吃瓜大本营

NEW YORK 鈥� In a momentous victory for immigrants鈥� rights, today the Southern District of New York issued a final, landmark ruling in African Communities Together and The Door v. Todd Lyons striking down one of the Trump administration鈥檚 most extreme policies that allowed ICE agents to arrest people for showing up to immigration court. With this ruling, ICE officers cannot conduct civil immigration enforcement actions in or near immigration courthouses, except under limited circumstances, in New York City and across the nation. 鈥淭oday鈥檚 ruling is an enormous win for every noncitizen seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings,鈥� said Amy Belsher, director of Immigrants鈥� Rights Litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union. 鈥淔or too long, we watched masked, often armed, ICE officers ambush noncitizens in courthouse hallways, throw immigrants to the ground, and tear sobbing children from their parents. But with today鈥檚 order, the court made clear: ICE鈥檚 cruel, unjustified policy of conducting mass immigration arrests in courthouses is unlawful and cannot stand.鈥� The court鈥檚 order found the government鈥檚 mass immigration court arrest policy 鈥渁rbitrary and capricious鈥� under the Administrative Procedure Act and restores pre-existing policies barring immigration courthouse arrests except in rare circumstances. Originally, the case also challenged a related 2025 Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) policy that urged immigration judges to dismiss noncitizens鈥� immigration proceedings without proper procedural protections. In this order, the court dismissed that claim as 鈥榤oot,鈥� because the government had already fully and permanently rescinded it as result of an earlier order in this case. 鈥淧eople should not be arrested for doing exactly what the legal system requires of them,鈥� said Oscar Sarabia Roman, staff attorney with the ACLU鈥檚 Immigrants鈥� Rights Project. "They should be able to come to court, take part in their cases, and leave without fear.鈥� 鈥淚mmigrant New Yorkers should not have to choose between attending a required immigration hearing and risking detention, or staying away and risking a deportation order for failing to appear,鈥� said Katie Rosenfeld, partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. 鈥淭his ruling restores important safeguards and makes clear that ICE cannot abandon those protections without a reasoned explanation. Due process requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard, and that means people must be able to come to court without fear.鈥� 鈥淭he court鈥檚 ruling is a monumental victory for immigrant families and the rule of law. It brings to an end the cruel and callous practice of arresting immigrants simply for showing up to their court hearings 鈥� something that no one should have to worry about, and yet so many were forced to live under that cloud of fear,鈥� said Harold Solis, co-legal director at Make the Road New York. 鈥淭oday marks a turning point, and our focus now shifts to doing everything in our power to ensure the government fully complies with the court鈥檚 decision.鈥� The New York Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road NY, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel originally filed this lawsuit on behalf of African Communities Together and The Door on August 1, 2025. Soon after, the groups asked for expedited relief through a stay, which the court partly denied in September 2025. But then, in a shocking revelation in March, the government admitted that a 2025 memorandum 鈥� which it had relied on throughout the case to justify its immigration court arrest policy 鈥� does not and has never authorized any immigration courthouse arrests. Immediately after, the organizations asked the Court to reconsider its denial, and the court issued a stay. This final federal ruling affirms that order, and expands it to apply nationwide. It is effective immediately. Today鈥檚 ruling also builds on the resounding victory from the ACLU of Northern California, in Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, which similarly struck down the Trump administration鈥檚 policy of arresting immigrants at courthouses nationwide. Since Trump took office, ICE has mounted an unprecedented campaign of arresting people at their mandated immigration court hearings, and then trying to fast track their deportation. This includes Dylan, a 16-year-old Bronx high school who ICE arrested when attending a routine court date, and Oliver Mata Velazquez, a 19 year old living in Buffalo who ICE targeted, detained, and fast-tracked for deportation.    

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court today agreed to hear argument this term in Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, stemming from a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union, and the Law Office of Paul Dwyer PC challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 new policy subjecting millions of immigrants to mandatory detention without access to bond hearings. In July 2025, the Trump administration suddenly adopted a new radical misinterpretation of immigration law, declaring that anyone who entered without inspection must be detained without access to bond or due process regardless of how long that person has lived in the country or their ties to family and community. Hundreds of federal district judges have ruled on thousands of related habeas petitions, with nine out of 10 judges ruling that the administration鈥檚 misinterpretation of immigration law is illegal. Nine federal appeals courts have also ruled against the policy, including a Second Circuit ruling at the center of this case. The following is reaction to the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision to hear the case: 鈥淭he courts have repeatedly and resoundingly rejected the Trump administration鈥檚 radical misinterpretation of the law. Try as it might, the government cannot twist the law to detain immigrants for months or even years on end without a bond hearing. Not only is it cruel and inhumane; it is unlawful. We look forward to making that case to the Supreme Court,鈥� said Michael K.T. Tan, deputy director of the ACLU鈥檚 Immigrants鈥� Rights Project. 鈥淭he Trump administration鈥檚 policy of detaining immigrants without any process is both inhumane and unlawful,鈥� said Amy Belsher, director of Immigrants鈥� Rights Litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union. 鈥淒espite their best efforts, the government cannot rewrite the law to detain millions of noncitizens, many of whom have lived here for decades, without an opportunity to seek release. The Immigration and Nationality Act, and fundamental fairness, require the government to, at a minimum, allow people to make a case for their release. We look forward to making that clear to the Supreme Court." 鈥淢r. Barbosa da Cunha has been living in the U.S. for the last 22 years. He is a hard-working, small-business owner, with a U.S. citizen family and no criminal history. He has never missed an immigration appointment or hearing. Detaining him without the possibility of release on bond serves no purpose other than to punish him for being an immigrant, and has been solidly rejected by every court to have considered his case. We are confident that the Supreme Court will agree," said attorney Paul Dwyer of the Law Office of Paul Dwyer PC.  

The ACLU argued in court that Trump administration officials broke the law by defying a judge鈥檚 order and sending 100 Venezuelan men to a notoriously brutal prison in El Salvador without due process.

WASHINGTON 鈥� Immigrants鈥� rights advocates filed a federal lawsuit today challenging President Trump鈥檚 new executive order targeting birthright citizenship. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of the District of Columbia, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of people subjected to the new executive order. The groups already secured a major Supreme Court victory in June in Trump v. Barbara protecting babies who would have been denied citizenship under Trump鈥檚 first failed executive order concerning birthright citizenship. In its ruling, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Constitution鈥檚 Citizenship Clause puts 鈥渢he question of citizenship 鈥榦nce and forever [to] rest.鈥欌�� Despite that, the administration is again trying to restrict birthright citizenship, prompting today鈥檚 legal action. The groups had initially sought to block the new executive order in the existing Barbara case. After the judge in that case indicated that he viewed this challenge as a new lawsuit, the groups withdrew their requests in Barbara and filed this new lawsuit. The lawsuit, Nathan v. Trump, was filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C. The following is comment from co-counsel: 鈥淭he Constitution is clear, and the Supreme Court has been clear: Birthright citizenship is the law of the land,鈥� said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU鈥檚 Immigrants鈥� Rights Project and lead counsel. 鈥淭he Trump administration鈥檚 newest attack on this fundamental American principle is just as cruel and illegal as its previous executive order, and it will meet the same fate in court.鈥� 鈥淭his administration does not get to redefine citizenship whenever it鈥檚 displeased that it didn't get its way,鈥� said Brittany Carter, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. 鈥淭he Constitution and Supreme Court precedent protect the right to citizenship that all children born here possess. We will continue to defend that right from any attempt this administration makes to overstep its authority and reshape who it calls American.鈥� 鈥淭he Trump administration can keep repackaging the same attack, but it cannot rewrite the Constitution,鈥� said Aarti Kohli, executive director at Asian Law Caucus. 鈥淭he Supreme Court has already affirmed that birthright citizenship is protected by the Constitution, yet this administration continues searching for new ways around that decision instead of addressing the real challenges facing families across the country. No matter how many times President Trump tries to revive this effort, the principle remains the same: citizenship is determined by the Constitution, not by executive order.鈥� 鈥淲e are demanding accountability for Trump鈥檚 dangerous policies, once again鈥� said Tianna Mays, legal director at Democracy Defenders Fund. 鈥淭he federal government cannot unlawfully strip the rights of babies born in the United States and ignore the Constitution in order to achieve its political goals. We will be relentless in our fight 鈥� every unlawful act and order from this administration will be met with a legal challenge.鈥� 鈥淏irthright citizenship is the law of the land 鈥� as it has been for more than 150 years and as the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed once again just a few months ago. Cruel attacks on this core constitutional right must not be allowed to stand,鈥� said SangYeob Kim, director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. 鈥淭he president may keep signing unlawful executive orders, but the Supreme Court was clear when it ruled that neither the president nor Congress can end birthright citizenship,鈥� said ACLU of Maine Legal Director Carol Garvan. 鈥淲e鈥檒l continue defending the Constitution and fighting for the fundamental citizenship rights of all babies born on U.S. soil.鈥� 鈥淒espite a clear ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump administration is still trying to deprive babies born in the United States of their constitutional rights,鈥� said Carol Rose, executive director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. 鈥淲e will stay in court for as long as it takes to stop this lawless assault on a core tenet of American democracy. President Trump cannot rewrite the Constitution. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.鈥� 鈥淥nce again, the courts must remind President Trump that he cannot ignore constitutional rights he does not like or deny rights to people he does not like,鈥� said Scott Michelman, legal director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia. 鈥淭he Supreme Court just confirmed that citizenship is the birthright of every child born in the United States. The president鈥檚 crusade of cruelty against our nation鈥檚 youngest citizens must end.鈥� The complaint is here: /cases/nathan-v-trump?document=COMPLAINT