From the Women’s Law Project (http://www.womenslawproject.org/):
When it comes to their conditions of confinement, immigrant detainees have the same constitutional rights as non-immigrant pretrial detainees, per a new ruling in a case that arose after an employee of Berks Family Residential Center was convicted of sexually assaulting a teen mother detainee.
In short, the US. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected the arguments of facility authorities and staff who knew of the ongoing sexual abuse that they were not liable because immigrant detainees accused of no wrongdoing had fewer rights than non-immigrant pretrial detainees.
“We applaud the court for allowing this case to go to trial, so that Berks County Residential Center and its employees can be held accountable for the sexually abusive conditions they allowed at this immigration detention facility,” says WLP attorney Margaret Zhang, who co-authored an amicus brief filed by Women’s Law Project and partner organizations in November supporting E.D. and outlining why the facility should be held accountable for employees sexually assaulting detainees.
Berks Family Residential Center is one of three facilities managed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the purpose of long-term detainment of families seeking asylum or awaiting deportation.
The young woman, E.D., is a Honduran asylum seeker and domestic abuse survivor who was detained at the Center with her toddler son. She was 19 years old when she was repeatedly assaulted by Daniel Sharkey, a Center employee with custodial duties over the immigration detainees.
Represented by the Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project, E.D. sued Berks County (which represents the Center) and staff who knew about her abuse and failed to protect her from sexual violence.
In response, Berks Family Residential Center argued they should not be liable because E.D. was an immigration detainee and not technically a prisoner and because E.D.’s assailant used threats—including frequent threats of deportation–and coercion rather than physical force to assault her.
The Ruling: What It Means for the Rights of Detained Immigrants
This decision, which you can read here, confirms some key protections for women and immigrants. When it comes to their conditions of confinement, immigrant detainees have the same constitutional rights as non-immigrant pretrial detainees. The law makes no distinction based on a detainee’s immigrant status.
This decision also clearly established that sexual assault by a state employee while detained is a violation of the detainee’s constitutional rights. The Court’s conclusion finds support in the fact that all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government all make it a crime for correctional facility staff to have sexual contact with inmates and detainees under their care.
It also means sexual assault of a detainee can violate her constitutional rights, even if the state employee or detention facility claims that she consented. Indeed, in conditions of confinement—as we argued in our brief–the inherent power inequities mean that detainees often cannot meaningfully consent.
What’s Next
Unless the court of appeals takes further action on E.D.’s case, it will return to federal district court for trial and other judicial proceedings. E.D. will then have the opportunity, finally, to hold the Center and its staff responsible for the sexual assault and abuse she experienced.
Meanwhile, recent data shows that there were 1448 allegations of sexual abuse filed with ICE between 2012 and March 2018.
Just last week, Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale announced he will review the Berks County Residential Center’s treatment of its detainees. He expects to release his report later this year.
Leave a Reply