First Amendment Protections for Detained Organizers

Abstract

Immigration detention is one of the most active sites of struggle for justice in the United States, and the First Amendment may be an underutilized tool in the movement to abolish immigration detention. When people detained by ICE organize against the unjust conditions they endure, they routinely experience repression and retaliation for their speech. While some of ICE’s retaliation against detained organizers is patently unlawful—such as when detention officials beat up individuals to silence them—much of the retaliation against detained organizers is sanctioned under legal standards that ICE is bound to uphold. This Comment takes aim at these legal standards, charting potential litigation to remedy not only individual acts of retaliation but also the underlying legal bases for ICE’s pattern of unconstitutional retaliatory conduct. The Comment details the history of ICE’s frequent retaliation against detained people who organize for change, identifies an urgent need to protect their speech, analyzes to what degree courts may afford detained immigrants First Amendment rights, and coins a “carceral plus” standard that courts should apply to immigration detention that rises above the constitutional protections given to people incarcerated in the criminal-legal system given the penological interests analyzed in the criminal system are not applicable to the immigration detention system and have been incorrectly applied to immigration detention. Finally, a framework for litigation is presented with multiple legal vehicles and arguments for relief along with solutions for common hurdles to such litigation.

About the Author

J.D. David J. Epstein Program in Public Interest Law and Policy, UCLA School of Law 2024. Litigation Fellow at the Social Justice Legal Foundation in Los Angeles, California. The idea for this Comment originally arose during my summer at Innovation Law Lab when attorneys and organizers were speaking about ICE’s retaliation against detained organizers and Stephen Manning asked the question: “Isn’t this a clear First Amendment violation?” I sincerely appreciate my time at Law Lab, which provided the basis for this Comment, and for all the beautiful people at the Boston Immigrant Justice Accompaniment Network who showed me that community can break down the harsh restraints of the law. A thousand thanks to Ahilan Arulanantham for his mentorship and insightful edits throughout this whole process. I’ve also appreciated the wisdom of Ranjana Natarajan and Sejal Zota, who helped refine the direction of this project. Sincere gratitude to the student editors at UCLA Law Review and especially to Alex Statman, whose careful and thoughtful edits were greatly appreciated. Most importantly, this scholarship is nothing without the bravery of detained organizers who show us we can build a world without immigration detention. Specifically, I want to send all my appreciation to those brave men detained at the (thankfully now defunct) Bristol County ICE Detention Unit, who resisted the tyranny of Sheriff Hodgson and opened my eyes to the promise and possibility of organizing and direct action inside of immigration detention.

By LRIRE