Connect with us

Nebraska

ACLU accuses Omaha court of violating immigrants’ due process in Nebraska, Iowa – Iowa Capital Dispatch

Published

on

ACLU accuses Omaha court of violating immigrants’ due process in Nebraska, Iowa – Iowa Capital Dispatch


LINCOLN, Nebraska — A new report from the ACLU of Nebraska accuses the U.S. Department of Justice immigration court in Omaha of routinely violating due process rights in immigrants’ removal proceedings.

The new report, unveiled Friday, is based on more than 500 pretrial hearings that researchers watched between April and August 2023. A team recorded the process and outcome of each hearing, including its length, whether immigrants were advised of their rights, the language they spoke and whether they had an interpreter or attorney.

The court oversees cases for people living in Nebraska and Iowa.

Dylan Severino, legal fellow for the Nebraska ACLU and the report’s lead author, said federal law guarantees that immigrants receive a full and fair removal hearing.

Advertisement

“What we saw is a far cry from that guarantee,” he said in a statement.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees such immigration courts, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

Rights called an ‘unmovable object’

Dylan Severino is a legal fellow for the ACLU of Nebraska. (Photo courtesy of the ACLU of Nebraska)

About 40% of removal proceedings for the Omaha court include people living in Iowa, according to the ACLU of Iowa. It also said more than 2,600 new proceedings were filed against people living in Iowa in the current fiscal year. Comparable figures were not provided for Nebraska.

Severino said pressures on courts, including growing caseloads and backlogs, should not affect constitutional rights.

Advertisement

“That’s an unmovable object that simply cannot be fringed upon for the sake of expediency,” Severino said at a Friday news conference.

The Nebraska ACLU’s report, produced in partnership with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Legal Decision-Making Lab, presents four takeaways from 534 observed hearings:

  1. The duration of each procedural pretrial hearing was 3.9 minutes.
  2. Judges read immigrants their rights in 18% of observed hearings, often in group settings.
  3. For 32 immigrants whose preferred language was a Central American Indigenous language, such as Mam, Q’anjob’al and K’iche’, 81% did not have an interpreter.
  4. An attorney did not represent an immigrant in 19% of observed hearings.

The ACLU primarily observed non-detained cases before two of the three judges — U.S. Judges Alexandra Larsen and Abby Meyer. Judge Matthew Morrissey primarily presides over cases of detained immigrants, the ACLU said.

The report says 387 hearings before Judge Larsen were observed. They lasted an average of 3.8 minutes, and Larsen didn’t advise 79% of the immigrants of their rights. Of 147 hearings before Judge Meyer, she did not advise 92% of immigrants of their rights, and the hearings lasted an average of 3 minutes.

ACLU’s recommendations

Rose Godinez, Nebraska ACLU legal director, said the report indicates that the immigration system “is not working for anyone” and she hopes federal and state leaders pay attention.

“It is a problem that is shared by all of us, and the solution also depends on all of us,” she said.

Advertisement

Among the ACLU’s recommendations are for the court to advise immigrants of their rights individually before each hearing and provide adequate interpretation services. It also recommends that local or state governments create a program for guaranteed representation.

The ACLU also argues that the immigration courts should be federally restructured as an independent court system from the executive branch, with more immigration judges, who should come from diverse work experiences. Most of the system’s judges are former Immigrations and Customs Enforcement attorneys, including all three in Omaha.

In the meantime, the ACLU states, this “onus of depoliticization” falls on the DOJ.

“In a system that pits immigrants against the government, that bias can be determinative in life-or-death asylum cases,” the ACLU report states.

Severino said the Omaha court isn’t reaching the bar set by constitutional rights. He argued that reforms would help the court become more efficient by preventing retrials and appeals.

Advertisement

“The bottom line is that there needs to be action to address the problems we found and help more people stay in Nebraska and Iowa, put down roots, and continue to strengthen our communities,” Severino said.

Steps during a typical pretrial proceeding

A typical pretrial removal hearing for immigrants, or “Master Calendar Hearing,” is an important step that the attorneys with the ACLU of Nebraska and an immigration attorney said are some of the most important.

The following actions must occur during each immigrant’s pretrial hearing:

  • The immigrant’s case is called for hearing.
  • The judge asks the immigrant to pronounce their name.
  • The judge requests that the immigrant name their attorney, if they have one.
  • The judge advises the immigrant of their rights in the court.
  • An ICE attorney describes allegations against the immigrant.
  • The judge asks the immigrant to deny or admit to each allegation.
  • The judge asks the immigrant to choose a country for deportation.
  • If the immigrant refuses, the country is chosen for them.
  • The judge asks if there are legal reasons the immigrant should not be deported.
  • The judge sets deadlines for the submission of various forms, applications, statements and more.
  • The judge schedules the next pretrial hearing or a final evidentiary hearing (known as a trial or “Individual Calendar Hearing”) to decide the case.

“There is no possible way to do all of that in four minutes.” — Rose Godinez, Nebraska ACLU legal director.

Advertisement

This story was originally published  by Nebraska Examiner, which is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nebraska Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Cate Folsom for questions: [email protected]. Follow Nebraska Examiner on Facebook and Twitter.





Source link

Nebraska

Nebraska Court of Appeals upholds conviction of Grand Island man in sexual assault case

Published

on

Nebraska Court of Appeals upholds conviction of Grand Island man in sexual assault case


The Nebraska Court of Appeals has affirmed the conviction and sentencing of a Grand Island man charged with sexually assaulting a minor.

Cory Gilmore was sentenced in June to 36 to 48 years in prison on two counts of first-degree sexual assault. Court records said he was initially charged with first-degree sexual assault of a child, first-degree sexual assault and third-degree sexual assault of a child, but pleaded no contest to the two sexual assault counts as part of a plea deal.

According to an arrest affidavit, a report of a possible sexual assault came into the child abuse hotline that Gilmore sexually assaulted a minor girl when he was intoxicated.

A Grand Island police officer later interviewed the girl – who is younger than 19 years old – who said she was sexually assaulted by Gilmore from early 2021 to December 2023.

Advertisement

In his appeal, Gilmore claimed the District Court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. He also claimed his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to take the deposition of the alleged victim and failing to move to withdraw Gilmore’s plea before sentencing.

In its ruling, the Court of Appeals denied Gilmore’s claim of ineffective trial counsel. In his appeal, Gilmore said that at sentencing, he notified his counsel that he wished to withdraw his no-contest plea as he didn’t want to plead guilty or to say he did something he didn’t do.

The Court of Appeals said that at no point did Gilmore inform the District Court that he wished to withdraw his plea and that the District Court asked him if he made his plea “knowingly and voluntarily.”

The Court of Appeals also said in its order that at Gilmore’s sentencing hearing, the District Court looked at Gilmore’s risk to reoffend, his criminal history and the fact that he “showed no remorse for the trauma he has inflicted” in imposing its sentencing. The Court of Appeals said this was appropriate and that his sentencing was not excessive.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Nebraska

Nebraska collects $200k in child support from gambling winnings

Published

on

Nebraska collects 0k in child support from gambling winnings


LINCOLN, Neb. (KOLN) – The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services has collected more than $200,000 from gambling winnings to go toward child support arrears just three months after implementing the program.

The Gambling Winnings Setoff for Outstanding Debt Act was approved through the passage of Legislative Bill 1317 and signed by Gov. Jim Pillen in 2024.

“This program ensures funds are being used to help support kids across Nebraska,” said Gov. Pillen. “Parents have an obligation to their children, and we’re guaranteeing their well-being by collecting these winnings.”

The collections began Sept. 2, 2025. The act requires gaming operators to withhold a portion of winnings from individuals who have an unpaid debt with the state and remit the funds to the Department of Revenue.

Advertisement

From there, the collected funds are distributed to various agencies, including DOR, Department of Labor, Department of Motor Vehicles, and DHHS.

Within the first 13 weeks, $529,091.47 was dispersed to these agencies, with DHHS receiving $215,852.98 for the Child Support Enforcement Program.

“By administering these dollars directly to families, the Child Support Enforcement Program is setting our state’s children up for success,” said Shannon Grotrian, director of the Office of Economic Assistance. “It’s making an immediate impact on their livelihoods and making sure they have what they need to grow and thrive.”

For more information on Nebraska’s Child Support Program, visit the DHHS website.

Click here to subscribe to our 10/11 NOW daily digest and breaking news alerts delivered straight to your email inbox.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Nebraska

Big Ten basketball power rankings: Look out for Nebraska

Published

on

Big Ten basketball power rankings: Look out for Nebraska


Another week of college basketball action saw significant movement in the Big Ten Conference. Out of nowhere, the Nebraska Cornhuskers are 11-0 to start the season and are quickly ascending the national rankings. They dominated the Wisconsin Badgers on Wednesday night, handing Greg Gard the most lopsided loss of his coaching career.

Along with Nebraska, Michigan, Purdue, Michigan State and UCLA are tied atop the conference standings at 2-0. That top group will likely remain consistent over the next few weeks before the Big Ten schedule intensifies in early January.

As we enter the final stretch of nonconference play, here is an updated snapshot of the full conference power rankings. Michigan remains the leader.

Updated Big Ten Basketball Power Rankings (Dec. 15)

  1. Michigan Wolverines (10-0, 2-0 Big Ten; No. 1 in KenPom) — No change
  2. Purdue Boilermakers (10-1, 2-0 Big Ten; No. 6 in KenPom) — No change
  3. Michigan State Spartans (9-1, 2-0 Big Ten; No. 12 in KenPom) — No change
  4. Illinois Fighting Illini (8-3, 1-1 Big Ten; No. 14 in KenPom) — No change
  5. Nebraska Cornhuskers (11-0, 2-0 Big Ten; No. 21 in KenPom) — Up 6
  6. Iowa Hawkeyes (9-2, 1-1 Big Ten; No. 20 in KenPom) — No change
  7. USC Trojans (10-1, 1-1 Big Ten; No. 38 in KenPom) — No change
  8. Indiana Hoosiers (8-3, 1-1 Big Ten; No. 26 in KenPom) — Up 2
  9. Wisconsin Badgers (7-3, 1-1 Big Ten; No. 37 in KenPom) — Down 4
  10. Ohio State Buckeyes (8-2, 1-1 Big Ten; No. 39 in KenPom) — Down 1
  11. UCLA Bruins (7-3, 2-0 Big Ten; No. 31 in KenPom) — Down 3
  12. Washington Huskies (7-3, 1-1 Big Ten; No. 48 in KenPom) — No change
  13. Northwestern Wildcats (6-4, 0-2 Big Ten; No. 58 in KenPom) — Up 1
  14. Oregon Ducks (5-5, 0-2 Big Ten; No. 84 in KenPom) — Up 3
  15. Maryland Terrapins (6-5, 0-2 Big Ten; No. 100 in KenPom) — No change
  16. Minnesota Golden Gophers (6-5, 1-1 Big Ten; No. 108 in KenPom) — No change
  17. Penn State Nittany Lions (8-3, 0-2 Big Ten; No. 107 in KenPom) — Down 4
  18. Rutgers Scarlet Knights (5-6, 0-2 Big Ten; No. 147 in KenPom) — No change

Contact/Follow @TheBadgersWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Wisconsin Badgers news, notes and opinion





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending