Case: Morales v. United States

This suit, filed on Dec. 11, 2017, challenged the legality of a series of immigration raids in the Atlanta area. The complaint stated that, in response to a 2015 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) directive titled "Operation Border Resolve," U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) targeted families from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala living in nine major U.S. cities, including Atlanta. As part of the directive, the complaint alleged, ICE agents were to be trained on the Fourth Amendment: "[I]f they claim to be a member of local law enforcement during a ruse, the agents must notify the local law enforcement agency beforehand."

The complaint argued that, in Jan. 2016, ICE officers used ruses to gain entry into the homes of noncitizens, then arrested and detained them without probable cause or search warrants. The plaintiffs argued that ICE violated the Fourth Amendment and committed false imprisonment, trespass, negligence, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, under Georgia state law and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). They sought damages and declaratory relief. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. After Judge Clarence Cooper was recused, the case was reassigned to Judge Steve C. Jones on Dec. 13.

The plaintiffs, first represented by the Southern Poverty Law Center and later by private counsel, were three families with members who were citizens of various Central American countries. In one instance, ICE officers pulled over one named plaintiff while he was driving, without citing any traffic violation. The officers indicated that the plaintiff had to let them search his home, as they believed a criminal suspect was located there, or else the plaintiff risked obstructing a criminal investigation. The officers claimed to have a warrant but did not show it, and repeatedly threatened the plaintiff. Fearing arrest, but denying any such criminal suspect was in his home, the plaintiff went back to his home with them but agreed they would wait outside while he obtained identification cards of the people residing inside. The ICE officers then forcefully entered the home and eventually arrested the plaintiff's wife for missing an immigration court date, which the family claimed had not happened. ICE detained her and some of her children for a month.

In the case of another family, ICE officers once again attempted to enter into the home by claiming there was a criminal suspect there. The agents did not have a warrant, nor did they make clear they were ICE officers. Upon entering the house, they arrested and detained members of the family. Additionally, in the case of the third family, ICE officers once again gained entry into the home with no search warrant by claiming there was a criminal suspect. In each case, the plaintiffs suffered significant emotional distress after they were released from custody.

On Feb. 16, the defendants moved to dismiss. The defendants argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) because the alleged conduct arose from removal proceedings and lay within the Immigration Courts' jurisdiction. The defendants also disputed that the FTCA applied because the removal orders, arrests, and detentions were lawful.

On Aug. 6, 2018, the court (Judge Steve C. Jones) granted the motion to dismiss as to the non-citizen plaintiffs and denied it without prejudice as to the citizen plaintiffs (three minor children). The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) and the INA barred it from adjudicating the merits of non-citizen removal orders, but not from adjudicating citizen removal orders. The court found that the non-citizen plaintiffs' claims that they were detained through misrepresentations and disregard for policy ultimately challenged detention methods in the execution of removal orders, and so § 1252(g)'s jurisdictional limits applied.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Sept. 4, 2018. On Sept. 18, the defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief and that punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and declaratory relief are not available under the FTCA.

On Aug. 28, 2019, Judge Steve Jones granted the motion to dismiss with regard to plaintiffs' claims for trespass, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress along with the claims for punitive damages, attorney's fees, and declaratory relief. Unable to conclude that removal orders are essentially equivalent to arrest warrants, however, Judge Jones denied the motion to dismiss as to plaintiffs' claim for false imprisonment.

In March 2020, the parties had a dispute about an offer of judgment. The defendants claimed that they made an offer for judgment of $15,000 total while the plaintiffs believed they had accepted an offer of judgment for $15,000 for each of nine plaintiffs. On March 23, Judge Jones directed the clerk to strike plaintiffs' acceptance and the case continued into discovery.

On August 12, 2020, the plaintiffs Y.S.G.R. and J.I.G.R moved the court to approve the disbursement of settlement funds on their behalf. The exact disbursement amount was redacted, but each plaintiff received less than $15,000. The court granted this motion the next day.

Subsequently, the case proceeded in regards to plaintiff J.A.M, although it terminated with respect to the two plaintiffs who accepted the settlement agreement. But on October 13, 2020, the parties reached an agreement. The case was then closed and dismissed with prejudice.