Impact litigation
One of the tools we use to push for systemic change is impact litigation, which is the strategic process of selecting and pursuing legal actions to achieve far-reaching and lasting effects.
You can read about some of our ongoing impact litigation work below. Key partners in this work are American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maine and University of Maine School of Law’s Refugee and Human Rights Clinic (RHRC).
Current cases
American Civil Liberties Foundation of Maine vs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
The Boston Asylum Office is at the center of immigration in New England, processing claims for refugees in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and Maine. From 2015 to 2020, the Boston Asylum Office approved a mere 15 percent of asylum applications compared to the national approval rate at 28 percent. The approval rate in Boston plummeted to 11 percent in 2021, while the national average remained at 27 percent.
Important dates and documents:
July 2019 - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed after immigration advocates at the RHRC and ILAP witnessed a marked decrease in asylum approvals from the Boston Asylum Office, especially for applicants from central African countries.
November 2020 - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed following the government’s lack of response to the initial FOIA request, compelling the release of documentation about how they assess asylum applications.
March 2022 - Lives in Limbo: How the Boston Asylum Office Fails Asylum Seekers report released by analyzing documents and data received from the FOIA lawsuit, as well as hours of interviews with asylees, asylum seekers, former asylum officers and immigration attorneys.
The report, drafted by law students in Maine Law’s Refugee and Human Rights Clinic in collaboration with the ACLU of Maine, ILAP and Dr. Basileus Zeno, finds the Boston Asylum Office fosters a culture of distrust toward asylum seekers, which violates their due process rights and the United States’ legal obligations under international and domestic law. It also highlights evidence of national origin and language bias, as asylum seekers from countries in Africa and the Middle East and those who do not speak English are less likely to be granted asylum.
June 2022 - Letter from Senators Warren and Markey and Representatives McGovern, Auchincloss, Pingree, Trahan, Pressley, and Clark submitted to the Department of Homeland Security Inspector General calling for an immediate investigation into the Boston Asylum Office’s low approval rates and discriminatory practices.
October 2022 - Letter from 40+ organizations and law firms sent to New England members of Congress calling on them to directly engage with the office of USCIS Director Jaddou to request information and plans to address bias and lack of access to asylum at the Boston Asylum Office.
Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project et al. vs. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
During the COVID-19 public health emergency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) used Cumberland County Jail as a short-term detention facility for immigrants from other New England states to facilitate their transfer to southern states. These unnecessary transfers subjected people in ICE custody to dangerous and unhygienic conditions during travel and in the destination facilities, and violated ICE’s own pandemic response policy. At the same time, ICE proceeded with plans to open a new detention facility in Scarborough, with little transparency and consultation of local representatives and residents.
Important dates and documents:
January 2021 - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed for information about its detention and transfer activities in Maine
March 2021 - Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed to compel the release of documents related to the ICE detention facility in Scarborough and ICE’s practice of holding immigrant detainees from other New England states at the Cumberland County Jail.
April 2023 - A federal judge ordered ICE to conduct a new search of the agency’s records and to release items related to their detention practices in Maine and a proposed facility in Scarborough, adopting the recommended decision issued by a magistrate judge. The court also stated that ICE acted unreasonably when the agency conducted an inadequate initial search following the lawsuit.
“The district court’s final decision is a victory for transparency that will shed more light on ICE, an agency that operates in the shadows and evades public accountability,” said ACLU of Maine Legal Director Carol Garvan. “The court’s action makes clear that federal agencies like ICE have no right to operate in Maine without allowing the public to know what they are doing. ICE has a long history of abusing its power, physically and psychologically harming people, and rejecting basic standards of human decency. When we know what ICE is doing, we can resist its abuses.”
