Case: Dilley Pro Bono Project v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
1:17-cv-01055 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia
Filed Date: June 1, 2017
Closed Date: Feb. 15, 2020
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On June 1, 2017, the Dilley Pro Bono Project, an organization that provides pro bono legal representation to individuals seeking asylum, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its component agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The case was assigned to Judge Christopher Cooper.
Dilley Pro Bono Project specifically provides legal representation to minors and women confined in the South Texas Family Residential Center, which is in Dilley, Texas. The plaintiff claimed that its First Amendment rights and its clients' right to counsel were violated by a new ICE policy requiring pre-approval of telephonic medical evaluations of people seeking asylum. The plaintiff argued that these medical evaluations were crucial to its ability to represent clients in asylum cases, and that this new hurdle interferes with that representation.
The plaintiff stated that in March 2017, one of its attorneys had her permission to visit the South Texas detention center revoked when she scheduled a telephonic medical evaluation without pre-approval from an ICE agent. ICE then officially issued the pre-approval policy in May. The plaintiff claimed that because it only had two full-time attorneys and four full-time legal assistants at the time, the revocation of one attorney's permission to visit, in addition to the new policy, severely limited its ability to represent clients.
The complaint alleged that the policy and practice of requiring pre-approval unlawfully infringed upon the Dilley Project's First Amendment right to associate with the minors and women in the South Texas detention center, as well as upon those individuals' ability to get adequate counseling. In addition, it alleged that the policy's issuance violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
The plaintiff requested both a preliminary and a permanent injunction; it sought reinstatement of visitation rights for the attorney whose permission to visit had been revoked, as well as an order prohibiting ICE from enforcing the pre-approval policy or implementing other similar restrictions. The plaintiff also sought attorneys’ fees.
The parties entered into settlement discussions on August 11, 2017, and reached an agreement on August 15, 2017. The settlement still allows ICE to implement the policy, but the time frame for responding to pre-approval requests for telephonic medical evaluations is limited to within four business hours after the request is made; a notice of scheduling the appointment should be given two hours in advance. If the request is denied, ICE will provide a detailed explanation for the denial. If the plaintiff disagrees with the decision, then the parties will address jointly and informally any such dispute. In addition, the settlement reinstates the visitation permission for the attorney who had that permission revoked. Each party was to pay their own attorneys' fees.
The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement until February 15, 2020. That period has passed and the case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Sean Whetstone (5/16/2018)
Sam Kulhanek (4/18/2020)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6068832/parties/dilley-pro-bono-project-v-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement/
Cooper, Christopher Reid (District of Columbia)
Crow, Melissa E. (District of Columbia)
Davidoff, Amanda Flug (District of Columbia)
Ip, Veronica W. (New York)
Fabian, Sarah B. (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6068832/dilley-pro-bono-project-v-us-immigration-and-customs-enforcement/
Last updated Aug. 23, 2026, 4:29 a.m.
Docket for: DILLEY PRO BONO PROJECT v. U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 1, 2017
Closing Date: Feb. 15, 2020
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Dilley Pro Bono Project.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
American Immigration Council's Legal Action Center
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
United States
United States
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:17-cv-01055
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2017 - 2020
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Dilley Pro Bono Project v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/15849/ (last updated 4/18/2020).