He's the uterus collector' the reproductive rights of women in ice detention: an opportunity to protect the constitutional rights of federal detainees in privately run facilities

• Author: Helen Jennings
• Position: Pupil Barrister, 25 Bedford Row Chambers, London
• Pages: 53-77

NOTES

“HE’S THE UTERUS COLLECTOR”

THE REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS OF WOMEN IN ICE

DETENTION: AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROTECT THE

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF FEDERAL DETAINEES IN

PRIVATELY RUN FACILITIES

HELEN JENNINGS*

ABSTRACT

In September 2020, a shocking account of reproductive violence emerged from

an ICE detention center in rural Georgia. Whistleblower Dawn Wooten told the

stories of dozens of women who had suffered unnecessary and non-consensual

gynecological surgery at the hands of the detention center’s physician, Dr. Amin,

whom she called “the uterus collector.” A class-action Bivens claim for the victims

of Dr. Amin is currently in progress in the District Court for the Middle District of

Georgia. This article closely considers one aspect of this claim, namely the vindi-

cation of the plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Due Process rights. As detainees within a

privately run federal detention facility, the plaintiffs are effectively precluded from

bringing a successful Bivens action against the private company running the immi-

gration detention center, or its employees. This article argues that the plaintiffs

should be permitted to bring their claim and should not face an unduly high burden

of proof in respect of the defendants’ failure to provide adequate medical treat-

ment. Should it reach the U.S. Supreme Court, this case could present the Court

with two monumental opportunities: to extend constitutional protection to individu-

als in federal detention run by for-profit private companies, and also to challenge

the legacy of eugenics toleration fostered by U.S. courts since the 1970s.

I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

II. THE PROJECT SOUTH COMPLAINT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

III. THE ALLEGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

IV. CONSTRUCTING A CLAIM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

A. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

* Pupil Barrister, 25 Bedford Row Chambers, London. New York University School of Law, LLM

’21 — Fulbright Scholar, George Moore Scholar, Jerome Lipper Award. University of Cambridge, BA

Honors Law ’19. My sincere thanks to the tenacious and diligent GJGL staff for their hard work editing

this article for publication. My admiration, always, to all who advocate for reproductive justice

everywhere. © 2021, Helen Jennings.

53

1. Fifth Amendment Due Process Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2. The Constitutional Rights of Non-U.S. Citizens . . . . . . . . 61

B. THE BARRIERS TO SUCCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

1. The Denial of Constitutional Protection for Federal

Detainees in Private Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

2. Detainees May Not be Protected From Inadequate

Medical Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

a. The “Medical Discretion” Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

b. The Standard of Fault . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

c. No Pain, No Claim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

3. Historic Indifference to Reproductive Autonomy and

Belief in Eugenics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

V. SUCCESS IS POSSIBLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

A. THE BIVENS ISSUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

B. THE “MEDICAL DISCRETION” ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

C. THE STANDARD OF FAULT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

D. THE HARM OF PERMANENTLY DENYING REPRODUCTIVE AUTONOMY 76

VI. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

I. INTRODUCTION

In September 2020, accounts of non-consensual and unnecessary gynecologi-

cal and reproductive surgery carried out on women in ICE detention in Irwin

County, Georgia made national and global headlines. On December 21st, a class-

action lawsuit was brought on behalf of the victims in the District Court for the

Middle District of Georgia against, among others, U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”), Irwin County Detention Center (“ICDC”), LaSalle LLC—the

private company that runs Irwin County Detention Center—and individual employ-

ees of these entities. The case, Oldaker v. Giles, asserts twenty-one separate bases

for relief including claims against federal, county, and local defendants, for harm

relating to the treatment of the alleged victims in detention and retaliation against

the detainees for speaking out about the abuses committed against them.

1

This note places a magnifying lens on one strand of argument alleged by the

plaintiffs in Oldaker v. Giles. Rather than analyzing the arguments asserted by

the plaintiffs at this early stage of litigation—response to the plaintiffs’ class

action complaint has not yet been filed—this note takes a broad view of some of

the obstacles faced by immigration detainees seeking to vindicate their constitu-

tional due process rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics

2

against violations related to their medical treatment while

1. Consolidated Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Class Action Complaint for

Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and for Damages at i–iii, Oldaker v. Giles, No. 7:20-cv-00224 (M.D.

Ga. Dec. 21, 2020).

2. 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

54 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF GENDER AND THE LAW [Vol. XXIII:53