Blog of Rights

Cecillia
Wang

Cecillia Wang is director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, where she has worked full-time since 2004 after first serving as a fellow at the project from 1997-98. She has litigated civil and criminal cases in state and federal courts throughout the country. Wang previously worked as an attorney at the federal public defender office for the Southern District of New York and at the San Francisco-based firm Keker & Van Nest. A 1995 graduate of Yale Law School, Wang clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun.

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page

What’s Next for Arizona’s SB 1070 and Other Copycat Laws

By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 6:05pm

The Supreme Court handed down a mixed decision Monday for Arizona and the handful of states that have copied its anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. Striking down three of the four provisions at issue in Arizona v. United States, the Justices affirmed the federal government’s exclusive role in enforcing immigration law. On the one hand, the Court delivered a significant rebuke to legislators who tried to make being an undocumented immigrant a crime. But on the other hand, the Court let stand the discriminatory “show me your papers” provision, or Section 2(B). And while it’s true that the Court sent a warning that Section 2(B) could still be ruled unconstitutional based on pending challenges (by the ACLU and other civil rights groups) focused more directly on racial profiling and prolonged detention, it nevertheless has thrown Arizona and other states into chaos by reversing the lower courts’ decision to block the “show me your papers” law. Arizona officials immediately announced that they would begin enforcing Section 2(B), even though the Supreme Court’s ruling does not immediately lift the order blocking. The Court’s decision now sends the case back to the lower district court in Arizona for further proceedings. 

The War on Drugs Tears Families Apart

By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 5:30pm

June 2011 marks the 40th anniversary of President Richard Nixon's declaration of a "war on drugs" — a war that has cost roughly a trillion dollars, has produced little to no effect on the supply of or demand for drugs in the United States, and has contributed to making America the world's largest incarcerator. Throughout the month, check back daily for posts about the drug war, its victims and what needs to be done to restore fairness and create effective policy.

Report from the Supreme Court: Arizona v. United States

By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 4:59pm

Ultimately, it's not only up to the Supreme Court to decide if S.B. 1070 will stand. The American people must decide whether we will tolerate a nation with such invidious laws.

Waiting for the Court to Rule: What’s Next for Sheriff Arpaio?

By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 4:25pm

After seven days of trial testimony from both the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the Latino residents of the county who have suffered under a pattern and practice of racial profiling, the civil trial against Sheriff Joe Arpaio came to an end last week. The U.S. District Court will now decide whether Arpaio, the self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America, has targeted Latinos for discriminatory traffic stops and illegal detentions.

Arizona's Notorious Sheriff Is Called out on Unconstitutional Police Practices

By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 10:36am

The U.S. Department of Justice announced yesterday that after a three-year investigation, it found that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) has engaged in a pattern and practice of racial profiling against Latino residents. The Justice Department also found the office unlawfully retaliated against its critics, discriminated against Latinos held in its jails and failed to provide policing services to the county’s Latino residents. 

Sheriff Arpaio on the Stand

By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 3:46pm

U.S. citizens are entitled to “equal protection under the law” – that is, unless you look Latino and live in Arizona under the rule of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

The nation’s self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff” took the stand in federal court Tuesday, answering hundreds of questions from our legal team and facing the human targets of his racial profiling policies. These victims -- the very people Arpaio is sworn to protect -- have spent years waiting for the day when the sheriff would be forced to explain his discriminatory practices in open court.

Will Americans Tolerate Laws That Encourage Racial Profiling?

By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 4:55pm

Or will we choose fairness and equality over discrimination and a police state that reaches into our personal lives?

Victory! Appeals Court Blocks Additional Provisions of H.B. 56, Alabama's Anti-Immigrant Law

By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 12:47pm

These provisions were intended "to attack every aspect" of Alabamians' lives and to expel them from the state.

Stopping South Carolina from Sharing Alabama's Fate

By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 7:37pm

The fate of civil liberties in South Carolina will be decided by year’s end. Today, a coalition of South Carolinians and civil rights organizations went to federal district court in Charleston to stop the last anti-immigrant law passed this year.

Like its shameful predecessors, Arizona’s SB 1070 and Alabama’s HB 56, South Carolina’s law would turn police officers and sheriff’s deputies into roving immigration agents who are authorized to demand papers from anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant.

Supreme Court Says "No" to Government Effort to Deprive Immigrants of Fair Day in Court

By Cecillia Wang, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project at 6:06pm

Today the Supreme Court rejected the government's effort to deprive immigrants seeking review of a removal order of a fair day in court. In Nken v. Holder, the Court considered the proper legal standard governing an immigrant's application for a stay pending court review of an administrative removal order: Should the immigrant have to show “clear and convincing evidence that the entry or execution of [the removal] order is prohibited as a matter of law”? Or does the immigrant have to meet the lower traditional standard for preliminary relief, which is based on a balancing of factors in the case, including whether the petitioner is likely to win at the end of the day and whether he will suffer irreparable harm without the temporary relief?

To put it in plain English: After an immigrant gets ordered deported by an administrative immigration court, he petitions a federal court if he thinks the immigration court got it wrong. At the beginning of such cases, the immigrant always asks the federal court to issue an order freezing the removal order, to make sure that the government doesn't send him away before the court can decide the case. Nken is about how hard it is to get that temporary order freezing the status quo.

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page
Statistics image