Judge Rules On ‘Families’

PUBLISHED: 5:17 PM 14 Jan 2020

Federal Judge Delivers Ruling Concerning “Family Separations”

It looks as if the ACLU was seeking another nationwide injunction that would hinder the Trump administration from performing its duty to American citizens.

Many of the 'parents' aren't related. (Source: Screenshot Brian Kolfage YouTube)

In July, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claimed that the Trump administration was still separating ‘families’ who try to illegally invade the United States, so they brought a lawsuit to a federal judge in San Diego who had already delivered a favorable nation-wide injunction against the government regarding these illegals.

However, this time around, the ACLU didn’t win.

In a stunning turn of events, U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw found that the government was exercising “discretion” to separate families, without any violation to the “rights of family integrity.”

The move is a win for the president, who has long backed up reports that show a number of the so-called “families” are not related in any way.

The New York Times reported:

In June 2018, Sabraw had ruled that U.S. immigration agents could no longer separate immigrant parents and children [invaders] caught illegally crossing the border from Mexico, and must reunite those families that had been split up in custody.

Back then, the judge had granted ACLU a preliminary injunction in a lawsuit filed over the family separations.

The ruling on Monday added that the court should decline to “second-guess” determinations made by the government that they are exercising “discretion and judgment in a reasonable manner” in their actions.

The ACLU said in a statement it was considering its next move.

“The court strongly reaffirmed that the Trump administration bears the burden if it attempts to separate families based on an accusation that the adult is not the child’s parent,” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said.

“We are evaluating the decision to determine next steps on how to ensure that children are not separated from their parents based on minor infractions.”

Essentially, the judge supported the fact that some ‘parents’ could be designated as unfit or dangerous, or separations could occur  based on other factors like criminal history, communicable diseases and doubts about parentage.

“It is an invitation that is potentially massive in scope, invades an area that is particularly within the province of the executive branch to secure the nation’s border, and goes beyond this court’s class certification and preliminary injunction orders, which were focused on the administration’s practice of separating families at the border for the purpose of deterring immigration, and failing to reunify those families,” Sabraw wrote, according to the AP.