BREAKING: Judge Rules in Favor of Trump Admin in ACLU Family Separation Case

U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego, California, who was appointed by George W. Bush, sided with the Trump administration on a “family separation” case brought on by the ACLU.

President Trump has already halted the practice with an executive order on June 20, 2018 with exceptions for cases in which the parent has a criminal record or communicable disease.

The ACLU had claimed that the Trump admin was still continuing the practice.

The judge ruled there was no evidence this was the case.

Last June, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) accused the Trump administration of housing immigrants in concentration camps on the Mexican border and used the phrase “never again” that is associated with the Holocaust.

​”​The United States is running concentration camps on our southern border and that is exactly what they are – they are concentration camps – and if that doesn’t bother you,” Ocasio-Cortez said as she throws up her hands.

Yahoo reports a U.S. federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s ongoing separations of families at the U.S.-Mexico border based on parents’ criminal history or health exclusions are being carried out with proper discretion.

The ruling, by U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw in San Diego, California, on Monday, was a rare victory for the government in a case that has been ongoing since 2018.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) first brought the case over President Donald Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy of criminally prosecuting all border crossers, which led to the separation of hundreds of families and sparked national outrage. Sabraw had ordered the administration to find and reunite separated families.

Trump officially halted the practice with an executive order on June 20, 2018. But the ACLU claimed in court that since then, the government has continued the practice and separated more than 1,000 families in violation of Sabraw’s order.

The government has said it separates families when it suspects the parent has a criminal record, a communicable disease, or when there are questions about the relationship between the adult and the migrant child. It claimed its current practice is no different than prior administrations.

The rights group argued, however, that the administration was taking children from parents when they had only minor infractions like traffic violations or previous illegal border crossings.

Sabraw found government officials were “generally exercising their discretion to separate families at the border” in a manner consistent with migrants’ “rights to family integrity and the Court’s orders.”

The judge added there was no evidence before the court that the government has “returned to systematically separating families at the border.”