Thread by @ZoeTillman

Thread: A judge just heard arguments on the ACLU’s challenge to how the Trump admin has been citing a parent’s criminal history to separate them from their children at the border. The language was heated at times between DOJ and ACLU lawyers.

Background: buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetil…

So far, the govt has confirmed that nearly 1,000 kids have been separated from a parent at the border since the judge entered an injunction in June 2018 — there were exceptions, incl. for parents with criminal history, and this is a fight over what that should mean in practice

ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt argued it would be “unprecedented and dangerous” to let the govt separate families based on criminal histories that the ACLU contends have no bearing on whether a parent poses a danger to their child — that it’s not about who is a good person or not

DOJ lawyer Scott Stewart called the ACLU’s approach “astonishing and irresponsible,” arguing separations are happening in the context of immigration law enforcement and that officials need to be able to exercise discretion, often based on limited information, to keep kids safe

The ACLU wants the judge to rule, as a threshold matter, that a parent’s crim history alone does not give the govt the blanket right to separate them from their kids — that based on a constitutional right to family integrity the judge prev. found, there has to be a higher bar

Gelernt acknowledged that some cases raise tough questions about whether certain types of criminal histories would mean a parent couldn’t be placed in a family residential center. But he argued that should be a secondary issue to sort out later, based on info from experts

Stewart argued the govt was exercising discretion and not just separating every parent with a crim history. He accused the ACLU of taking an extreme position that would mean, for ex., a parent’s status as a sex offender wouldn’t automatically be a bar to keeping a family together

Gelernt countered that DOJ was arguing against nationally accepted standards for removing children from their parents — that the mere fact of a criminal conviction, with a limited number of exceptions, isn’t enough. Separations amount to "child abuse," he argued

Judge Dana Sabraw didn't say when he'd rule. He concluded by saying that criminal history was an "obtuse" way to determine a parent's fitness/danger to the child, but it played a unique role in the context of border separations, and that was the struggle here.

(end of thread)