MIAMI _ U.S. Immigration authorities have cut populations at three South Florida detention centers in compliance with a federal judge's order amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Marcia G. Cooke ordered Immigration and Customs Enforcement to shrink its detainee populations to 75% of capacity to allow for social distancing at three facilities: the Krome Processing Center in Miami-Dade, the Broward Transitional Center in Pompano Beach and the Glades County detention center in Moore Haven.
On Sunday night, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement told Cooke in a court filing that as of May 7, Krome's population was at 71% capacity, Glades' population was at 74% capacity and BTC's was at 65%.
The sworn documents, filed and signed by Liana J. Castano, the acting director in charge of the Krome facility, are in response to an April 13 lawsuit filed by six national immigration law firms on behalf of 58 Krome detainees with medical conditions. The suit sought the release of those 58 people, as well as about 90% of detainees at each center. Calling the conditions inside the three facilities "cruel and unusual punishment," Cooke ultimately ordered that ICE cut report to the court how it plans to cut detainee populations _ whether that meant releasing them or transferring them to other detention centers.
Cooke also said ICE must report to the court on a weekly basis how it plans to go about reviewing each detainee for release. In response, ICE filed its first report late Sunday stating that from May 1 to May 8, the agency took 60 people out of the three detention centers _ 43 from Krome, nine from BTC and eight from Glades.
Of the 60, 22 were deported, 17 were released on bond and the rest were released on parole, an order of supervision or because an immigration judge granted relief from deportation.
In its court filing, ICE also summarized how the agency handled the requests for release of each of the 58 petitioners on whose behalf the federal case was filed.
ICE said out of the 58, six were released from ICE custody and that of the remaining 52, 35 have serious criminal histories and are subject to mandatory detention.
The remaining 17 are not subject to mandatory detention. Of those 17, 11 "have criminal convictions or pending criminal charges which make them a threat to public safety," the agency said.
As for the remaining six, three "are not subject to mandatory detention, do not have a criminal history, and do not have any known chronic health conditions that would increase their vulnerability to COVID-19 per the Centers for Disease Control guidelines." They remain in detention.
Of the three others, two detainees were released with GPS ankle monitors and the third is awaiting the results of an appeal of a deportation order.
As of Wednesday, the legal teams that filed the lawsuit _ the University of Miami's immigration law clinic; the Southern Poverty Law Center; the Rapid Defense Network in New York ; Americans for Immigrant Justice; Miami law firm Prada Urizar; the Legal Aid Service of Broward County; and Washington, D.C.-based law firm King & Spalding _ had not yet filed a rebuttal to ICE's statements.
In addition to reporting the release or non-release status of each of the plaintiffs, ICE commented on the health status of each of the detainees named in the lawsuit.
"ICE found that of the 52 petitioners, 25 had no known chronic health conditions that would increase their vulnerability to COVID-19 per the Centers for Disease Control guidelines," the report said. "ICE found that of the 52 petitioners, 27 did have known chronic health conditions that would increase their vulnerability to COVID-19 per the Centers for Disease Control guidelines."
It is unclear what the health conditions of the detainees are because those details are sealed for privacy reasons, but lawyers say conditions include cancer, heart disease and respiratory illnesses.
ICE said it found that of those 27 petitioners who had a known chronic health condition, 22 are subject to mandatory detention and are not eligible for release. The remaining five are eligible for some form of release.
"After reviewing all factors to include health status, bond eligibility, immigration history, immigration status and criminal history, ICE has approved 2 petitioners for release," ICE said. "However ICE found that the remaining 3 have criminal convictions for intimidation, probation violation, fraud, illegal use of credit cards and traffic offenses. Additionally, some of the three plaintiffs are also pending criminal charges."
The reports filed by ICE will likely be discussed on Thursday afternoon during a court hearing before Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman. Both parties will present their arguments on whether or not the case should proceed as a class-action lawsuit, a move that would grant coverage for any detainee that was, is or will be at the three centers since the case was filed.
The judge will discuss whether a recent court of appeals decision _ Swain v. Junior _ will affect the current litigation. The case, lawyers say, affects whether the temporary restraining order will expire on Friday or not.
On May 5, a federal appeals court temporarily blocked a federal judge's order forcing Miami-Dade County to give masks, soap and cleaning supplies to inmates at the Metro West Detention Center in Doral, a facility racked by the novel coronavirus.
The U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said that Miami District Judge Kathleen Williams overstepped her authority when she ruled that inmates at the Metro West Detention Center must get the supplies, and also be tested for COVID-19, as well as people who have been in contact with them. Williams had also ordered the correctional facility to file weekly reports.
"Many of the problematic conditions at the Metro West jail are also present at the three South Florida immigration detention facilities at issue in the instant case," Goodman wrote in a briefing prior to Thursday's hearing, noting that the appeals court said the "District Court designated itself as a de facto 'super-warden' and incorrectly required those officials to, in effect, obtain a 'permission slip' from the Court before taking action at the jail."
