Litigation Relating To ICE Raids At Swift Meat Packing Plants
This information regarding litigation relating to ICE raids at Swift meat packing plants is from the AILF Web site:
On December 12, 2006, ICE officials arrested 1,282 noncitizen workers on administrative immigration violations at Swift meat packing plants around the country. Sixty-five individuals also have been charged with criminal violations related to identity theft or other violations, such as re-entry after deportation. ICE raided six Swift plants located in Greeley, Colorado; Grand Island, Nebraska; Cactus, Texas; Hyrum, Utah; Marshalltown, Iowa; and Worthington, Minnesota. ICE did not bring charges against Swift officials during the raids. This Litigation Clearinghouse Issue Page provides information about the federal court litigation related to the raids.
Developments
- Swift Employees File RICO Suit for Damages
- Union Brings Suit after Swift Raids
- Court Denies Preliminary Injunction to Stop Raids
Swift Employees File RICO Suit for Damages
Valenzuela v. Swift, No. 06-CV-2322 (N.D. Tex. filed Dec. 15, 2006)
On December 15, 2006, only three days after the raids on Swift factories, eighteen Swift employees filed a civil suit against Swift. The complaint alleges that Swift hired undocumented workers in an attempt to "illegally depress and artificially lower" the wages of its employees. The plaintiffs, who had the "legal right" to work at Swift, are suing for damages. The suit alleges that Swift's actions violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Union Brings Suit After Swift Raids
Yarrito v. Meyers, No. 06-CV-2494 (D. Colo. filed Dec. 13, 2006)
On December 13, the United Food & Commercial Workers Union filed a petition for habeas corpus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of Swift employees detained during the raids. Plaintiffs' suit alleges that the Department of Homeland Security's conduct in carrying out the Swift plant raids violated and continues to violate the detained Plaintiffs' right to be free from arbitrary prolonged and indefinite detention. Plaintiffs also claim that DHS violated their right to counsel by denying them access to counsel and any means to obtain counsel in a prompt and effective manner. The day the suit was filed, United States District Judge John Kane signed an Order to Show Cause why the Petitioners' Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus should not be granted. In the Order to Show Cause, the court ordered that the habeas applicants remain in custody and within the jurisdiction of the court until further order from the court.
DHS' December 18, 2006 response to the Order to Show Cause outlined the purpose of the raid. According DHS, the "worksite enforcement action" was in response to an ICE investigation that revealed that a large number of workers at Swift's Greeley, Colorado compound were in the United States illegally and had obtained employment by stealing the identities of United States citizens and lawful permanent residents. DHS says that the "enforcement action" took place in a calm orderly fashion and that no Swift employees requested counsel. DHS also claims that the court lacks jurisdiction to grant the writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, DHS asserts that the union does not have standing as next friend, and because applicants and the Union have failed to exhaust administrative remedies. In addition, DHS asserts that Petitioners fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the government provided applicants with the requisite due process protections.
Court Denies Preliminary Injunction to Stop Raids
Swift v. ICE, No. 06-CV-314 (N.D. Tex. filed Nov. 28, 2006)
On November 28, 2006, Swift filed a complaint seeking judicial review of ICE's planned shut down of six of Swift's plants and the "mass removal" of suspected undocumented workers. The complaint alleges that ICE's plan "would have a direct impact on many legal workers, as well as suspected illegal workers, and would irreparably harm Swift by interfering with its legal business operations and by damaging its reputation." The complaint also outlines Swift's efforts to cooperate with ICE investigations and comply with the INA. The court held a closed hearing on December 6, 2006 to consider Swift's request for a preliminary injunction. On December 7, 2006, the court issued an order denying the preliminary injunction. The court concluded that it was unlikely that Swift would succeed on the merits of the case and that an injunction would impede ICE enforcement activities and would be contrary to the public interest. Upon the parties' stipulation, the court dismissed the case on December 14, 2006.
