Judge won’t issue temporary halt to administration’s handling of Somali deportation cases
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
A federal judge issued an opinion Friday that declines to block a controversial immigration policy affecting Somali asylum seekers, including many in Minnesota.
The lawsuit was brought by Minnesota-based Hines Immigration Law and nonprofit The Advocates for Human Rights, which argued that Somali asylum seekers were being singled out and moved quickly through the system, sometimes with little notice.
The law firm claimed that since January, the government had placed cases involving Somalis on a separate, faster docket.
“The Somali Fast-Track Policy — which truncates the timeline for non-detained Somalis and their attorneys to effectively prepare their cases and will very likely result in the removal of Somali immigrants who are eligible for protection — irreparably harms plaintiffs, legal service providers with a collective mission of working to ensure access to full and fair proceedings before the immigration courts for as many noncitizens as possible,” reads the lawsuit complaint.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
In the ruling, the court said there is some evidence that these cases have been accelerated. But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols found that the groups bringing the case had not shown enough legal grounds to justify emergency intervention.
And he suggested that the firm’s Somali clients could make a strong challenge in court.
“The unrebutted record does suggest some form of coordinated effort directed only at nondetained Somali aliens,” wrote Nichols. “But the effects of that effort are felt most directly by the aliens themselves, who are not parties before the Court, and who have their own avenues to challenge removal decisions that violate their constitutional or statutory rights.”
The case continues, leaving the faster timeline in place for now.
