A federal appeals court is demanding answers about the Trump White House’s effort to set numerical goals for its mass deportation campaign, including the accuracy of news reports suggesting that the administration is seeking to carry out 3,000 deportations per day.
A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel hearing arguments Monday on a lower-court order barring “roving” immigration arrests repeatedly pressed a Justice Department attorney to confirm whether immigration officials have been ordered to carry out 3,000 deportations or deportation arrests a day.
“Is it … a policy of the administration at this time to deport 3,000 persons per day?” asked Judge Ronald Gould, a Clinton appointee.
“Not to my knowledge, your honor,” replied DOJ attorney Yaakov Roth, who urged the court to lift the order focused on surprise immigration enforcement at places like home improvement store parking lots and car washes.
Gould suggested that pressure from superiors to fulfill arbitrary quotas could be prompting Immigration & Customs Enforcement personnel to sweep up throngs of people based on very general conclusions about where undocumented immigrants are likely to gather.
“I’m just trying to understand what would motivate the officers who did the round-up of aliens here to grab such a large number of people so quickly and without marshaling reasonable suspicion to detain,” the judge said.
The answer to the question posed by the panel could carry enormous significance as they weigh whether to maintain a lower-court judge’s decision to bar the administration from resuming large-scale immigration sweeps in the Los Angeles area. U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, a Biden appointee, ruled that the sweeps relied exclusively on factors such as race, ethnicity, language skills and job type to justify arrests, rather than individualized details that a person was in the country illegally.
There seems to be little dispute that the Trump White House set a numerical target, though immigration officials have not echoed the precise number.
“Under President Trump’s leadership, we are looking to set a goal of a minimum of 3,000 arrests for ICE every day,” Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News in May.
Gould, who at one point apologized for being a “one trick pony on this issue,” eventually asked Roth to make a written submission to the court about whether deportation quotas exist. The two other judges on the panel, Clinton appointee Marsha Berzon and Biden appointee Jennifer Sung, also questioned Roth about the policy and agreed with the request for information.
Berzon asked if “a high quota” for officers might support an inference that officers were making immigration arrests without the “reasonable suspicion” required by law.
“I think that might increase the risk of a constitutional violation in a particular case, but I don’t think that alone would be sufficient for an injunction,” Roth replied.
Sung urged the administration to come clean about any quotas, whether for arrests, deportations, stops or otherwise. “Let’s not put too fine a point on things,” she said.
A lawyer for those challenging the immigration sweeps, Mohammad Tajsar, said the quota may not be a direct instruction to officers to act illegally, but it may have that logical result.
“They’re not going to go out and say, ‘Violate the law,’ but there has been a wink and a nod from leadership,” he said.
Roth at one point said the quota referenced by the judges appeared to be drawn from a news article. But when pressed by the judges, he said he would “endeavor” to determine whether such a quota exists.
During the 90-minute arguments conducted by Zoom, the appeals judges did not seem inclined to disturb the temporary restraining order Frimpong issued July 11 in a lawsuit brought by immigrant-rights advocates, individual immigrants and U.S. citizens caught up in the sweeps.
