Nebraska
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.
“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’
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.
“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:
- The duration of each procedural pretrial hearing was 3.9 minutes.
- Judges read immigrants their rights in 18% of observed hearings, often in group settings.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Nebraska
Britt Prince scores 20 for No. 25 Nebraska women in 78-73 win over Indiana
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) — Britt Prince scored 20 points and Jessica Petrie added 17 for No. 25 Nebraska in a 78-73 win over Indiana on Thursday night.
Prince, who buried her 700th career point in the fourth quarter, scored 15 of her points in the second half after holding off a late surge from the Hoosiers (11-6, 0-5 Big 10) in the third quarter. Logan Nissley added 11 points.
Indiana went on a 14-1 run in the third to take the lead from Nebraska (14-2, 3-2) for the first time since the beginning of the game, leading briefly at 51-49. Indiana took a 1-point lead with 5:32 to play, but Nebraska scored 16 points over the final 6:14.
Shay Ciezki scored 31 points on 13-of-21 shooting for Indiana, her fourth time this season scoring more than 30 points. Zania Socka-Nguemen added 19 points and 11 rebounds. Maya Makalusky had 12 points. The Hoosiers shot 51% as a team from the field compared to Nebraska’s 42%, but have dropped their fourth straight game.
Up next
Indiana: Hosts No. 14 Iowa on Sunday.
Nebraska: Hosts No. 4 UCLA on Sunday.
___ Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP women’s college basketball: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-womens-college-basketball-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/womens-college-basketball
Nebraska
33 Nebraska senators urge Board of Regents to delay vote on $800M acquisition of Nebraska Medicine
LINCOLN, Neb. (KOLN) – Thirty-two Nebraska state senators joined Sen. Brad von Gillern’s letter calling on the Nebraska Board of Regents to delay a vote on the proposed $800 million acquisition of Nebraska Medicine.
The letter, dated Thursday and bearing a total of 33 signatures from state senators, shared concerns about the proposed acquisition, including the lack of transparency to the public and the Legislature.
According to the letter, the regents’ Jan. 9 meeting agenda item summary indicates that the Board has “negotiated the final agreement over a series of meetings in the past 18 months”.
The regents will consider a proposal in which Clarkson Regional Health Services would give up its 50% membership in Nebraska Medicine. The deal would give full control of the health system to the University of Nebraska.
However, the letter said the public and Legislature have had little time to understand the proposal, its impact and any financial implications of the transaction.
“The University of Nebraska and Nebraska Medicine are two institutions of tremendous significance to our state, and any major changes to the existing structures must be carefully considered,” the letter stated.
Senators are asking the Board to delay the vote to “ensure all viable alternatives have been considered and until all stakeholders understand the impact of the proposal for the state” and the two institutions.
The Board of Regents meeting, previously set for Friday, will now be held Thursday, Jan. 15 at 9 a.m.
Click here to subscribe to our 10/11 NOW daily digest and breaking news alerts delivered straight to your email inbox.
Copyright 2026 KOLN. All rights reserved.
Nebraska
Pillen labels actions “destructive partisanship” as senator responds
-
Detroit, MI6 days ago2 hospitalized after shooting on Lodge Freeway in Detroit
-
Technology3 days agoPower bank feature creep is out of control
-
Dallas, TX4 days agoDefensive coordinator candidates who could improve Cowboys’ brutal secondary in 2026
-
Health5 days agoViral New Year reset routine is helping people adopt healthier habits
-
Iowa3 days agoPat McAfee praises Audi Crooks, plays hype song for Iowa State star
-
Nebraska2 days agoOregon State LB transfer Dexter Foster commits to Nebraska
-
Nebraska3 days agoNebraska-based pizza chain Godfather’s Pizza is set to open a new location in Queen Creek
-
Entertainment2 days agoSpotify digs in on podcasts with new Hollywood studios