A three-judge panel for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston yesterday agreed that the U.S. District Court properly dismissed a civil suit brought by detainees arrested during a New Bedford factory raid last March.

But the judges criticized the “ham-handed” manner in which the federal Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted the raid, and suggested that the agency — the enforcement arm of U.S. Homeland Security — should revise its methods and do better in the future.

The judges also suggested that Congress needs to address the immigration issue, and that “it is Congress — not the judiciary” that must prescribe a framework for vindication of inalienable rights that apply to “all persons who are on American soil,” including undocumented workers.

A team of pro-bono lawyers pressed the class-action lawsuit that argued approximately 260 undocumented immigrants were denied a host of due-process rights during and after the raid at Michael Bianco Inc., a Department of Defense subcontractor. The detainees, who made up most of the rank-and-file work force, were swept up in the raid that targeted the company owner and several managers.

Several lead lawyers said the case might not be over yet: they were meeting yesterday to consider options that they said include seeking reconsideration by the full First Circuit Court of Appeals or seeking U.S. Supreme Court review.

Senior First Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya wrote the 48-page decision on behalf of himself, Chief Judge Michael Boudin and Judge Jeffrey R. Howard. It affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of the case on May 22.

“It’s obviously a disappointment, but I think [Selya’s opinion] does acknowledge that ICE should re-examine its methods of conducting its raids,” said Boston lawyer Harvey Kaplan. “Even if the court does not have jurisdiction … it voices some concern about the way [the raid] was handled.”

In Washington, Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said, “The bottom line is the United States is currently reviewing the court’s decision and that’s all at this point.”

Selya wrote that while the panel’s reasoning “differs somewhat” from that of the U.S. District Court, and that there is “no simple, one-size-fits-all answer” to the many questions raised in the lawsuit, “we conclude that some of the petitioners’ claims are unpreserved, some are subject to a jurisdictional bar and others are simply not actionable. The common denominator is that none of the claims can proceed in the district court.”

Selya said the opinion “should not be read as an unqualified endorsement of the way in which immigration officials handled the matter.”

“We express our hope that ICE, though it has prevailed, nonetheless will treat this … series of events as a learning experience, in order to devise better, less ham-handed ways of carrying out its important responsibilities,” he wrote.

The lawsuit arose after the March 6 raid — part of the government’s Operation United Front — that targeted the Bianco company, a Defense Department contractor that government investigators suspected of employing large numbers of illegal immigrants.

Hundreds of ICE agents took more than 300 employees into custody for civil immigration infractions and arrested five executives on immigration-related criminal charges. The cases of three of those executives, including company owner Francesco Insolia, are pending.

ICE immediately released dozens of employees who were either determined to be minors or legal residents. The remaining detainees were taken to a holding facility at Fort Devens in Massachusetts. The next day, 90 detainees were flown to a Texas detention and removal center; the day after that, 116 more were flown to a different Texas detention facility.

The class-action complaint against ICE and other federal agencies alleged that ICE violated certain of the petitioners’ constitutional and statutory rights by impeding their right to legal counsel, “whisking away” many of the detainees to Texas without first allowing them bond hearings, subjecting many to arbitrary and prolonged detention, and through poor planning with the state social service agency, left “a substantial number of their minor children without supervision for varying periods of time.”

It also argued that the raid and near-immediate removal of detainees to Texas was part of “a deliberate strategy to defeat jurisdiction of the court, deny access to counsel and make it more difficult to obtain release on bond.”

The government argued successfully that the case should be dismissed because the district court did not have jurisdiction. In upholding that ruling, the appellate judges noted in part that some of the detainees’ remedies may lie with the immigration court, the Bureau of Immigration Appeals and then by the court of appeals.

Laura Rotolo, lawyer for the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said, “We’re clearly disappointed in the decision of the court. What they basically said was they don’t have jurisdiction to hear these kinds of claims, and also said the treatment of the families did not ‘shock the conscience,’ and therefore did not rise to a constitutional violation.”

Rotolo questioned “why the court would say it was a ham-handed approach” by ICE, “but could not address some of the issues” the agency’s actions raised.

Greater Boston Legal Services attorney John Willshire called the decision “an acknowledgement that something terrible happened.”

“It says to ICE that they hope they’ve learned from this, and don’t continue with the type of treatment we allege, and I think [the judges] took this case very seriously.” He added that similar to other courts around the country, the judges underscored “that this is something Congress needs to deal with.”

As it stands, “there aren’t a lot of people left in detention.” Willshire said. “A lot are out [on bond] and we’re going forward on those cases. A lot of them have been deported … they suffered so much. A lot of them hung on as long as they could, but towards the end, a lot of people gave up. Seven or eight months [in detention] are too much.”

Willshire added, “We’re going through cases individually but that does not resolve the main issues on the table.”

kziner@projo.com