Add a federal appeals court to those criticizing how the government handled the March arrest of 361 immigrant workers at a New Bedford leather-goods factory.
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit said yesterday that the raid by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which drew widespread public criticism for separating parents from children, was "ham-handed" and seemed callous.
The appeals court nonetheless upheld a May ruling by US District Judge Richard G. Stearns dismissing a civil lawsuit on behalf of the immigrants, who sought to be returned from Texas detention centers where they were held after their arrests to await deportation.
Although he was disappointed that the court upheld Stearns's ruling, a lawyer for the detainees was pleased by the language in the decision. The ruling occurred only days after the immigration enforcement agency issued new guidelines for conducting such raids.
"The government may try to cast this as a legal victory," said Harvey Kaplan, one of several lawyers for the detainees. "But we feel this is an acknowledgment that they acted in an inhumane manner."
Paula Grenier, a spokeswoman for ICE's Boston office, said the agency was reviewing the decision and had no immediate comment.
The agency raided the Michael Bianco Inc. factory on March 6 and arrested suspected illegal immigrant workers, many of whom were from Guatemala and most of whom were women. They were flown to Texas, and many were unable to contact family members or lawyers, according to their lawyers.
A study released last month by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank, showed that many children whose parents are arrested in immigration raids face mental health problems.
The appeals court said Stearns correctly ruled that the Massachusetts district court had no authority to intervene in the case.
In its 48-page decision, the appeals court held that "undocumented workers, like all persons who are on American soil, have certain inalienable rights." But the court said Congress has adopted laws governing those rights and judges must follow them regardless of "whether a court approves or disapproves of an agency's modus operandi."
The appeals court did add, however, that it hopes ICE views the raid as a "learning experience in order to devise better, less ham-handed ways of carrying out its important responsibilities."
Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at jsaltzman@globe.com.
