A coalition led by New York Attorney General Letitia James challenges the DHS’s detention policy, marking a significant pushback against federal immigration enforcement.
Story Highlights
- New York AG Letitia James leads a coalition opposing DHS’s detention policy.
- The policy is argued to violate constitutional due process protections.
- 20 state attorneys general join the legal challenge.
- Federal courts hold the final decision in this critical case.
Coalition Challenges Federal Immigration Policy
New York Attorney General Letitia James, alongside 19 other state attorneys general, has filed an amicus brief challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) mandatory detention policy for undocumented immigrants.
The coalition argues that the policy violates constitutional due process protections and federal statutes. This legal action represents a significant state-level resistance to federal immigration enforcement expansion, aiming to protect fundamental rights and state economies.
The coalition’s legal challenge specifically targets DHS’s reinterpretation of immigration law, which mandates indefinite detention without bond hearing rights for undocumented immigrants.
This marks a departure from previous policies that allowed individualized assessments. The coalition contends that the policy not only affects undocumented immigrants but also has broader implications for U.S. citizen family members, impacting family stability and economic security.
Economic and Social Impacts
Undocumented immigrants make up nearly five percent of the U.S. workforce, contributing significantly to industries such as agriculture and construction. In 2023, households led by undocumented immigrants paid nearly $90 billion in taxes and contributed almost $300 billion in consumer spending.
The coalition argues that the mandatory detention policy disrupts these economic contributions, undermining local and state economies. Furthermore, the cost of immigration detention reached $3.4 billion in 2024, a significant fiscal burden on taxpayers, compared to more cost-effective Alternatives to Detention programs.
Besides economic implications, the policy poses social and public health challenges. The fear of detention deters immigrant families from accessing essential services, which can undermine both public safety and health. The coalition argues that the DHS policy contributes to psychological harm in children separated from detained parents, increasing rates of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Legal and Constitutional Considerations
The attorneys general emphasize the constitutional ramifications of the DHS policy, arguing that it contradicts longstanding legal precedent and due process protections. Denying bond hearings limits detainees’ access to legal representation, particularly when transferred to remote facilities, affecting their chances of obtaining legal relief.
The coalition’s legal position underscores the importance of individualized assessments, a standard practice in civil and criminal proceedings, and asserts that immigration cases should not be treated differently.
The federal courts will ultimately decide the constitutionality of the DHS policy in the ongoing case *Bautista v. Noem*. The coalition’s action represents a significant pushback against federal immigration enforcement, potentially influencing future policy debates and reinforcing state authority in immigration matters.
Sources:
Attorney General James Leads Coalition Opposing Federal ICE Detention Policy
New York State Senate Bill S2235
OAG Immigration Enforcement Guidance
