ACLU Rebukes House for Passing Problematic E-Verify System

This lawsuit challenges DHS’ policy of authorizing agents to enter homes without judicially signed warrants.

ICE is now largely prohibited from conducting civil immigration arrests at immigration courts in New York City NEW YORK – Following Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) recent admission that it has no justification for conducting mass arrests at courthouses, a federal district court today granted a stay in African Communities Together and The Door v. Todd Lyons — the lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Make the Road NY (MRNY), and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward Maazel LLP (ECBAWM) challenging ICE’s cruel, unlawful policies that allow ICE agents to arrest people for showing up to court and prevent them from pursuing their immigration cases. With this stay, ICE officers are largely prohibited from conducting civil immigration enforcement actions in or near 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street, and 290 Broadway as the case proceeds. Now, officers must adhere to ICE’s 2021 guidance, which only permits immigration court arrests in very limited circumstances. “Today’s ruling is an enormous win for noncitizen New Yorkers seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings,” said Amy Belsher, director of Immigrants’ Rights Litigation at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “For nearly a year, we’ve watched masked ICE officers ambush noncitizens in courthouse hallways, throw immigrant New Yorkers to the ground, and tear children from their parents. Now, ICE has admitted that it does not and has never had an explanation or justification for conducting mass arrests at immigration courts. We look forward to a final ruling in the case that sets aside these cruel, pointless policies once and for all.” “In the face of this administration’s ongoing targeting of our young members, this decision brings us hope,” said Beth Baltimore, deputy director of The Door’s Legal Services Center. “Our staff continues to work tirelessly to support Door members who were terrified to go to their required court appearances. We stand with our members to fight for those impacted by courthouse arrests, including those who remain detained, and other cruel policies.” The organizations originally filed this lawsuit on behalf of African Communities Together and The Door on August 1, 2025. Soon after, the orgs 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 — which it had relied on throughout the case to justify its immigration court arrest policy — does not and has never authorized any immigration courthouse arrests. Immediately after, the organizations asked the Court to reconsider its denial — which is what has happened today. “The court was correct to block the Trump administration’s inhumane and unlawful tactic of ambushing people who are complying with their legal obligations at their court appointments,” said Hannah Steinberg, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “We are grateful that the court recognized today what our clients and immigrant communities have been saying all along: allowing ICE to arrest people at immigration court without any limits undermines access to justice and erodes trust in the legal system,” said Katie Rosenfeld, partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. “Today’s decision restores critical protections for people appearing in immigration court and reaffirms that federal agencies must follow the law when changing policies that affect fundamental rights and due process.” “For nearly a year, countless immigrant New Yorkers have been arrested simply for attending their court hearings at 26 Federal Plaza,” said Harold Solis, co-legal director of Make the Road New York. “Our clients tried to put a stop to this last year but were denied preliminary relief—based on what the government recently acknowledged was false information. All the while, immigration courthouses became places of fear, and not due process. Almost on a daily basis, parents were ripped away from their children, students were detained, and loved ones disappeared into inhumane detention centers as a result of these immigration courthouse arrests. We welcome today’s decision, which for many will feel long overdue. For them and the countless others who remain fearful, we hope today signals an end to this chaos.” 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. The NYCLU filed a lawsuit challenging Oliver’s unlawful arrest and secured his release.

NEW YORK — In light of new evidence of misconduct by the Trump Administration, Mahmoud Khalil’s legal team is asking the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to re-open his immigration case and terminate proceedings. The new evidence suggests that the Trump Administration secretly engineered the outcome of his immigration case to make an example of him. The motion includes declarations from former immigration judges, as well as former members of the BIA, testifying to the weaponization of the immigration court system to achieve the Trump administration’s political goals and the apparent procedural abnormalities in Mr. Khalil’s case. The filing shows that the BIA, which is controlled by the Trump administration’s Department of Justice, improperly influenced the lower immigration court’s decision, fast-tracked his proceedings, bypassed the normal channels through which immigration appeals are docketed and adjudicated, and ultimately reached a decision in an unheard-of nine days. The administration pressed all of this forward in open defiance of a federal district court order barring the government from using the “foreign policy ground”— the original pretext for Mr. Khalil's arrest — to detain or remove him. “The administration wants to arrest, detain, and deport me to intimidate everyone speaking out for Palestine across this country, and they are willing to violate longstanding U.S. rules and procedures to do it,” said Mahmoud Khalil. “This is the performance of due process the administration is offering me: putting me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance. But no lies, corruption, or ideological persecution will stop me from advocating for Palestine and for everyone's right to free speech.” The new evidence also includes reports that at least three judges on the BIA recused themselves from voting on the decision in his case, a highly unusual move that suggests they may have played a role in the immigration judge’s rulings from behind the scenes — despite the judge being legally obligated to exercise her own independent judgment. Allegations of misconduct in Mr. Khalil’s case are corroborated by growing evidence that the Executive Office of Immigration Review leadership and other top government officials pressured judges to issue predetermined decisions and expedite deportations — particularly in high-profile cases like Mr. Khalil’s — despite the agency being legally obligated to provide noncitizens a full and fair hearing on their claims. “It’s clear that the revelations of DOJ misconduct corroborate what we have known since Mahmoud was arrested–that the administration has reverse-engineered its desired outcome by weaponizing a farcical proceeding littered with abnormalities,” said Johnny Sinodis, partner at Van Der Hout LLP. “The administration has to be held to account, and the government’s case against Mahmoud must be thrown out. Transparency also dictates that the government produce any records regarding the handling and adjudication of Mahmoud’s case. The apparent interference with the Immigration Judge’s decision making is not only unconstitutional but also violates the government’s own rules and procedures.” This filing with the BIA comes as Mr. Khalil waits for the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether they will re-hear the government’s appeal of the district court’s orders prohibiting his detention and deportation. While that is pending, the Third Circuit panel’s order overturning the district court’s orders is not currently in effect and the Trump administration cannot lawfully re-detain nor deport Mr. Khalil at this time. Last weekend, Mr. Khalil’s legal team also filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, urging it to reverse the BIA’s removal order and terminate the proceedings entirely. As the legal team has repeatedly made clear, the immigration judge rushed to a decision without considering relevant evidence and refused to consider the constitutional challenges to his deportation, and improperly sustained false, after-the-fact charges that the Trump administration brought in retaliation for Mr. Khalil’s speech. This Fifth Circuit appeal will proceed regardless of whether the stay of the mandate is granted in the Third Circuit. Mr. Khalil is represented by Van Der Hout LLP, Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Washington Square Legal Services, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the ACLU of New Jersey, and the ACLU of Louisiana. The motion can be viewed here.

AUSTIN, Texas — The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas granted provisional class certification and a motion for preliminary injunction Thursday blocking four key provisions of Texas Senate Bill 4 (88-4). In his order, the judge states that “S.B. 4 could open the door to each state passing its own version of immigration laws. The effect would moot the uniform regulation of immigration throughout the country and force the federal government to navigate a patchwork of inconsistent regulations.” The 2023 law is one of the most extreme anti-immigrant laws ever passed by any state legislature in the country. The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, ACLU, and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed the class-action lawsuit on May 4. The following provisions remain blocked: The reentry crime that would apply to anyone living in or traveling through Texas who reentered the United States — even if the person had federal permission to reenter or has since obtained lawful immigration status such as a green card. The power given to magistrates — who don’t know the intricacies of immigration law — to issue deportation orders. The crime of failing to comply with the magistrate’s removal orders. The requirement that magistrates continue a prosecution even when a person has a pending immigration case under federal law. The illegal entry provision will go into effect May 15. While not a formal part of this suit, the provision suffers from the same constitutional problems as the rest of the law. The following is a joint statement from legal counsel: “The court's decision reaffirms what every court that has reviewed the merits of S.B. 4 and laws like it has held: Immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal issue and not up to the states. S.B. 4 would instill fear in our communities, cause widespread racial profiling, and subject lawfully present immigrants to arrest, detention, and deportation. Texas cannot override the U.S. Constitution and should stop wasting time attempting to do so.” The individual plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit now represent thousands of people across the state who may be criminally prosecuted for violating the reentry provision of S.B. 4. One plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident. A second plaintiff was provisionally approved for a lawful U Visa, a step on the path toward citizenship, which she was found eligible for after becoming the victim of a crime and helping law enforcement resolve the case. The district court ruling comes shortly after the en banc 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a preliminary injunction in Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center et al v. Steven C. McCraw et al solely on the grounds that plaintiffs El Paso County, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and American Gateways lacked standing — reversing its own three-judge panel decision from July 2025, which had found standing and held S.B. 4 to be preempted by federal law. This new lawsuit addresses the 5th Circuit's procedural concerns. Access the court order here.