A pregnant Mexican mother in Ohio sued the Trump administration this week, arguing that her potential deportation would violate the rights of her U.S. citizen son, a 9-year-old with autism, as well as those of her unborn child.
Carmen G. Guerrero Sandoval, who was reportedly denied asylum five years ago, has been in a state of legal “limbo” since, her lawyer George Katchmer told The Independent. Sandoval was recently ordered to present herself to Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 3.
It’s not 100 percent certain that she will be arrested once she meets with immigration officials, Katchmer said, but Sandoval was inspired to file the suit given the raft of cases of immigration officials detaining migrants at legal appointments.
“People have been showing up to these meetings and being snatched,” Katchmer said.
The suit, filed in Ohio federal court on Monday, argues that any potential removal would infringe on the rights of Sandoval’s children.
Under Ohio law, unborn children are legally considered people, and people in the state can sue if the government interferes with their family relations against the best interest of the child.
Sandoval’s son is currently recognized for special needs accommodations in his Columbus public school, a form of care the complaint says is unavailable in Mexico.
The complaint adds that removing Sandoval would violate her son’s due process rights and amount to unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment, as well as differential treatment of the child based on his ethnicity.
It also raises the question about what rights Sandoval’s unborn child, due in October, has in the situation.
The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering legal challenges to the Trump administration’s attempts to end constitutional protections for birthright citizenship for all those born in the U.S., regardless of their parents’ legal status.
In response to the Ohio suit, the Justice Department pointed to the case of a minor who sued on similar grounds to challenge the removal of his father, a Pakistani green card holder, where administration lawyers say courts struck down the challenge because it would create a “loophole” in immigration law.
