US Marshalls Accused Of Not Serving Court Orders About Immigration Ban

Ianus · 02-02-2017, 06:11 AM

It never crossed my mind that our President might be trying to consolidate more power until another respected member mentioned it. I thought it was simply a stark difference in ideology. However, this article is an eye-opener.

Quote:

As I've mentioned before, questions of whether Trump administration officials ignored court orders about the immigration ban are deeply troubling. The courts are often the last resort and hope for people whose lack of resources and power puts them at a dangerous disadvantage when majority factions and even governments want to remove property, rights, and hope.

Reports that some agents of Customs and Border Patrol would not obey temporary restraining orders issued by multiple federal judges show how even legal actions by a fundamental branch of government can be swept aside. New developments from the last few days suggest that the problem went even deeper.

A group of lawyers volunteering their time to help people at Los Angeles International Airport affected by Trump's immigration orders claim the local U.S. Marshal's office had failed to serve relevant court orders to Customs and Border Patrol officers at Los Angeles International Airport. Statements I've received from the Marshal's Service and the Department of Justice do not deny the charges.

Here is the bulk of the statement from the lawyers:

Quote:

These attorneys are demanding that the U.S. Marshal’s office comply with its statutory obligation under 28 U.S.C. 566(c) to serve civil federal orders on the CBP Port Director at Los Angeles International Airport. The Marshal’s office has so far failed to serve process and instead represents that it has been instructed by its Office of the General Counsel to await instruction from the U.S. Attorney’s office. Over the weekend, California Central District Court (CACD) Judge Dolly Gee granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) (which was amended and corrected this morning) and this is another of the documents that has yet to be served on the CBP.

The purpose of service of process of these documents is to ensure that CBP complies with federal judicial orders in effect. Specifically, at LAX it is imperative that the named Respondent in the CACD TRO is allowed to return and be admitted to the United States after he was refused admission to the US over the weekend and returned to Dubai en route to Iran. Additionally, the service of the Orders would ensure that the CBP is enjoined from removing refugees, holders of immigrant and non-immigrant visas or legal permanent residents from the 7 named countries in the Executive Order.

"I think even having there be resistance to formally acknowledge that the order exists is problematic," Laura Riley, a public interest lawyer and adjunct faculty member at the University of Southern California law school, told me in a phone conversation. "It's not technically necessary for the out of state orders to be personally served on respondents, including the [Customers and Border Protection], but the [temporary restraining order from a federal court in central California] was necessary because at LAX they tried to remove someone to Iran after the New York stay was already issued, which prohibits them from [doing so]. Because that happened, it was important for there to be a formal acknowledgment that the stays were in place."

I contacted both the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Department of Justice. No one would speak on the record. Instead, both sent statements. Here is what the Marshals Service sent:

Quote:

The U.S. Marshals Service will take steps to comply with all federal judicial orders while working with our Executive Branch partners who are implementing the President’s executive orders. The U.S. Marshals Service has a unique mission as the enforcement arm of the federal courts, among other important missions such as fugitive investigations, protection of the federal judiciary, and providing safe, humane care of federal prisoners throughout the judicial process.

And here is the statement from the DoJ:

Quote:

The Department of Justice notified and provided guidance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection and the U.S. Marshal’s Service pursuant to the Jan. 28 decision and order in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and the Jan. 29 temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to assure that officers at U.S. ports of entry are in compliance with the federal judicial orders.

Neither statement addressed the basic issue of marshals refusing to serve a valid court order.

According to 28 U.S. Code § 566, the section of federal law that sets out the powers and duties of marshals, one of the agency's responsibilities is the following:

Quote:

Except as otherwise provided by law or Rule of Procedure, the United States Marshals Service shall execute all lawful writs, process, and orders issued under the authority of the United States, and shall command all necessary assistance to execute its duties.

The lawyers argue that delivering court orders to Customs and Border Protection would be party of the duty.

The Marshal's Service website says the following about "manner of service" of a legal order:

Quote:

Except in forfeiture actions when the United States is the plaintiff, the requesting party may be required to provide an indemnity bond and an advance deposit to cover the U.S. Marshal’s estimated out-of-pocket expenses. Service is accomplished by serving the within-named individual(s) or addressee(s) in person. Unless there is specific enforcement language in the order directed to the U.S. Marshal, the Marshal has no responsibility or authority to assure compliance with the order. If the party served fails to comply with the order, the requesting party or the court may pursue legal action.

Specific language in an order is necessary to assure compliance, but apparently not to assure delivery.

The site does say that the information is general in nature "and not intended to be an exhaustive or definitive explanation or depiction of Federal rules of procedures for the service of process."

However, that the question has even arisen without definitive statements about service of the orders from either the U.S. Marshal's Service or Department of Justice is disturbing.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

January

US Marshalls Accused Of Not Serving Court Orders About Immigration Ban