ICE blocking Plymouth detainees from state court dates
No federal immigration detainees housed at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility have been brought to their state court cases this year despite explicit requests from judges — a move that shows continued rising tensions on the heels of a controversial Supreme Judicial Court decision.
The Plymouth County Sheriff’s Department received 15 requests since January from state judges to have Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees at its facility brought to state court appearances, according to data provided to the Herald after a public records request. ICE did not approve transport of 14 of the detainees, and one was allowed to appear by video conference, the data shows.
One of those detainees is Samuel Pensamiento — a Guatemalan national who was not transported to a Chelsea District Court hearing last month. The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts sued, and a federal judge allowed him to be transported to his next hearing with orders that he be returned to ICE.
“The evidence uncovered by the Herald illustrates an incredibly troubling pattern and seems to indicate that ICE is not fulfilling its responsibilities under the law,” Matt Segal, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, said in a statement.
ICE spokesman John Mohan said in an email that the “agency may decline to make an alien in ICE custody available to attend a state proceeding if there is no assurance that the alien will be returned to ICE custody upon completion of the state court proceeding.”
The Plymouth sheriff’s office, which holds ICE detainees through a contract with the agency, declined to comment on the data it provided.
The ongoing tension stems from an SJC ruling declaring that state authorities don’t have the power to detain someone based on a request from immigration authorities alone.
Mohan would not say whether ICE has allowed any detainees to attend state court hearings after the decision. He did say there is “no blanket refusal to produce detainees,” but following the SJC decision “it has become more challenging to coordinate custody transfers between state and federal entities.”
Immigration attorneys say the recent ICE practice has caused them to change their strategy. One maneuver is to allow their clients to remain behind bars on state charges and not ask for bail. That way, they are in state custody and can see out their case — something not guaranteed if they are held on an ICE detainer.
“I tell my clients we aren’t even asking for bail,” said Rachel Rado, a Boston-based immigration attorney. “If they get bail, or they are released, I won’t see them again in state court.”