Lawyers for the government admitted that as of May 23, no cases had been placed with a pro bono attorney, and Sabraw wrote that “the current landscape strongly suggests Defendants’ placement rate, which is presently zero, is not likely to improve.”
Although government lawyers insisted that they would have been able to run the program, they simultaneously argued in court that they were not obligated to offer every service that Acacia had offered.
For example, they argued that the settlement agreement only required them to help with initial applications for parole and work authorization, but not with applications for re-parole, which is necessary every three years.
“It might not look exactly like what Acacia had run previously and it may not be at lightning speed placing class members, but it is sufficient under the settlement agreement, and there was no requirement that an independent contractor facilitate or run this program,” Department of Justice attorney Daniel Schutrum-Boward said in the June 4 hearing.
Gelernt pushed back in court.
“If people don’t get legal advice and they don’t have the ability to have re-parole and get a chance, a meaningful chance, to get asylum, they’re going to be re-separated from their children,” he said.
Attacks on other immigrant services
Earlier this week, the government chose not to renew another contract for services stemming from the settlement, according to Oakland-based Seneca Family of Agencies.
As part of its contract with the government, Seneca had been offering supportive services including behavioral health, medical referrals, housing placement assistance and efforts to track down separated families.
“Reunification alone does not erase the trauma of separation for families,” a statement on the organization’s website said. “A family’s journey toward healing is an ongoing process that is unique to each parent, child, and family, and services must be individualized and responsive to each family’s situation.”
The government wrote in a court filing that it is searching for a new provider of those services “because it has been determined that Seneca has likely violated anti-discrimination civil rights laws through its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion(DEI) program.”
