including protecting their residents from harms to their physical, 4 5 6 psychological, emotional, or economic health. The States’ interests in preventing and remedying injuries to the public’s health, safety, and well-being extends to all of their residents who will be 7 harmed by the Policy. The Policy has caused and will continue to cause severe and immediate 8 harm to the States’ residents, including parents who are detained, released, or otherwise reside 9 in the States after being forcibly separated from their children; children who are placed in 10 facilities, shelters, homes or otherwise reside in the States after being separated from their 11 parents; extended families and sponsors in the States; and the States’ immigrant communities. 12 13 296. The States also have an interest in ensuring that their residents are not excluded 14 from the rights and privileges provided by the U.S. Constitution, international laws, federal laws, 15 and state laws. These rights include due process and equal protection rights afforded to alien 16 parents and their minor children, and rights and protections under federal asylum and refugee 17 laws, international human rights laws, and state laws. 18 297. The Policy causes measurable harm to existing immigrant communities in the 19 States. A 2018 study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health finds that recent changes in 20 21 U.S. immigration policy that appear to target Latino immigrants have triggered serious 22 psychological distress for many resident Latino parents, including those living in the United 23 States legally. A substantial proportion of U.S. Latino parents reported adverse emotional and 24 behavioral consequences from recent immigration actions and news. For example, 66% said that 25 they very often or always worry about family members getting separated. Nearly 40% of parents 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 97 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 said they frequently avoided getting medical care, help from police, or support from social service agencies because of reports about immigration actions. Parents who frequently experienced worries or changes in behavior due to immigration news and policies had at least a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 250% increase in the odds of experiencing high psychological distress, including clinical anxiety and depression. The association between U.S. immigration actions and psychological distress in this study held true after controlling for education, residency status, gender and other factors. 298. Many of the States have resident Latino and Hispanic populations that are affected by the Policy and attendant distress. For example, as of 2010, 10.2 percent of the total population of Washington State was of Hispanic origin, with some counties over 45%. Indeed, 11 roughly one in seven Washington residents is an immigrant, while one in eight residents is a 12 13 14 15 native-born U.S. citizen with at least one immigrant parent. The other States also have resident Latino and Hispanic communities who are impacted by the Policy, as well. 299. Indeed, the States are already acting to try to protect the health, safety, and well- 16 being of persons separated and harmed by the Policy. As a result of the Policy, thousands of 17 immigrant parents and children are being separated and moved to a range of facilities or homes 18 in the States or being released to live in the States. Transfer of these separated immigrant parents 19 and children into the States will continue into the future as long as Defendants’ Policy remains 20 21 in place. See Exs. 55, 8, 21. In May 2018 alone, DHS took nearly 51,912 immigrants into 22 custody, nearly three times the number detained in May 2017. Ex. 55. The number of families 23 apprehended at the Southwestern border increased by 435% in May 2018 in comparison to May 24 2017. Ex. 8. The States have an interest in protecting those immigrants who are resident, or will 25 soon settle, in their jurisdictions. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 98 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 300. Traumatized immigrant parents and children are already present in the States’ shelters and in federal detention centers in the States. On June 7, 2018, ICE spokeswoman Danielle Bennett confirmed that because of “implementation of the U.S. Department of Justice’s 4 5 6 zero-tolerance Policy . . . ICE has entered into inter-agency agreements with [the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)] to acquire access to more than 1,600 additional beds at [five] BOP facilities.” 7 These include 220 beds at the Federal Detention Center SeaTac in Seattle, Washington; 130 beds 8 in Sheridan, Oregon; and 1,000 beds at the Federal Correctional Institution Victorville Medium 9 Security Prison in Victorville, California. See Robert Moore, Immigration Officials Taking Over 10 1,600 Beds in Federal Prison System, Texas Monthly (June 8, 2018) available at 11 https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/immigration-officials-taking-1600-beds-federal-prison12 13 14 system/, attached hereto as Ex. 115. 301. Defendants’ Policy causes severe and lasting psychological and emotional harm 15 to immigrant parents in Washington who have been separated from their children. For example, 16 of the approximately 200 immigrants detained in Seattle as of June 19, 2018, 174 were women, 17 and dozens of those women were mothers who had been forcibly separated from their children, 18 whose ages range from one-year-old to teenagers. See Jayapal Goes Inside Federal Detention 19 Center to Meet with Asylum Seeking Women: “the mothers could not stop crying” (June 9, 20 21 2018), available at https://jayapal.house.gov/media/press-releases/jayapal-goes-inside-federal- 22 detention-center-meet-asylum-seeking-women-0, attached hereto as Ex. 116. Many were 23 asylum seekers from Latin American countries. Id. Most had been in detention for more than 24 two weeks and many for over a month. Id. A majority of the mothers have not spoken with their 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 99 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 children in weeks, and Defendants had not provided the mothers with any information regarding the whereabouts or well-being of their children. Id. 302. These women described the horrific and inhumane conditions at the Border Patrol 4 5 6 facilities where they were previously detained, including fenced cages; lack of blankets and mats notwithstanding frigid temperatures; and lack of access to food and water. Id. Some suffered 7 verbal abuse from border agents who called them “filthy” and “stinky.” Id. And they endured 8 further intentionally inflicted trauma when agents told them their “families would not exist 9 anymore” and that they would “never see their children again.” Id. 10 303. The specific stories of two immigrant mothers who are being detained in Seattle 11 confirm this horrifying experience. These two mothers crossed the border in Texas, immediately 12 13 turned themselves in, and were taken to a holding facility. The mothers were each separated 14 from their daughters upon arrival and held in a facility they describe as similar to a dog kennel. 15 The following week, the mothers appeared in federal court, were charged with illegal entry, 16 found guilty, and served time in Texas. After approximately three weeks, the mothers were 17 flown to SeaTac, where they remain in prison without their daughters. 18 304. A growing number of children separated from their parents pursuant to 19 Defendants’ Policy have been placed in facilities in Washington. These children have suffered 20 21 22 severe psychological and emotional trauma. 305. Similarly, a Brazilian woman who recently arrived in Massachusetts presented 23 herself for asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border and was detained and then separated from her 8- 24 year-old son. Immigration authorities determined that she has a credible fear of persecution if 25 she is returned to Brazil, so she has since been released pending adjudication of her asylum 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 100 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 claim. As of June 22, 2018, she had not, however, been reunited with her son, who remains in a facility in Chicago, where he hasn’t been able to see his mother for almost a month. See Akilah Johnson, A Brazilian Mother Seeking Asylum Was Freed from Detention. Her son was not. The 4 5 6 Boston Globe (June 22, 2018) available at https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/06/22/brazilian-mother-seeking-asylum-was- 7 freed-from-detention-her-son-was-not/kIYT1F4fHTsHxdkfmHh73I/story.html, attached hereto 8 as Ex. 117. 9 10 306. In Massachusetts, two Guatemalan children were recently released to their father, a Massachusetts resident, after being separated from their mother, with whom they crossed the 11 border to seek asylum. She is still in detention in Texas. The children were held in facilities in 12 13 Texas and then Michigan for five weeks until they were released to their father. The young girl, 14 who is 9 years old, has been particularly affected by the experience and still cries for her mother. 15 See Mark Sullivan, Guatemalan in Westboro Sees the Effects of Separation Policy Firsthand, 16 The 17 http://www.telegram.com/news/20180620/guatemalan-in-westboro-sees-effects-of-separation- 18 Worcester Telegram & Gazette (June 20, 2018) available at policy-firsthand, attached hereto as Ex. 118. 19 307. Defendants’ abhorrent and indefensible family-separation Policy has already had 20 21 an impact on Oregon in a variety of ways, and will continue to do so. There are at least 123 22 immigrant men detained at the federal prison in Sheridan, Oregon. At least six of these are 23 fathers, from Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras, who have been separated from their children 24 pursuant to the Policy. Oregon’s federal lawmakers have been able to visit these detainees, and 25 report that they have been denied access to lawyers and health care and are confined to cells for 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 101 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 up to 22 hours a day. Oregon immigration lawyers also report that they have been repeatedly denied access to detainees. The Mexican Consulate reports that one of the detained men had his newborn infant, only 15 days old, taken from him. Another detainee was separated from his 18- 4 5 6 7 month-old toddler. Another reports his wife is detained in San Antonio, Texas, and he does not know the whereabouts of their 4-year-old child. 308. There are a number of children in Oregon who have been separated from their 8 parents by the defendants’ implementation of its Policy, including two children who saw their 9 mother being taken away in chains. At least three others have been separated from their parents 10 at the border pursuant to the Policy. 11 309. Defendants’ unlawful Policy also cruelly affects the wellbeing of Oregon 12 13 residents, including its immigrant and Hispanic and Latinx populations. For example, a 14 substantial number of Oregon residents are survivors of the Japanese-American internment 15 camps of World War II, or family members of such survivors. Many of those survivors and/or 16 family members have experienced significant emotional and psychological distress as a result of 17 the government’s family-separation Policy. 18 310. Similarly, some Oregonians are survivors of Nazi concentration camps. Many of 19 those survivors are also experiencing profound psychological and emotional distress as a result 20 21 of the federal government’s family-separation Policy. For all these Oregon survivors and their 22 families, the Policy echoes the ethnic-based targeting that they experienced in the twentieth 23 century, and causes them to relive the trauma of one of the darkest times in history. Many 24 survivors are also profoundly afraid for the safety of minority communities targeted by the 25 current Administration. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 102 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 311. Defendants’ Policy similarly harms immigrant parents and children in California who have been separated by federal immigration officials. For example, at least 50-60 children are being served in group homes and family homes approved by foster family agencies in 4 5 6 California as a result of Defendants’ Policy. 312. Additionally, parents, including asylum-seekers, who have been separated from 7 their children are being housed at facilities throughout Southern California. There is a 8 particularly large number of immigration detainees being held at the Victorville facility, but 9 unlike the SeaTac facility, attorneys have been denied access to determine how many of those 10 individuals are parents. 11 313. Several asylum-seeker parents who arrived at a port of entry with a migrant 12 13 caravan in April 2018 were separated from their children. While their children have been placed 14 by ORR in facilities across the nation, the parents are being detained in other immigration 15 detention facilities in California. 16 children’s whereabouts or how to locate them. As a result, parents have been unable to locate 17 or communicate with their children, are not receiving regular in-person visitation or phone 18 Parents are not provided with information about their contact with their children, and have not been told if or when their families will be reunified. 19 314. Likewise, New Mexico has a right to ensure that no one within its border is 20 21 excluded from the rights and privileges provided by the U.S. Constitution, international, federal 22 or state law. State resources are used without statutory authority if used in furtherance of 23 unconstitutional federal policies contravening the purposes of New Mexico’s constitution and 24 laws. There is well documented evidence to suggest that these interests are currently being 25 infringed upon with the boundaries of the State of New Mexico. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 103 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 315. The federal Office of Refugee Resettlement reported that 15 Unaccompanied Children (UAC) taken into custody in New Mexico were released to U.S. sponsors between October 2017 and April 2018, but those children were not released to caregivers licensed by the 4 5 6 State of New Mexico. One Brazilian grandmother held at the Santa Teresa border crossing in New Mexico was separated from her 16-year-old ward almost a year ago. The child, who has 7 severe epilepsy, neurological problems and is autistic, was placed in Connecticut. See Angela 8 Kocherga, Zero-tolerance policy impacts New Mexico, Albuquerque Journal June 20, 2018, page 9 4 10 (citing Maria Vandelice de Pastos’ attorney Eduardo Beckett), available at https://www.abqjournal.com/1186875/zerotolerance-policy-impacts-new-mexico.html, 11 attached hereto as Ex. 119. 12 316. 13 Approximately fifty mothers, some with valid claims for asylum have had their 14 children separated from them at border crossings and are being held in a private jail in Otero 15 County, New Mexico. One of the Mothers details health issues her child faces and that she is 16 completely unaware of where he is or whether his health needs are being addressed. See Jonathan 17 Blitzer, “Mothers in a New Mexico Prison Do Not Know How to Find Their Children,” New 18 Yorker Magazine (June 21, 2018) available at 19 https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/mothers-in-a-new-mexico-prison-do-not-know20 21 22 how-to-find-their-children, attached hereto as Ex. 120. 317. New Mexico also has an interest in ensuring that New Mexico citizens continue 23 to be afforded their rights to cross the U.S.-Mexico border unmolested. Because many New 24 Mexico families visit their relatives in Mexico and because these families traditionally visit with 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 104 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 their own children in tow, such New Mexico citizens face the potential of separation in derogation of their rights to travel and to maintain their familial ties. 3 318. Because there is direct evidence of harm to these families, occurring within the 4 5 6 borders of New Mexico, the state has a distinct interest in ensuring that no violations of law occur. This notion is grounded in general principles of federalism, and are distinctly the 7 obligations of the state in ensuring that its constitution and laws are upheld. This interstitial 8 framework is well grounded in law and is the underpinning of our system of government. 9 10 319. Fathers who were forcibly separated from their children at the border are currently being detained at the Elizabeth Detention Center in Elizabeth, New Jersey. See Brenda 11 Flanagan, At Detention Center Rally, Family Reunification Left in Question, NJTV News June 12 13 14 22, 2018, clip available at https://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/at-detention-center-rallyfamily-reunification-left-in-question/. 320. 15 In addition, children who were forcibly separated from their parents at the border 16 have been placed at the Center for Family Services in Camden, New Jersey, which contracts 17 with ORR to provide shelter to children who crossed the border. See Kelly Heyboer and Erin 18 Banco, 20 Immigrant Children Have Arrived in N.J. in the Last 30 Days. Here’s What We Know, 19 NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, Updated June 22, 2018 at 12:24PM, 20 21 22 23 24 25 https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2018/06/are_immigrant_kids_being_held_in_nj_heres_ho w_trum.html, attached hereto as Ex. 121. 321. Defendants’ Policy causes severe and potentially permanent emotional and psychological trauma to children in Rhode Island who have been separated from their parents pursuant to Defendants’ Policy. Unaccompanied Alien Children are released to sponsors in 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 105 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 Rhode Island by the Office of Refugee Resettlement of the United States Department of Health and Human Services each year. For example in FY 2017, 234 total Unaccompanied Minor Child were released in Rhode Island and thus far in FY 2018 that total already stands at 129. These 4 5 6 7 children have suffered severe psychological and emotional trauma. See. Unaccompanied Alien Children Released to Sponsors by State (June 30, 2017) Ex. 88. 322. In Vermont, reports are emerging that federal authorities’ animus toward Latino 8 migrants is taking a psychological and medical toll on migrant workers essential to Vermont’s 9 dairy industry and economy. See J. Dillon, For Undocumented Workers On Vermont Farms, 10 2017 Was A Year Filled With Anxiety, Vermont Public Radio (January 5, 2018), (public health 11 screening of migrant workers found 80% exhibiting elevated levels of stress), available at 12 13 http://digital.vpr.net/post/undocumented-workers-vermont-farms-2017-was-year-filled- 14 anxiety#stream/0, attached hereto as Ex. 122. The Policy will likely increase the strain on an 15 already vulnerable population. 16 17 18 323. Children who have been forcibly separated from their parents at the border have already arrived in Minnesota and other children who have been separated from their parents are likely to come to Minnesota in the future. 19 324. For example, an 8 year-old girl experienced the most “traumatic moment of her 20 21 life” when she was forcibly separated from her father at the U.S.-Mexico border. See Chris 22 Serres and Mary Lynn Smith, the Star Tribune (June 23, 2018) available at 23 http://www.startribune.com/migrant-children-separated-from-parents-start-to-arrive-in- 24 minnesota/486365431/, attached hereto as Ex. 123. The father “begged the officer to be able to 25 stay with his child. He was crying. She was crying.” Id. After they were separated, her father 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 106 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 was deported to Guatemala. The girl remains in Minnesota, but wants to be reunited with her family. 325. As one lawyer who represents unaccompanied minors in Minnesota explained, 4 5 6 7 “[s]o many of these children, they just want their parents. They really, really, really want to be reunited with their families.” Id. 326. Illinois has also received children affected by the Policy. As of June 22, 2018, 8 approximately 66 minor children, who have been separated from their parents or guardians and 9 are awaiting immigration proceedings, are currently under the care of Heartland Alliance. 10 Currently, Heartland is housing these separated children in the cities of Chicago and Des Plaines. 11 327. Heartland is endeavoring to reunite the 66 separated children with family 12 13 members in the United States. Certain of these children will likely remain in Illinois, given the 14 fact that 1,568 unaccompanied minors were released to sponsors located in Illinois between 15 October 2014 and April 2018. See Ex. 88. 16 17 18 328. New York State relies on the same agencies that the federal ORR relies on for provision of foster care services. ORR currently contracts with eleven provider agencies in New York State to care for UACs, including those children whom Defendants have separated from 19 their parents: Abbott House; Catholic Family Center; Catholic Guardian Services; Cayuga Home 20 21 for Children; Children’s Home of Kingston; Children’s Village; Jewish Child Care Association 22 of New York; Rising Ground (formerly Leake and Watts Services); Lincoln Hall; Lutheran 23 Social Services of New York; and MercyFirst. These agencies either run residential congregate 24 care programs that house the children or place the children with family or sponsors in the 25 community, or do both. These agencies also provide residential care and placement services for 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 107 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 children who enter New York’s child welfare system because they are abandoned, abused, neglected, delinquent or dependent children. OCFS has confirmed that at least 321 children who have been separated from their parents at the Southwestern border are currently in the care of 4 5 6 one of these eleven agencies and thus residing in New York State. Since the State was unable to obtain this information from HHS or ORR, OCFS undertook efforts to create a census of 7 separated children in New York State. Specifically, OCFS’s Acting Commissioner issued a 8 directive to the agencies to confirm the total number of UACs in their care. Upon receipt of that 9 information, OCFS staff verbally verified with each voluntary agency how many of those 10 children were in fact separated from their families at the border. To accomplish this, OCFS staff 11 took a hiatus from their regular duties and, in a single day, physically went to each of the 11 12 13 agencies to review records and interview children in order to obtain a current head count. ORR 14 has still not confirmed this number or shared data regarding how many children have already 15 come through these voluntary agencies, or how many it plans to send to these voluntary agencies 16 in the future. 17 18 329. Staff at one voluntary agency have informed local government officials that the ages of most children newly placed at their agency, many of whom were separated from family 19 at the border, are between four and twelve. The youngest child so far was a nine-month-old 20 21 22 baby, in addition to multiple not-yet-verbal toddlers. 330. The children whom Defendants have separated from their parents and sent to New 23 York are suffering extreme trauma. For example, a South American boy who was separated from 24 his father at the Mexican border was rushed to the hospital because he was about to jump out of 25 the second-story window of the group home where he was sent in early June after being forcibly 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 108 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 separated from his family. The distraught child verbalized that he wanted to jump because he missed his parents. Twelve other young immigrant children who were separated from their parents at the border have been treated for physical and mental illnesses at New York City 4 5 6 hospitals. One child was suicidal and others were treated for depression and anxiety. See Jillian Jorgensen, City hospitals have treated 12 immigrant children who were taken from parents, 7 including 8 http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-pol-immigrant-children-treated-20180621- 9 story.html, attached hereto as Ex. 124. 10 331. a suicidal child, N.Y. Daily News (June 21, 2018) available at New York State has a quasi-sovereign interest in the health, safety and well-being 11 of all children within its borders, and Defendant’s separation policy directly undermines that 12 13 interest by causing severe trauma to these children. New York State goes to great lengths to 14 provide significant due process protections for both parents and children when families are 15 separated as a result of government action. When a child is placed in foster care in New York, 16 state statutes and regulations afford both the parent and the child a range of rights, including the 17 right of visitation. Indeed, the child’s family service plan must include a plan for regular 18 visitation between the parents and child. N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 409-e; N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & 19 Regs. Tit. 18 § 428.3. See also N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 1030(a) (providing that a parent has a right 20 21 of regular and reasonable visitation with a child in foster care unless otherwise prohibited by 22 court order). This right of regular visitation is afforded even when one or both parents is 23 incarcerated in a prison or jail. In that situation, the child welfare agency must make suitable 24 arrangements with the correctional facility for a parent to visit with the child, unless the visiting 25 would be harmful to the child. 11 OCFS ADM 07. Moreover, parents who are incarcerated are 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 109 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 entitled to participate in the planning for their child in foster care by participating in family court proceedings and periodic family service plan reviews. See N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 18 § 428.9. To protect these vital rights, state law provides that the parent of a child in foster 4 5 6 care has a right to assigned counsel by the court where such parent is financially unable to obtain one. N.Y. Family Court Act § 26. Such rules are premised on the importance of the parent-child 7 bond, and the parent’s critical, indispensable role in assuring that the needs of his or her child 8 are met. Here, by contrast, the parents and children whom Defendants have separated at the 9 border are afforded no visitation procedure and have no process to recognize or protect their 10 rights. Due to Defendant’s illegal policy, the separated children who are currently residing in 11 New York are being treated differently than other children in foster care in the State, to their 12 13 14 15 great detriment and in direct contravention of the state’s interest in ensuring the health, safety, and well-being of all its residents. 332. Upon information and belief, family members of separated children currently 16 reside in New York State. An HHS spokesman stated that “[t]here’s an effort to place [children 17 who were separated at the border] as closely as possible to where they’re going to be eventually 18 reunified with a sponsor or a family member” and that if a child was placed in New York it 19 usually means that there is a family member residing in the state who is a possible placement 20 21 option for the child. See Tal Kopan, Why some children have been sent to states far away from 22 the US border, CNN (June 22, 2018) available at https://www.cnn.com/politics/live- 23 news/immigration-border-children-separation/h_714fd2e091af7813fb8df5fc587c7b8b, 24 attached hereto as Ex. 125. New York has a quasi-sovereign interest in ensuring that children 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 110 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 residing in New York State, who have been separated from their parents, are placed with family members also residing in the State if the children cannot be quickly reunified with their parents. 333. Maryland has an interest in the health, safety, and wellbeing of all its residents, 4 5 6 including any parents or children being placed in Maryland under the Policy. Immigration agents are reported to have sent dozens of children to Maryland during the implementation of the Trump 7 Administration’s family separation policy. The children often have no family connection to the 8 state; they are sent here because the system has capacity. Some of the children have been placed 9 with foster families coordinated by care organizations, while others are placed in residential 10 group child care. 11 334. Immigration officials are sending separated children to Maryland without the 12 13 most basic information about the children or their parents, or how to connect them with one 14 another. And many of the children have come with little or no information and are too young— 15 as young as 18 months—to communicate with caregivers or social workers trying to track down 16 relatives who could take them in. Thus, the sheltering organizations that are housing the children 17 do not know how to identify, let alone locate, the children’s parents, who risk deportation before 18 they can find or be reunited with their children. 19 335. Care organizations report that children who have been separated from their 20 21 parents suffer greater trauma than other unaccompanied minors whom the organizations care for. 22 For some of these children, their suffering is immediately apparent, as has been shown in 23 publicly available videos and other recordings. For others, their suffering emerges over time, as 24 they become more comfortable with the staff of the care organizations. And when those 25 organizations can track down a parent and arrange for a call with his or her child, the children 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 111 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 are reportedly so upset afterwards that they need counseling. See Andrea K. McDaniels, Border separations could have traumatic impact on children, doctors say, The Balt. Sun (June 22, 2018) at A9, available at http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-border-separation-trauma-20180621- 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 story.html, attached hereto as Ex. 126; Ian Duncan, “, The Balt. Sun, June 21, 2018, at A1, available at http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-border-separations-20180620story.html, attached hereto as Ex. 127. 336. Parents who have been separated from their children are also being sent to Maryland and detained in local facilities that contract with ICE to hold detainees, mostly pending criminal process. Anne Arundel, Frederick, Howard, and Worcester counties have all agreed to 11 hold immigration detainees, and the Anne Arundel Detention Center is reportedly holding at 12 13 least two parents who have been separated from their children under the Trump Administration’s 14 policy. See Ex. 127. In addition, Maryland is the location of a Federal Correctional Institution 15 and the Chesapeake Detention Facility where, by contract, the federal government houses federal 16 pre-trial detainees, which might be affected by ICE’s policy of housing separated parents in 17 federal detention facilities. Parents held in Maryland have little contact with their children and 18 no information about where they are being held. One was reportedly separated from his five- 19 year-old daughter by force and has not had any contact with, or information about, her in the two 20 21 months since. See Patricia Sullivan, Md., Va. congressmen hear stories of family separation, the 22 Washington 23 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/immigration/md-va-congressmen-hear-stories-of-family- 24 separation/2018/06/20/af3fe0ae-74aa-11e8-b4b7- 25 Post (June 21, 2018) at B4, available at 308400242c2e_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fa6d5bb19919, attached hereto as Ex. 128. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 112 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 337. In other respects, as well, ORR is using facilities in Maryland to facilitate the Administration’s family separation policy without providing the transparency that would allow Maryland to ensure the safety and security of its residents, including the parents and children 4 5 6 who have been separated from one another under the policy. ORR has provided no information about the care and circumstances of immigrant children detained within Maryland’s borders— 7 where they are being held; what condition they are in; where their parents are; whether they have 8 adequate food, clothing and shelter; whether they have access to medical care and legal 9 representation; or when and how they will be reunited with their families. 10 338. Children separated from their families as a result of Defendants’ actions have 11 been sent to organizations in Pennsylvania. For instance, 50 child immigrants separated from 12 13 their families are being housed at the Holy Family Institute in Emsworth, Pennsylvania, a 14 Catholic social services organization that is under contract with Defendant ORR. See Paula 15 Reed Ward and Ashley Murray, Child migrants separated from families housed at Holy Family 16 Institute in Emsworth, Pittsburg Post-Gazette (June 17, 2018) available at http://www.post- 17 gazette.com/news/faith-religion/2018/06/17/Child-migrants-separated-from-families-being- 18 housed-at-Holy-Family-Institute/stories/201806160074, attached hereto as Ex. 129. The 19 children, who range in age from 4 to 17, are from Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, and other 20 21 countries. Other child immigrants separated from their parents as a result of Defendants’ actions 22 have been placed with a shelter in Pennsylvania’s Lehigh Valley. See Laura Benshoff, As Trump 23 ends family separation policy, children removed from their parents are already in Pa., (June 21, 24 2018), 25 available at https://whyy.org/segments/as-trump-ends-family-separation-policy- children-removed-from-their-parents-are-already-in-pa/, attached hereto as Ex. 130. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 113 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 339. The District of Columbia places an emphasis on preserving families and reunifying families even when children become involved with the state due to child abuse or neglect. See D.C. Code § 4-1303.03(a)(11) and (a)(13). The District of Columbia follows the 4 5 6 United States Supreme Court’s holdings that there is “a presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children,” Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 68, (2000), and recognition 7 that the state may not “inject itself into the private realm of the family” absent a finding of 8 unfitness. Id. at 68–69. The Court has frequently emphasized the importance of the family, and 9 has held that individuals have a fundamental right to parent their own children. Stanley v. Illinois, 10 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972). This important relationship may not be terminated without a predicate 11 determination, by clear and convincing evidence that the individual is unfit to parent. Santosky 12 13 14 v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 760, 768–71 (1982). 340. The District of Columbia also prohibits discrimination based upon the race, color, 15 religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender 16 identity or expression, familial status, family responsibilities, genetic information, disability, 17 matriculation, or political affiliation, source of income, status as a victim of an intrafamily 18 offense, and place of residence or business of any individual. D.C. Code § 2-1401.01. 19 341. Defendants’ Policy causes severe and potentially permanent emotional and 20 21 psychological trauma to children who have been separated from their parents, some of whom 22 are placed with sponsors in the District of Columbia. The number of children placed with 23 sponsors in the District will increase as the sponsors are identified and vetted, and approved to 24 receive these children. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 114 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 V. CAUSES OF ACTION Count I: Violation of Fifth Amendment – Substantive Due Process 342. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set 4 5 6 forth herein. 343. State residents who are parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, 7 custody, and control of their children. This includes current state residents and those who may 8 arrive in the States following separation pursuant to Defendants’ Policy. 9 10 344. State residents who are minors have a reciprocal liberty interest in their parents’ care. This includes current state residents and those who may arrive in the States following 11 separation pursuant to Defendants’ Policy. 12 13 345. State residents who are minors have a right to be free of unreasonable risk of 14 harm, including trauma from separation and detention, as well as the risk of harm from housing 15 them in unlicensed facilities. 16 17 18 346. Defendants’ Policy offends the Due Process Clause by separating parents from their children without any showing that the parent is unfit or is otherwise endangering the child. 347. Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to the States and their residents. 19 Count II: Violation of Fifth Amendment – Procedural Due Process 20 21 348. 22 forth herein. 23 349. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set 24 The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from depriving individuals of their liberty interests without due process of law. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 115 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 350. Defendants’ Policy deprives the States’ residents of a fundamental liberty interest with no hearing whatsoever. This includes current state residents and those who will arrive in the States following separation pursuant to Defendants’ Policy. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 351. Defendants have violated the procedural due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment. 352. Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to the States and their residents. Count III: Violation of Fifth Amendment – Equal Protection 353. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth herein. 11 354. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal 12 13 14 government from denying equal protection of the laws. 355. The Policy burdens a fundamental right and targets individuals for discriminatory 15 treatment based on their nationality or ethnicity, without lawful justification, and is therefore not 16 narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. The Policy is also 17 unconstitutional because it disparately impacts immigrants from Latin America arriving at the 18 Southwestern border and is motivated by animus and a desire to harm this particular group. 19 356. Alternatively, the discriminatory terms and application of the Policy are arbitrary 20 21 22 23 24 and do not bear a rational relationship to a legitimate federal interest. 357. Through their actions above, Defendants have violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment. 358. Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to the States and their residents. 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 116 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 Count IV: Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act 359. All of the foregoing allegations are repeated and realleged as though fully set forth herein. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 360. The Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), prohibits federal agency action that is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and contrary to statute. 361. Defendants’ Policy constitutes final agency action for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act. 362. Defendants have offered no legitimate basis for their Policy. 363. Defendants’ Policy is arbitrary and capricious because it conflicts with various 11 laws requiring Defendants and the States to consider the best interests and well-being of children 12 13 14 arriving to the United States. 364. The Policy is not authorized or required by the TVPRA, which only applies to 15 unaccompanied minors. The minors subject to Defendants’ Policy are not “unaccompanied,” as 16 they are accompanied by a parent or guardian. Indeed, in a White House Press Release, dated 17 October 8, 2017, Defendants released a “detailed outline of President Trump’s immigration 18 principles and policies” which states Defendants’ agreement that “alien minors [] are not UACs 19 [if they are] accompanied by a parent or legal guardian.” See Immigration Principles & Policies, 20 21 available at http://www.aila.org/infonet/wh-immigration-principles-and-policies, 22 hereto as Ex. 131. 23 365. attached 24 Further, as alleged herein, the separation Policy contravenes the spirit and purpose of the TVPRA, which seeks to protect children. In general, the TVPRA requires, 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 117 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 whenever possible, family reunification or other appropriate placement for unaccompanied alien children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1232(c)(2)(A). 366. In implementing the Policy, federal agencies have taken or will take 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 unconstitutional and unlawful action, as alleged herein, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. 367. In implementing the Policy, federal agencies have applied or will apply provisions arbitrarily, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. 368. Defendants’ violation causes ongoing harm to the State and its residents. Count V: Violation of Asylum Laws 11 369. Under United States law, noncitizens with a well-founded fear of persecution 12 13 shall have the opportunity to obtain asylum in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1158 (“[a]ny alien 14 who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States . . . irrespective 15 of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section.”). Federal law also 16 prohibits the return of a noncitizen to a country where he may face torture or persecution. See 8 17 U.S.C. § 1231(b); United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT), implemented in the 18 Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-277, div. G, Title XXII, 19 § 2242, 112 Stat. 2681, 2681-822 (1998) (codified as Note to 8 U.S.C. § 1231). 20 21 370. In enacting these statutes, Congress created a right to petition our government for 22 asylum that at the very least requires that asylum seekers be able to present themselves at ports 23 of entry to request asylum. Defendants are preventing asylum-seekers from presenting 24 themselves at ports of entry that are allegedly “full,” thus preventing asylum claims from being 25 heard, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1158. 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 118 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 371. Another effect of turning asylum-seekers away prior to their reaching a port of entry is that the immigrants are then forced to cross the border outside a port of entry, in a claimed violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1325, in order to present their asylum claim. But under the Policy, all 4 5 6 such border-crossing violations are referred to the Department of Justice and prosecuted. By criminalizing the pursuit of asylum, this Policy runs counter to established immigration and 7 refugee laws that allow a person to present themselves to immigration officials to request asylum 8 wherever they are able. 9 10 VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs request that the Court enter a judgment against Defendants and award the 11 following relief: 12 13 a. Enjoin Defendants from refusing to accept applications for asylum at a 14 valid port of entry, and from criminally charging asylum applicants with illegal entry or 15 re-entry if they present themselves at a valid port of entry; 16 17 18 b. Declare Defendants’ family separation Policy unauthorized by or contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States; c. Enjoin Defendants from enforcing the family separation Policy, including 19 at all United States borders and ports of entry, pending further orders from this Court; 20 21 d. Order Defendants to expeditiously reunite all children with parents from 22 whom they have been separated pursuant to the Policy, unless a court of competent 23 jurisdiction has found the parents to be unfit; 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 119 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 2 3 e. Enjoin Defendants from conditioning family reunification on an agreement not to petition for asylum or other relief available under the INA, or on an agreement to withdraw a petition or other request for that relief; 4 5 6 7 f. Enjoin Defendants from removing separated parents from the United States without their children, unless the parent affirmatively, knowingly, and voluntarily waives the right to reunification before removal after consultation with an attorney; 8 g. Enjoin Defendants from placing children in unlicensed facilities; 9 h. Order Defendants to provide specific information to parents who are 10 lawfully separated from their children about the nature and purpose of the separation, the 11 process by which they can be reunified, and the whereabouts of their children at all times, 12 13 14 15 absent a finding by a court of competent jurisdiction that such information would be dangerous to a child’s welfare; i. Award such additional relief as the interests of justice may require. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 120 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 Respectfully submitted this 26th day of June, 2018. 2 3 4 ROBERT W. FERGUSON, WSBA #26004 Washington State Attorney General NOAH G. PURCELL, WSBA #43492 Solicitor General COLLEEN M. MELODY, WSBA #42275 Civil Rights Division Chief LAURA K. CLINTON, WSBA #29846 MEGAN D. LIN, WSBA #53716 Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 464-5342 NoahP@atg.wa.gov ColleenM1@atg.wa.gov LauraC5@atg.wa.gov MeganL@atg.wa.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Washington 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 MAURA HEALEY Attorney General for Massachusetts 16 17 /s/ Abigail B. Taylor ABIGAIL B. TAYLOR Director, Child & Youth Protection Unit GENEVIEVE C. NADEAU Chief, Civil Rights Division ANGELA R. BROOKS Assistant Attorney General Public Protection & Advocacy Bureau Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 Tel: (617) 727-2200 Abigail.Taylor@state.ma.us Genevieve.Nadeau@state.ma.us Angela.Brooks@state.ma.us Attorneys for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Massachusetts 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 121 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California Michael L. Newman Susan E. Slager Supervising Deputy Attorneys General Vilma Palma-Solana Deputy Attorney General 2 3 4 5 /s/ Sarah E. Belton SARAH E. BELTON Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2000 Oakland, CA 94612-1492 Telephone: (510) 879-0009 Sarah.Belton@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 BRIAN E. FROSH Attorney General of Maryland 13 14 /s/ Julia Doyle Bernhardt JULIA DOYLE BERNHARDT ADAM D. SNYDER Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Attorney General 200 Saint Paul Place, 20th Floor Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Tel: (410) 576.7291 jbernhardt@oag.state.md.us asnyder@oag.state.md.us Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Maryland 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 122 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 ELLEN F. ROSENBLUM Attorney General 2 /s/ Scott J. Kaplan SCOTT J. KAPLAN, WSBA #49377 Senior Assistant Attorney General Oregon Department of Justice 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 (971) 673-1880 Email: scott.kaplan@doj.state.or.us Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Oregon 3 4 5 6 7 8 HECTOR BALDERAS Attorney General of New Mexico 9 10 /s/ Tania Maestas TANIA MAESTAS, Chief Deputy, Civil Affairs 400 Galisteo St. Santa Fe, NM 87501 Tel: (505) 490-4060 tmaestas@nmag.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New Mexico 11 12 13 14 15 16 JOSH SHAPIRO Attorney General of Pennsylvania 17 /s/ Jonathan Scott Goldman JONATHAN SCOTT GOLDMAN Executive Deputy Attorney General MICHAEL J. FISCHER Chief Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General 1600 Arch Street Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 560-2171 jgoldman@attorneygeneral.gov mfischer@attorneygeneral.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 123 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 GURBIR S. GREWAL Attorney General of New Jersey 2 /s/ Rachel Wainer Apter RACHEL WAINER APTER Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 Market Street, 8th Floor, West Wing Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0080 Tel: (609) 376-2702 Fax: (609) 777-4015 Rachel.Apter@njoag.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New Jersey 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 THOMAS J. MILLER Attorney General of Iowa 10 11 /s/ Nathan Blake NATHAN BLAKE Deputy Attorney General Iowa Department of Justice 1305 E. Walnut St. Des Moines, IA 50314 (515) 281-4325 nathan.blake@ag.iowa.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Iowa 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 124 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 LISA MADIGAN Attorney General of Illinois 2 /s/ Jeanne Witherspoon JEANNE WITHERSPOON Chief, Special Litigation Bureau ANNA P. CRANE MATTHEW J. MARTIN KRENICE M. ROSEMAN JEFFREY J. VANDAM Assistant Attorneys General Office of the Illinois Attorney General 100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 814-3000 acrane@atg.state.il.us mmartin@atg.state.il.us kroseman@atg.state.il.us jvandam@atg.state.il.us Attorneys for the Plaintiff State of Illinois 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LORI SWANSON Attorney General State of Minnesota 13 14 /s/ Alethea M. Huyser ALETHEA M. HUYSER Assistant Solicitor General 445 Minnesota Street, Ste 1100 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2128 Telephone: (651) 757-1243 Email: alethea.huyser@ag.state.mn.us Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Minnesota 15 16 17 18 19 20 PETER F. KILMARTIN Attorney General of the State of Rhode Island 21 /s/ Adam D. Roach ADAM D. ROACH Special Assistant Attorney General RI Office of the Attorney General 150 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903 (401) 274-4400 aroach@riag.ri.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Rhode Island 22 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 125 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 MARK R. HERRING Attorney General of Virginia 2 /s/ Toby J. Heytens TOBY J. HEYTENS Solicitor General MATTHEW R. MCGUIRE Deputy Solicitor General Office of the Attorney General 202 N. Ninth Street Richmond, VA 23223 Tel: (804) 786-7773 theytens@oag.state.va.us mmcguire@oag.state.va.us Attorneys for Plaintiff Commonwealth of Virginia 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BARBARA D. UNDERWOOD Attorney General of New York 11 12 /s/ Lourdes M. Rosado LOURDES M. ROSADO, Bureau Chief JESSICA ATTIE, Special Counsel LILIA TOSON, Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Bureau Office of the New York State Attorney General 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 (212) 416-8252 lourdes.rosado@ag.ny.gov jessica.attie@ag.ny.gov lilia.toson@ag.ny.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of New York 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 126 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 THOMAS J. DONOVAN, JR. Attorney General of Vermont 2 /s/ Benjamin D. Battles BENJAMIN D. BATTLES, Solicitor General JULIO A. THOMPSON, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Unit Office of the Attorney General 109 State Street Montpelier, VT 05609 Tel: (802) 828-5500 Fax: (802) 828-3187 benjamin.battles@vermont.gov julio.thompson@vermont.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Vermont 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 JOSHUA H. STEIN Attorney General of North Carolina 11 12 /s/ Sripriya Narasimhan SRIPRIYA NARASIMHAN, Deputy General Counsel RYAN Y. PARK Deputy Solicitor General North Carolina Department of Justice 114 W. Edenton Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Tel: (919) 716.6400 snarasimhan@ncdoj.gov rpark@ncdoj.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff State of North Carolina 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 127 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744 1 MATTHEW DENN Attorney General of Delaware 2 /s/ Aaron R. Goldstein AARON R. GOLDSTEIN, #3735 Chief Deputy Attorney General ILONA KIRSHON, #3705 Deputy State Solicitor DAVID LYONS, #2341 State of Delaware Department of Justice 820 N. French Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 577-8400 Matthew.denn@state.de.us Aaron.goldstein@state.de.us Ilona.kirshon@state.de.us David.lyons@state.de.us Attorneys for Plaintiff State of Delaware. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 KARL A. RACINE Attorney General for the District of Columbia 12 13 /s/ Robyn R. Bender ROBYN R. BENDER Deputy Attorney General, Public Advocacy Division VALERIE M. NANNERY Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 441 4th Street, N.W., Suite 630 South Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 442-9596 robyn.bender@dc.gov valerie.nannery@dc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff District of Columbia 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Pro Hac Vice motions forthcoming for all counsel of record not barred in the Western District of Washington. 22 23 24 25 26 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 128 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 800 Fifth Avenue. Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 206-464-7744

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?