FOLLOW US

A father and son, who were separated for six years under the Trump administration's controversial family separation policy, are pushing back against MVM Inc.’s attempt to have their class action lawsuit dismissed. The two asylum seekers, referred to as "Padre" and "Junior," claim that the transportation services company played a central role in the traumatic separation, affecting not only their lives but thousands of other immigrant families as well.

In a response filed on Tuesday, the pair argued that MVM should not be entitled to immunity as a government contractor, despite the policy that led to the separations being deemed unconstitutional and enjoined in other lawsuits against the government.

MVM has sought to avoid accountability by positioning itself as a "scapegoat" for the actions of the government. However, the father and son rejected this defense, stating that MVM was complicit and acted knowingly in carrying out the separation policy. “A scapegoat does nothing wrong," they wrote. “MVM was a willing conspirator.”

The lawsuit contends that MVM was responsible for separating approximately 4,500 children from their parents, with many still facing ongoing separation. They argue that MVM's claim of merely “following orders” is insufficient, given that the company was fully aware that the policy violated federal laws, U.S. Department of Homeland Security guidelines, and the terms of its own government contract.

Further, the plaintiffs described how MVM's actions traumatized families, claiming that the company misled families about the locations of their children, failed to provide crucial information about their whereabouts, and ignored measures meant to reunite separated family members. They also criticized MVM for continuing to separate families despite knowing the harm it caused, including the “torturous” conditions endured by the families involved.

Despite MVM’s defense that the separation was “lawful,” the father and son argued that there was no justification for the actions, as their separation occurred without any legal finding that the father posed a threat or was unfit to care for his child. They emphasized that neither the father nor the son were prosecuted for illegal entry or reentry into the U.S.

MVM also argued that the federal government’s involvement in the case was required for the lawsuit to proceed. However, the father and son pushed back, asserting that joint tortfeasors are not mandatory parties, and pointed out that the government has shown no interest in the litigation. They emphasized that a judgment against MVM would not interfere with the government’s immigration duties.