NWDC Resistance v. ICE (ICE Retaliation)

This lawsuit challenges ICE’s unconstitutional policy to systematically target, surveil, detain, and deport immigrant activists who speak out about immigration policies and practices. The suit seeks to end this policy.

Update 6/8/22: In a victory for immigrant rights’ activists, a Western District Washington judge denied the government’s third attempt to dismiss a pattern and practice case of retaliation brought against ICE. The government argued that this case was moot, claiming that there was no longer a case because of the Biden administration’s new Enforcement guidelines published back in September 2021. We successfully argued that ICE had engaged in an unlawful pattern of retaliation despite the agency’s policies and that the agency could not show that it had not engaged in retaliation and First Amendment violations since the new guidelines were issued. The lawsuit is now expected to go to trial.

Key Filings

DECISIONS

District Court Decision Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (06.09.22)

District Court Decision Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (10.08.20)

PARTIES’ BRIEFS

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (04.08.20) (unredacted)

Government’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (02.13.20)

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, U.S. District Court Western District of Washington at Tacoma (12.20.18)

The case is NWDC Resistance et al. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al., case number 3:18-cv-05860, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

RELATED PRESS

Court Gives Green Light to Immigrant Groups Claiming Retaliation by ICE for Exercising First Amendment Rights

JFL Joint Press Release – October 8, 2020

Across the U.S., Trump Used ICE to Crack Down on Immigration Activists

The Intercept – November 1, 2020

Immigrant Activists Say ICE Is Purposefully Targeting Them. They’re Urging Biden To Help.

NPR – August 4, 2021

Previous
Previous

Renderos et al v Clearview et al (Facial Recognition Surveillance)