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
