Judge OKs Rules Requiring Lawyers for INS Arrestees

A federal judge in Los Angeles gave final approval Thursday to settlement of a 14-year-old lawsuit that immigration rights advocates said will strengthen the rights of people arrested by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

“We are extremely pleased,” said Peter A. Schey, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs. “The settlement will protect the right to consult with counsel, a critically important right to people arrested by the INS who are generally unfamiliar with this country’s complex immigration laws.”

Thursday’s approval concluded a settlement negotiation that nearly came unraveled after government officials objected to the way that Schey and other immigration rights advocates characterized the tentative agreement reached in June. Some advocates called the settlement “landmark” or “historic,” while government lawyers said that misrepresented the scope of the deal.

U.S. District Judge Matt Byrne, who heard the case, said it was the first time he had seen the government take such a tack in trying to back out of a settlement.

Under the final agreement, INS arrestees will receive a new form outlining their rights. Detainees will be told they have a right to meet with a lawyer during questioning by INS agents. If an arrestee prefers to be questioned with a lawyer present, the INS will be allowed to ask only a short list of “booking” questions--the arrestee’s name, address, age and other routine queries. The interrogation must then be delayed for two hours to allow the arrestee time to call a lawyer and seek advice.

Although immigration rights advocates called those developments significant gains in the rights of people arrested by the INS, the government had contended that the agreement merely codifies existing practices and makes few, if any, major changes.

According to the government, the statements by lawyers for the other side that the tentative agreement was a “landmark” case exaggerated may have misled members of the class-action suit into believing that they were getting a better deal than they had won.

As a result, government lawyers asked Byrne to reject the agreement that they had signed two months ago.

Byrne challenged the government’s lawyer, Steven Valentine, to produce court decisions that backed up his position that the settlement had been rendered invalid by comments of lawyers for the other side. Under sharp questioning from Byrne, Valentine admitted that he had no such examples.

Byrne, who sharply rebuked Valentine on several occasions during the brief hearing, suggested that the government was trying to get out of the deal because of the publicity it had received.

The agreement will apply for 30 months, but Schey and others said they were hopeful that once the new procedures are implemented, the government may keep them after the settlement expires. The government also agreed to pay $200,000 in legal fees.