White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller’s call for Homeland Security to arrest 3,000 unauthorized immigrants a day took center stage at a federal appeals court Monday, where the judges speculated that his demand may have pressured agents to launch an unconstitutional dragnet for migrants in the Los Angeles area.
Three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals demanded the government explain whether it has a 3,000-per-day policy and, if so, what that entails exactly.
“I’m just trying to understand what would motivate the officers who did the roundup of aliens here to grab such a large number of people so quickly,” said Judge Ronald Gould, a Clinton appointee.
His two colleagues, also Democratic appointees, said they, too, were concerned about the 3,000-per-day figure as part of a broader case challenging the L.A.-area arrests. A lower-court judge has said they violate the 4th Amendment because they seemed to sweep up people based on their appearance and language.
Jacob Roth, the Justice Department’s lawyer, said he didn’t think that played a role.
“Not to my knowledge, your honor,” he said.
Judge Gould told him to “determine that” and let the judges know.
Mr. Miller reportedly issued his directive to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in May, after ICE was falling well short of the mass deportations the White House had hoped for.
At that point, ICE was averaging about 870 arrests and 815 deportations a day.
After Mr. Miller’s demand, ICE in early June began a major operation in the L.A. area, sparking protests and riots that President Trump cooled by federalizing and deploying the National Guard.
Those arrests helped boost ICE’s numbers to nearly 1,200 arrests and 1,120 deportations a day in early June. The arrest numbers have since dipped back below 1,000, though deportation numbers remained steady through mid-July.
Mr. Miller’s orders arose as the judges sparred with Mr. Roth over whether the government had an official policy that may have pushed it to make unconstitutional arrests.
“It appears they are randomly selecting Home Depots where people are standing looking for jobs,” said Judge Marsha Berzon, a Clinton appointee to the court, citing statements and news articles immigration groups had presented to the lower court judge.
Mr. Roth disputed those accounts, saying it wasn’t clear what was going on. He said the lower court judge should have slowed down and given all sides more time to flesh out the facts before issuing a broad restraining order accusing the government of violating the Constitution.
“We have to look at it in the context of a particular set of facts,” he said.
He said in one case, where the government was able to run down the facts — arrests at a bus stop, the action was justified.
“The court was wrong about that one. It was a targeted operation,” Mr. Roth said. “It was based on particular intelligence about that location.”
Judge Berzon was not convinced, saying that even that information was too general.