A United States federal judge has found the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in contempt after the agency failed to promptly comply with a court order requiring it to release digital copies of communications from the mobile phones of more than 800 immigration agents.
The order, which was unsealed on Tuesday, stemmed from a directive issued in January by District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong following immigration enforcement operations carried out in Los Angeles last year.
The plaintiffs argued that the cellphone communications could contain evidence supporting allegations that immigration officers engaged in racial profiling during the raids.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Public Counsel and other immigrant rights organisations also accused some agents of using racial slurs during encounters, maintaining that access to the phone data could strengthen their case.
According to reports, DHS informed the court in June that it was processing digital images from only three phones every two weeks, a pace that would take nearly four years to complete for all the devices involved.
The ACLU argued that the agency had deliberately failed to comply with the court’s directive.
The group alleged that DHS “simply proceeded to thwart” Judge Frimpong’s order “by dragging their feet on imaging government-issued cell phones and by openly defying the order as to personal phones.”
In response, the judge imposed a recurring fine of $500 per day on the agency until it complies with the discovery order. She also directed DHS to cover the legal costs incurred by the plaintiffs due to the delay.
DHS had earlier argued in December that its officers did not use personal phones for official communications. However, testimony from five individuals reportedly contradicted that position.
The agency later claimed in April that it lacked authority over the personal devices, but that argument was rejected by a magistrate judge in July.
In her July 28 ruling, Judge Frimpong said DHS had been given sufficient time to comply with the court’s directive before holding the agency in contempt.
“Given that Plaintiffs have shown by clear and convincing evidence that the Defendants violated a specific and definite order of the court, the burden shifted to Defendants to demonstrate why they were unable to comply,” Frimpong wrote.
“They have failed to do so,” she added.
