Get Informed

Subscribe to our newsletters for regular updates, analysis and context straight to your email.

Close Newsletter Signup

Thousands of ‘Lawyer Moms’ Will Swarm Congress To Fight For Migrant Children

'We have a reaction as mothers to what’s been going on.'

Central American asylum seekers wait as U.S. Border Patrol agents take them into custody on June 12, 2018 near McAllen, Texas.
John Moore/Getty Images

Thousands of ‘Lawyer Moms’ Will Swarm Congress To Fight For Migrant Children

'We have a reaction as mothers to what’s been going on.'


What began as an online support group for lawyers with children has become a mobilizing force for thousands of people planning to bombard congressional offices nationwide on Friday in protest of the federal government’s treatment of migrant children and their parents.

Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, an immigration attorney in Texas, wrote that she recently hit “the lowest moment in [her] career” when she met with an asylum seeker who had been separated from her son under the Trump administration’s new “zero tolerance” policy. According to Lincoln-Goldfinch, the woman had been holding the 5-year-old in her lap when an officer approached and informed her that he would be taking the boy “to the other side.”

My son clung to me and said he didn’t want to leave me,” she told Lincoln-Goldfinch. “The official grabbed him out of my arms and took him away and I just stayed there crying and crying.”

Lincoln-Goldfinch shared her client’s story in a “lawyer moms” online forum and found she was far from alone. The “heart-wrenching” stories these attorneys were hearing from new clients inspired the group to organize, Erin Albanese, an attorney in Washington State, told The Appeal.

Albanese, Lincoln-Goldfinch, and fellow moms decided to confront legislators face to face. They created a separate Lawyer Moms of America Facebook group on June 7 to plan and announce Friday’s Day of Action. Participants plan to drop off letters to demand family reunification and an end to the indefinite detention of migrant children who enter the country.

The online forum was not politically engaged before now. But once the Facebook group was created, the network of lawyer moms and their allies grew exponentially. There are now 15,000 supporters of the Facebook page, and Albanese estimates that roughly 50 percent of the people participating in Friday’s action are lawyers and mothers.

”We have a reaction as mothers to what’s been going on,” Albanese said. “As lawyers, the rights violations and illegality of it all really resonated with us in a different way.”

The action was first envisioned as a protest against the indiscriminate separation of children from their families, which ramped up after the Trump administration announced its zero-tolerance approach to prosecuting undocumented immigrants in April. As directed by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, federal prosecutors are to pursue criminal charges against anyone caught attempting to cross the border into the U.S.  The policy has resulted in migrant children, who can’t legally be detained by federal immigration officials, being torn away from loved ones.

Now, organizers are expanding the scope of Friday’s event to protest the potential incarceration of migrant children under a “temporary detention policy” outlined in an executive order signed by President Trump last week. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to keep migrant children and parents locked up together. Detained children, including those separated from their families and ones who crossed the border as unaccompanied minors, have already been kept in tents in scorching hot weather, injected with psychotropic drugs against their will, and beaten and berated.

”It’s an issue that’s pretty universal,” Albanese said of the separations. Trump’s executive order did little to assuage the group’s concerns. “[It] appears to provide for migrant families to be detained together indefinitely, essentially creating internment camps,” Albanese said. The order also fails to address the plight of children who have already been separated, as Trump has punted the responsibility of coming up with a reunification plan to Congress.  

Until that happens, children will continue to suffer in detention and flounder during court proceedings, said Minda Thorward, another Lawyer Moms of America organizer based in Washington State. Thorward, who also practices immigration law, said stories of children holding on to drawings of their loved ones resonated with her. “These are people who are already fleeing horrible conditions: domestic violence, gang violence, even just abject poverty. Not having children with their parents just compounds that trauma,” she told The Appeal.

Emotional trauma is not the only consequence of separating children from their parents, Thorward said. Immigration court does not guarantee the right to counsel, which means young people—including babiesmust somehow represent themselves in complex interrogation over why their families left their homes.

“Are they part of a particular social group? Where is a safe place in their country [where] they could live? Did they try to go to the police in order to get protection? None of that is articulable by a 3-year-old or even a 6-year-old,” Thorward said.

The results of this breakdown are already becoming clear. Sitting before a judge last week, a 3-year-old boy in El Paso reportedly stared at a picture book and responded “¡Es un avión!”—It’s a plane!—when asked for his name.

According to Albanese, demanding that members of Congress reunify and assist migrant children is just the starting point for the newly politicized Lawyer Moms of America. The group has already created a list of resources and possible actions for supporters to take, such as calling their governors to pull the National Guard from the border or pressuring state attorneys general to sign on to federal lawsuits against the latest detention orders. Individual lawyer moms have also protested outside detention centers alongside immigration rights organizations. But future political engagement will largely depend on what Congress does.  

“Our goal is to end family separations and indefinite detentions and to reunite the families. Until that is happening, we’ll keep finding ways to raise our voices,” Albanese said. “We’re gonna hold their feet to the fire.”  

A Massachusetts District Attorney Tries To Crown His Successor

In the Berkshire County DA race, the establishment is resorting to extreme measures to ensure it maintains power and avoids change.

Departing Berkshire DA Doug Capeless and his interim successor, Paul Caccaviello
Berkshire County District Attorney

A Massachusetts District Attorney Tries To Crown His Successor

In the Berkshire County DA race, the establishment is resorting to extreme measures to ensure it maintains power and avoids change.


Berkshire County, the sparsely populated Massachusetts region abutting New York, should be gearing up for an unusual event in the fall: an open race for the district attorney’s seat. But the departing DA short-circuited that electoral process and anointed his successor through backdoor channels. Emails obtained by The Appeal reveal how the old guard has tried to hold on to power and beat back reformers’ challenge.

On March 1, Berkshire District Attorney David Capeless stepped down after 14 years in office. The resignation was apparently a strategic move to ease the path to election for his hand-picked successor, First Assistant District Attorney Paul Caccaviello, with the help of Governor Charlie Baker.
“I’m taking this step now,” Capeless told reporters at his resignation press conference, “because I want Paul to be able to run as the district attorney, as I did 14 years ago…. I want to thank Governor Baker and Lt. Governor [Karyn] Polito for their careful consideration and confidence that Paul is the right person for the job.”

Running as an incumbent is a huge advantage, said Drew Herzig, an organizer with Indivisible Pittsfield, a local progressive group. Incumbency affords candidates the weight of the office and allows them to draw on existing donor and influence networks — no small feat in the Berkshires, where candidates don’t need a lot of money to be competitive and where reputation and connections can be key to influencing voters.

Emails between Capeless and Baker’s office, reviewed by The Appeal and included below, tell a story of what numerous criminal justice professionals and observers described as an unprecedented level of cooperation between the DA’s office and the Baker administration to handpick the DA.

The handoff appears to have received the governor’s blessing after a meeting on Feb. 7, the emails show. Baker’s chief legal counsel, Lon Povich, coordinated meetings for Capeless and Caccaviello with both Baker and Polito. Capeless sent the governor’s office a timeline for his resignation and Caccaviello’s appointment, the emails show, but Povich was unable to endorse Capeless’s proposed sequence of events until the February meeting.

Capeless told Povich he intentionally took out re-election papers before his March 1 announcement to confuse  local media.

“Still on track,” Capeless reassured Povich of the handoff to Caccaviello, “just stalling.”

Later, Povich provided feedback on Capeless’s resignation letter.

“Glad this is working out,” he wrote.

Capeless said repeatedly in emails to Povich that he was delighted that the transfer of power would ensure Caccaviello had a leg up on the competition in the Democratic primary. To that end, the departing DA presented Povich a proposed timeline that would allow the governor to appoint Caccaviello and give the new DA “ample time to form a campaign committee and gather the necessary signatures to get on the ballot.”

In a brief phone interview, Capeless said that because this was the first time he had resigned from a position, he couldn’t speak to how normal the process was. The former DA said Povich’s edits to Capeless’s resignation letter and the governor’s involvement with Capeless’s resignation timeline was “not unusual” and that he would not discuss the February private meeting.

Caccaviello was unavailable for comment for this article.



A Democrat, Caccaviello will face two progressive challengers in the primary on Sept. 4:  local defense attorneys Andrea Harrington and Judith Knight. Harrington, who was the first to publicly announce her candidacy, entered the race with an existing political machine that was ready to go after an unsuccessful state Senate bid in 2016. She told The Appeal she plans to pursue a different approach to criminal justice.

“This is a really important race for the future of Berkshire County,” Harrington said. “It’s an opportunity to move into the future with a DA using evidence-based programs that address the root causes of why people get involved in the criminal justice system.”

Restorative justice, an approach to crime that seeks to rehabilitate and repair harm rather than punish, is gaining in popularity in the country. Harrington hopes to pursue these ideals in her DA office, she said. She wants to create a citizens’ advisory board to hold her office accountable and to get input from the community for what crimes to prioritize. As DA, Harrington said, she would work to ensure not only that people who have been in and out of the criminal justice system have a chance to rehabilitate themselves without facing unfair incarceration, but also that people just entering the system have the opportunity to keep their mistakes off their permanent record.

While it’s an idea of criminal justice that might have been out of place in decades past — especially after the “tough on crime” legislation of the Reagan era — today Americans are more amenable to restorative justice and alternatives to punitive incarceration.

“The conversation over crime has been fear-based; to be a DA, you must run on being ‘tough on crime,'” said Harrington. “Now, I think because of the opioid crisis, the conversation has opened up and all people are seeing what communities of color have known for a long time: The system doesn’t work.”

It’s a theme that has become more prevalent as liberal candidates join the criminal justice system—most famously in the last year with the election of District Attorney Larry Krasner in Philadelphia.

“I was very inspired by Krasner,” Harrington said. “I look forward to working on specific policies like ending mandatory minimums, limiting fines and fees for the indigent, ending overcharging for nonviolent offenses, and diversion programs that shift resources from incarceration to programs that address underlying causes leading to criminal conduct.”

Along with the already established Berkshire County Drug Court, Harrington wants to pour resources into diversionary programs for established and new offenders. To do that, the DA’s office under Harrington would choose not to prosecute certain crimes if the defendants seek treatment and therapy.

The prospect of change, Harrington believes, scares the DA’s office. Capeless’s office has long had a reputation in the commonwealth for being particularly draconian and harsh. Locally, the former DA is known for his zealous pursuit of drug crimes: In one instance, he tried repeatedly to use school zone charges against one teenager over a decade ago. Capeless has also railed against marijuana legalization and opposed the creation of an alternative drug court.

Harrington sees the power transfer between Capeless and Caccaviello as evidence that the office is afraid of a real debate on the issue of criminal justice and fears being held accountable by the public.

“The fact that they will go to these lengths to avoid a contested election where the community is looking to have these important conversations on criminal justice just says they are afraid of that conversation,” said Harrington. “And I think they have good reason to be afraid.”

Rahsann Hall, director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts’ Racial Justice Program, said the handoff is especially “disturbing” because of its impact on the democratic process. The power transfer in the Berkshires adds to the public’s misconceptions about the office, he added. In fact, an ACLU of Massachusetts poll found that 38 percent of state residents don’t even know DAs are elected.

Massachusetts has one of the lowest incarceration rates in the nation, Hall said. But that disguises an ugly truth: The commonwealth has one of the highest racial disparities in incarcerated people and a high rate of recidivism.

“This suggests that the system, as it functions now, does not work,” said Hall, “at least not in a way that promotes healthy and happy communities.”

With all the discussion around mass incarceration and the recent passage of criminal justice reform in Massachusetts, Hall said, choosing the right DA is more important than ever—though he made clear that he was not endorsing any candidate either personally or officially.

“The most significant player in the criminal justice system that has most power is the DA,” Hall said.

DAs have control over prosecution decisions, said Harrington, and that should lead to more fair and just outcomes. But Caccaviello’s office and the office of his predecessor haven’t taken advantage of that discretion. Rather, the policy of the office is that their role is solely to enforce the law, and that’s a position that Harrington disagrees with vehemently.

“The reason we have an elected DA is because the DA is supposed to be the conscience of the community,” she said. “The fact that we have a DA that doesn’t understand that should trouble people.”

More in Explainers

What's at stake in tomorrow's highly consequential local elections

What's at stake in tomorrow's highly consequential local elections


Welcome to The Appeal: Political Report

District attorneys, sheriffs, and other law enforcement officials wield immense power over the criminal justice system. A series of paradigm-shifting victories for candidates championing significant reform has reshaped district attorney and sheriff elections, and issues relating to mass incarceration, police misconduct, and immigration enforcement have grown more salient in many other types of races as well.

In The Appeal: Political Report, I will highlight often-overlooked but highly consequential local elections, drawing out their stakes, contrasts, and repercussions. My hope is to make this newsletter a useful platform for anyone looking for a succinct but systematic overview of our fragmented local landscapes—and I’ll link to additional resources for those looking to delve deeper.

Today, I’ll be exploring a series of competitive primaries taking place tomorrow, June 26. These races have elicited some meaningful disagreements between candidates on issues such as immigration detentions, police brutality, and cash bail reform.

  • District Attorney of Boulder County, Colorado

  • Sheriff of El Paso County, Colorado

  • State’s Attorney of Prince George’s County, Maryland

  • State’s Attorney of Baltimore City, Maryland

  • District Attorney of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

  • Congressional quick hits from New York

I’ll lay out results in the newsletter’s next edition. In the meantime, you can find out the outcome of each election I discuss below as soon as it is known (no earlier than the night of Tuesday, June 26) in this database.

District Attorney of Boulder County, Colorado

On the trail and in the press, the main difference between the Democratic candidates for district attorney of Boulder County—state Representative Mike Foote and District Attorney Michael Dougherty, who was appointed to this position this year by Governor John Hickenlooper—would appear to be ones of style and emphasis. But noteworthy policy contrasts emerge in a series of thorough interviews in which the ACLU of Colorado and Yellow Scene magazine pressed the candidates for precise commitments. (You can listen to the ACLU’s interviews in full here and here, and read Yellow Scene’s here.)

In these interviews, Dougherty and Foote both back pursuing diversion programs for offenses like drug possession, limiting cooperation with ICE, and releasing demographic data on cases they process. But while they both espouse a goal of minimizing cash bail, they differ in their views of how to do so. Dougherty says that he “would like to” emulate other DAs who have instructed prosecutors to never seek cash bail for some misdemeanors; but Foote does not voice support for this when the ACLU asks him about similarly limiting his prosecutors’ discretion to seek cash bail, explaining that he would instead grant prosecutors “more discretion” to act as they deem wise in individual cases.

The two disagree as well over whether to compel the disclosure of closed police files once a police misconduct investigation is completed, with Dougherty but not Foote indicating support for state legislation that would have done so. In his answers to the ACLU, Dougherty also calls for the creation of a central database of police personnel files so that these remain accessible when an officer moves from one agency to another, and endorses methods of circumventing immigration authorities such as impromptu changes to court hearing schedules. On the campaign trail itself, the defining fault line has involved Foote’s promise to aggressively prosecute polluters for violating air and water quality; Dougherty holds that district attorneys have little authority over environmental crimes.

Sheriff of El Paso County, Colorado

El Paso County, home of Colorado Springs, has been an epicenter of the ACLU’s fight against unlawful immigration detentions. In March, a state judge granted a preliminary injunction against Sheriff Bill Elder’s practice of detaining people otherwise eligible for release because of requests by ICE; these detentions can be lucrative for counties, paid by ICE for each detention. Elder has since defended his cooperation with ICE, and in May county officials renewed their contract with the federal agency.

In the hotly contested Republican primary for sheriff, however, Elder’s opponent has attacked him for being too lenient. Elder is facing Mike Angley, a retired Air Force Colonel who as of May 31 had significantly outspent Elder because he loaned his campaign $140,000. Angley says that Elder releases undocumented immigrants too quickly, and he is campaigning on a promise to extend detentions. Angley wishes to enter into a 287(g) agreement with ICE; this would empower local officers to act as federal immigration agents. To rebut Angley’s characterization of his tenure, Elder has cited the ACLU’s lawsuit against his own detention practices as a positive.

Elder has also been hit by reports of poor medical care and inadequate food at the El Paso jail, as well as reports that an employee suffered retaliation after voicing a sexual harassment complaint. In this heavily Republican county, the winner of the GOP primary will go on to face Democrat Grace Sweeney-Maurer, who had been outraised nearly 80 to 1 by Elder as of the end of May.

In another sheriff’s race in Colorado—this one in Larimer County—Sheriff Justin Smith is running for re-election unopposed. He faces no challenger in the GOP primary, and no Democrat has filed to run against him in a county that Hillary Clinton carried over Donald Trump in 2016. Smith drew national coverage in March when he flew to the White House to meet with President Trump. Smith, who has written in defense of collaborating with ICE, talked about his opposition to sanctuary city policies and asked for federal financial help against lawsuits by the ACLU.

 

A public forum featuring Players Coalition members Anquan Boldin and Carl Davis asking state’s attorney candidates about their positions on criminal justice issues.

State’s Attorney of Prince George’s County, Maryland

The current state’s attorney of Prince George’s County (a populous African-American-majority county situated in the suburbs of Washington, D.C.) is running for county executive, and Maryland advocates have viewed the race to replace her as an opportunity to press for change. In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, the executive director of Progressive Maryland, Larry Stafford, laid out a range of areas—from the preponderance of pretrial detention and the insufficiency of diversion programs to officials’ attitude toward marijuana—that a new state’s attorney could transform.

In the Democratic primary, which in this county is tantamount to the entire election, the two candidates who have received the most endorsements and have raised the most money are state Senator Victor Ramirez and former state Delegate Aisha Braveboy, who unsuccessfully ran for the Democratic nomination for attorney general in 2014 (she received 20 percent statewide and 46 percent in county). Also running is Michael Lyles, a civil rights attorney.

On June 14, the Players Coalition, an advocacy organization made up of current and former NFL players, hosted a public forum where coalition members Anquan Boldin and Carl Davis asked Ramirez and Braveboy about their positions on a series of criminal justice issues. You can watch the video here.

All candidates have campaigned by emphasizing commitments to promote alternatives to prosecution and incarceration. Braveboy, who has been endorsed by the local police unions, wrote an op-ed in 2013 calling for boosts to diversion programs to diminish incarceration and criminal records. Ramirez was recently a chief sponsor of the unsuccessful Maryland Trust Act, which would have restricted state agencies’ use of resources for immigration enforcement and barred counties from joining 287(g) partnerships with ICE; he has been endorsed by Progressive Maryland. While in the legislature, Braveboy and Ramirez both voted for marijuana decriminalization and the repeal of the death penalty, two reforms that Governor Martin O’Malley signed into law.

State’s Attorney of Baltimore City, Maryland

State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby faces two challengers in Baltimore’s Democratic primary: former Deputy Attorney General Thiru Vignarajah and Ivan Bates, a former assistant state’s attorney who now works as a defense attorney. Mosby is known nationally for prosecuting six police officers over the homicide death of Freddie Gray. After the first trials resulted in acquittals and a mistrial, her office dropped remaining charges. Vignarajah and Bates have criticized her handling of these prosecutions as “rushed,” with Bates charging that she “failed Freddie Gray” by not obtaining a conviction. (These trials have become a campaign issue in a different way in nearby Harford County; here a former Baltimore City prosecutor running in the GOP primary is facing attacks by an opponent for having played a role in prosecuting police officers.) As for Vignarajah, he is best-known for currently handling the prosecution of Adnan Syed, whose 1999 conviction was investigated by the podcast Serial; Bates has promised to drop Syed’s case if elected.

Mosby and Vignarajah both returned a detailed questionnaire prepared by The Justice Collaborative. Here, as elsewhere, Vignarajah makes a range of reform commitments that Mosby rejects. You can read all of Mosby’s answers here, and Vignarajah’s here. In their answers, Mosby and Vignarajah both commit to increasing recourse to diversion programs, creating safe injection sites, adopting a presumption against prosecuting actions that are a symptom of homelessness, and considering the immigration consequences of prosecutorial decisions. (Mosby recently instructed her staff to consider these consequences.) Their responses diverge on cash bail, however. Mosby says that she would “minimize, not eradicate the role of money bail,” while Vignarajah pledges to abolish cash bail and instruct prosecutors to never seek it.

Moreover, Vignarajah is the only one of the two to answer in the affirmative on a number of other questions, including whether he commits to not seeking life without parole sentences for juvenile sentences, to fighting the automatic charging of juvenile defendants as adults, and to more often refraining from seeking maximum sentences. Bates, meanwhile, has campaigned on reducing incarceration for low-level offenses, and simultaneously on prosecuting people charged with violent offenses more aggressively than Mosby has. He disagreed with Vignarajah at a recent debate on predictive policing tools, which Bates criticized as as conducive to racial discrimination. On the campaign trail, Mosby has repeatedly attacked Bates for his work as a defense lawyer. “I didn’t become a defense attorney and defend robbers and rapists,” she said during one debate, a statement that drew direct criticism from Baltimore City Council member Ryan Dorsey.

District Attorney of Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Following the death of Terence Crutcher, an unarmed Black man shot by a police officer in 2016, Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler pressed charges against the officer who shot him, Betty Shelby. But Shelby was acquitted in 2017, and her prosecution is now a central issue in the Republican primary for Tulsa County district attorney. Kunzweiler faces Ben Fu and Tammy Westcott, both former employees of the district attorney’s office.

The Tulsa Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), which has warred with Kunzweiler since he charged Shelby, has endorsed Fu. Fu faults Kunzweiler for making the Tulsa police feel unsupported and for “erod[ing] the public’s faith in that institution,” as his website puts it, and says that he would have behaved differently. For one, Fu says that he would have waited to see the results of an internal investigation by the Tulsa Police Department, whereas Kunzweiler acted based on a report produced within the district attorney’s office. Kunzweiler has also faced attacks for questioning the practice of allowing police officers under investigation to take 72 hours before giving a statement.

Complicating matters, Fu has also campaigned against what he calls a “culture of overcharging.” He says that he will devote more resources to “alternatives to mass incarceration,” including for drug-related offenses. Whereas Kunzweiler opposed a state proposal to make simple drug possession a misdemeanor instead of a felony, Fu has responded that district attorneys should “find a way to inspire [defendants] without having to have the ‘stick’ of prison hanging over their heads.” In addition, Kunzweiler has sought to attack Fu’s standing as a police champion by going after him over a client he was defending, a teenager accused of firing at police officers; Fu then dropped this defendant, just days after receiving the local FOP’s endorsement.

Congressional quick hits

Criminal justice reform front-and-center in New York’s 14th Congressional District: In challenging Representative Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary of this Queens- and Bronx-based district, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has campaigned on a goal of reducing the country’s prison population by 50 percent. She was also among the first congressional candidates to call for the abolition of ICE, a stance with which Crowley disagrees. Crowley and Ocasio-Cortez do share many important reform proposals, including closing Rikers Island, expunging past marijuana convictions, closing private prisons, and adopting Medicare for All. Ocasio-Cortez and advocates who support her fault Crowley for being insufficiently active in pushing for such positions, and for backing measures that contradict them, such as the “Blue Lives Matter” bill opposed by organizations like the ACLU and the NAACP that overwhelmingly passed the House in May. Ocasio-Cortez also ties the fight against mass incarceration with a reduction in economic marginalization through proposals like a federal jobs guarantee.

Dan Donovan challenged in New York’s 11th Congressional District: When Michael Grimm resigned from Congress after pleading guilty to tax fraud in 2014, the Republican Party coalesced around Dan Donovan, who was then the District Attorney of Richmond County. Just months earlier, Donovan had wrapped up his investigation into Eric Garner’s death without bringing any indictment—a failure that led to widespread protests and activism in New York City and across the country. But it never became an issue in this congressional campaign, and Donovan easily won in May 2015. Fast-forward three years: Grimm is mounting a comeback for his old seat, using a campaign style that has been compared to Donald Trump’s, and he is locked in a very competitive Republican primary with Donovan. President Trump has tweeted an endorsement of Donovan. Unsurprisingly, given that Grimm congratulated Donovan for his handling of the Garner grand jury in 2014, Donovan’s actions in this case have once again not emerged as an issue within this primary.

Thanks for reading. We’ll see you on July 9. Don’t forget to subscribe!

More in Podcasts