吃瓜大本营

First Circuit is the seventh appellate court to reject Trump administration's novel application of immigration detention statutes A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a ruling declaring that the Trump administration is unlawfully denying bond hearings to thousands of people arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in New England. In 2025, the federal government abandoned its 29-year understanding of a 1996 law and announced that millions of noncitizens living in the United States would have no opportunity to ask for release on bond if detained by ICE. This new guidance defies decades of government practices, federal law, and fundamental due-process protections. It also exacerbates longstanding problems with immigration detention, including overcrowding, medical neglect, inadequate nutrition, and more. Last night, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a District Court ruling finding the new policy unlawful, reasoning that the federal government鈥檚 interpretation violated the relevant statutory text and congressional intent. "This ruling affirms that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally rewrite federal statutes to suit its political agenda," said Adriana Lafaille, managing attorney at the ACLU of Massachusetts. "This is especially important for matters of fundamental fairness, like the ability to seek release from detention. The federal government must follow the law, provide bond hearings to class members, and allow those who pose no danger or flight risk to be released while immigration courts decide their cases." With Thursday鈥檚 ruling, seven appellate courts and hundreds of District Court judges have now issued rulings holding that the Trump administration鈥檚 new policy of subjecting noncitizens living in the country to categorical detention without a bond hearing is unlawful. 鈥淚 am gratified that the First Circuit upheld the rule of law, affirming what we have known since 1996: Immigrants, regardless of how they entered our country, are entitled to bond hearings. I am in awe of our client's courage to fight for what is right, securing not only his freedom but that of hundreds of other immigrants in New England,鈥� said Annelise Araujo, founding principal and owner at Annelise Araujo Law. 鈥淲e are pleased that the court is vindicating the rights of immigrants unlawfully detained in Maine and throughout New England,鈥� said ACLU of Maine Legal Director Carol Garvan. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 cruel mandatory detention policy stripped people of the chance to seek their freedom while indefinitely separating them from their loved ones, communities, and jobs. The policy also upended decades of standard civil immigration procedures, violating the clear language of federal law. The court's order today is clear: no administration is above the law. The government cannot arrest and detain people indefinitely without providing them with a hearing in front of a judge.鈥� The petitioner and class in Guerrero Orellano v. Monizare represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the ACLU, the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Maine, Annelise Araujo Law, Foley Hoag, Anderson & Kreiger, and the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinic. BACKGROUND The original complaint in this case was filed in September 2025 on behalf of Jose Arnulfo Guerrero Orellana and a class of similarly situated individuals. In October, the court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered a bond hearing for Mr. Guerrero Orellana, who was later released on bond. Later that month, the court certified a class of people arrested by federal immigration officials inside the United States and held in New England detention facilities. In December, the court grantedpartial summary judgment and rejected the government鈥檚 novel and erroneous statutory interpretation. As disclosed in subsequent court filings, the government鈥檚 chief immigration judge later instructed her colleagues to ignore declaratory judgments like the one entered in this case. Immigration judges have continued to systematically deny bond hearings to people arrested by ICE within the United States who are alleged to have entered without inspection, no matter how long the person has been in the country. This policy violates the plain language of the federal detention statutes and denies fundamental due process rights to potentially millions of people. Read the opinion here.

NEW ORLEANS 鈥� The full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans today dismissed W.M.M. v. Trump, a case challenging President Trump鈥檚 invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The court ruled the case was moot because plaintiffs have since been removed under immigration laws, not the Alien Enemies Act. The court did not rule on the merits of the lawsuit. The ruling stems from a case filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas challenging the president鈥檚 use of this centuries-old wartime act in peacetime. The Supreme Court previously blocked the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to remove Venezuelans who were being detained in northern Texas and told the Fifth Circuit to expedite the appeal, while keeping a stay in place. In September 2025, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit rejected the administration鈥檚 assertion that the wartime authority鈥檚 invocation was lawful because an 鈥渋nvasion or a predatory incursion has occurred.鈥� The Trump administration then sought a hearing before the full appeals court, which heard the case in January 2026. The ACLU has other legal challenges to the Alien Enemies Act ongoing throughout the country. The following is reaction to today鈥檚 Fifth Circuit ruling: 鈥淭he Supreme Court's injunction barring use of the Alien Enemies Act remains in place, which is essential because there are still people at risk of being wrongly removed under the act without due process. The Fifth Circuit decision also doesn鈥檛 change the fact that courts have overwhelmingly held that the use of this wartime authority during peacetime is unlawful,鈥� said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case. The ruling is here.

The technology appears unlikely to constrain the immigration agencies; much more sweeping reforms are needed

CONCORD, N.H. 鈥� Legal groups that recently won a major Supreme Court victory on behalf of babies who would have been denied citizenship under a failed Trump executive order are asking a court to ensure those children remain protected from the president鈥檚 latest attacks. The Supreme Court handed the civil rights organizations a resounding win on June 30 in Trump v. Barbara, when it struck down the president鈥檚 order that sought to undo this fundamental constitutional protection. Last week, the president signed a new executive order again targeting birthright citizenship. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund successfully argued the Barbara case. Today, they asked a federal court to make it unquestionably clear that the citizenship of babies covered by that class-action lawsuit is protected despite this new executive order. In its June 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�� In their motion filed today in New Hampshire federal court, where the lawsuit was first filed, the legal groups wrote: 鈥淭he Supreme Court confirmed that there are no additional exceptions beyond those recognized in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), and the Fourteenth Amendment is not subject to executive (or legislative) revision. President Trump鈥檚 continued resistance to that principle calls for this Court鈥檚 renewed intervention.鈥� The following is comment on today鈥檚 filing: 鈥淧resident Trump may not like the fact that birthright citizenship is a constitutional right, and he may not like that he lost in the Supreme Court, but that is really beside the point,鈥� said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU鈥檚 Immigrants鈥� Rights Project and lead counsel. 鈥淚t鈥檚 well past time for these illegal and cruel attacks on children鈥檚 citizenship to end.鈥� 鈥淭he Supreme Court could not have been more clear: President Trump鈥檚 attempt to redefine who is an American citizen through executive action was unconstitutional,鈥� said Amia Trigg, deputy director of litigation at the Legal Defense Fund. 鈥淣ow, the president is trying to double down on his illegal attack on this constitutional protection. We will not stand idly by as the executive branch blatantly ignores the court's authority in its crusade against American children.鈥� 鈥淭his order is a desperate and brazen attempt to bypass the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision and expand a very narrow set of exceptions to the 14th Amendment. As the court has already affirmed, it鈥檚 the Constitution, not the president, who determines who is American and who gets a say in our democracy. Americans are struggling to put food on the table and pay their bills, and this administration is just throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks,鈥� said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus. 鈥淚mmigrant communities know that our rights are on the line, especially when the government uses us as scapegoats. The Trump administration already lost once and it will lose again.鈥� 鈥淧resident Trump鈥檚 latest attempt to chip away at birthright citizenship is as constitutionally futile as it is cruel,鈥� said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. 鈥淲e鈥檝e seen this strategy from this administration before, and the courts have repeatedly made it clear that the 14th Amendment cannot be rewritten by executive fiat. We are filing this motion to ensure that the protections currently shielding our clients remain intact 鈥� we will not let the administration use babies as pawns in a political stunt like this.鈥� SangYeob Kim, director of the ACLU-NH Immigrants鈥� Rights Project, said, 鈥淏irthright citizenship is the law of the land 鈥� period. Cruel attacks on this core constitutional right must not be allowed to stand.鈥� 鈥淭he Supreme Court reaffirmed the plain language of the Constitution in June, making it clear that neither the president nor Congress can end birthright citizenship,鈥� said ACLU of Maine Executive Director Molly Curren Rowles. 鈥淲e鈥檒l continue defending the Constitution and the core principles reflected in the 14th Amendment: that with few exceptions, every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen.鈥� 鈥淭rump's executive orders are a ham-handed attempt to distract the American people from the Supreme Court鈥檚 clear holding: that birthright citizenship is protected by our Constitution,鈥� said Carol Rose, executive director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. 鈥淲e'll stay in court for as long as it takes to secure peace of mind for our clients and ensure that babies born on U.S. soil have their rights as guaranteed under U.S. law.鈥� Read the motion here: /cases/barbara-v-donald-j-trump?document=Motion-to-Clarify-PI#legal-documents