ACLU Statement on House Immigration Bills

BOISE – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Idaho, Stoel Rives, and Cooley LLP filed an opposition brief today on behalf of their clients, urging a federal court to allow a lawsuit challenging the violent mass detention of hundreds of Latino people for an immigration dragnet at a family horse-racing event in Wilder, Idaho to proceed. The lawsuit, Rodriguez et al. v. Porter et al., was filed earlier this year on behalf of three Latino families and a proposed class of people who were at La Catedral Arena on October 19, 2025, when more than 200 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers descended on an otherwise peaceful family event. Law enforcement arrived in armored trucks and a helicopter with flashbang grenades and guns drawn and detained approximately 400 spectators – including U.S. citizens and children – for four hours of detention in inhumane conditions before subjecting everyone to suspicionless immigration interrogations. In their motions to dismiss, defendants continue to characterize the operation as a routine execution of warrants for five people accused of non-violent unlicensed gambling. The ACLU’s brief filed today makes clear that hundreds of heavily-armed officers detaining hundreds of people with no connection to the gambling allegations – and prolonging their detention to investigate everyone's immigration status – was anything but routine. “Our clients are still living with the physical and emotional scars from that day, and yet the defendants continue to try to rewrite what happened,” said Allison Frankel, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Warrants for five people accused of unlicensed gambling do not give police a blank check to round up hundreds of people, hold families at gunpoint, or target people based on their perceived ethnicity. We know what happened at La Catedral, and we’re going to keep fighting to hold those responsible accountable and make clear that law enforcement is not above the law.” Juana Rodriguez, one of the lead plaintiffs, is a U.S. citizen who was at the racetrack with her 3-year-old son. After being violently rounded up with hundreds of other families, Rodriguez was placed in zip ties and detained for several hours without food or water. Law enforcement instructed her toddler to hold onto her pocket, which they had turned inside out, while Rodriguez remained zip tied and unable to comfort her son as he cried out for water. "The cruelty that occurred in Wilder is a tragic example of a government operating with reckless violence and unrestricted power," said Paul Carlos Southwick, legal director for the ACLU of Idaho. "The human cost of this operation is unacceptable. Law enforcement must answer for the large-scale civil rights abuses that took place so we can ensure this never happens again.” The lawsuit alleges that federal, state and local law enforcement used the criminal warrants as a cover to conduct a sweeping immigration dragnet targeting an event where they knew the attendees would be predominantly Latino. The complaint centrally claims that these federal, state and local actors conspired to deprive those detained of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable detentions, and their right to equal protection regardless of ethnicity. The complaint is brought under laws created after the Civil War to prevent racialized government violence. The conspiracy claims provide a path to hold federal actors accountable for civil rights violations. The brief is available here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/rodriguez-et-al-v-porter-et-al?document=Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-Defendants-Motions-to-Dismiss

In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that Keisy G.M., a lawful permanent resident who had been subjected to mandatory detention for 21 months, could not be detained any longer without a hearing on whether he poses a flight risk or danger. That decision was consistent with the vast majority of federal court rulings on the government’s practice of detaining people for prolonged periods of time without any individual hearings. The Trump administration appealed the ruling in January 2026 and on June 15 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, setting oral argument for Oct. 13, 2026. The Trump administration is taking a radical position the government has not taken in the 30 years since this mandatory detention statute, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), was enacted by Congress. It says immigrants like Mr. G.M. do not have a protected liberty interest in not being locked up without a hearing — at a time when the administration is pushing hard to detain and deport as many immigrants as possible, often locking people away in inhumane ICE detention centers, where deaths are already at record levels. On the government’s theory, it can lock up people under this mandatory detention statute for months, years, or even decades, without a hearing — as long as the removal case is still ongoing. The American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union, MacArthur Justice Center, and Hecker Fink LLP are co-counsel. The groups argue the federal appeals court ruling is correct, and that the Constitution protects all of us, regardless of immigration status, from being locked away without due process.

PHILADEPHIA — Another federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s new policy subjecting millions of immigrants to mandatory detention without access to bond hearings. Today’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stems from a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Pennsylvania, ACLU of New Jersey, and the law firm of Palladino, Isbell & Casazza, LLC. The case is Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC. The Third Circuit decision joins similar rulings from seven other federal appeals courts and hundreds of district court judges in finding the policy unlawful. For decades, immigrants in removal proceedings who were detained by the government have generally had the right to seek release by an immigration judge. In mid-2025, the Trump administration suddenly adopted a new radical reinterpretation of the immigration laws and declared that anyone who entered without inspection must be detained without access to bond. Among those who were affected were people eligible for legal status, even those with long-pending immigration applications who have been waiting years due to administrative backlogs. The following is reaction to today’s ruling: “The courts have repeatedly and resoundingly rejected the Trump administration’s radical reinterpretation of our country’s detention laws. This ruling is another critical victory against the administration’s cruelty and disrespect for the rule of law. We are thrilled for our clients and their families,” said Michael Tan, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Even before the Trump administration began its campaign to detain every person it could round up, immigration detention was a cruel and unnecessary practice,” said Vanessa Stine, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “But denying bond hearings to the individuals ICE detains is an alarming trend that is blatantly at odds with the plain text of the statute and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. We applaud today’s decision and look forward to continuing the fight to end the Trump administration’s dangerous and unconstitutional targeting of immigrant communities.” “This ruling underscores that this administration cannot make up its own rules in order to lock up huge numbers of people without a bond hearing,” said Farrin Anello, senior counsel for the ACLU of New Jersey. “We applaud the court’s careful and painstaking analysis of the statutes in question and its conclusion that the government must follow the plain language of the law and the Constitution in order to take away someone’s freedom. Today is a win for immigrants’ rights and the rule of law.” “Within the Third Circuit, this decision puts an end to a year-long campaign by the administration to indefinitely detain human beings without due process. We feel incredibly fortunate to have co-counseled with this legal team on this case," said Christopher M. Casazza, attorney with Palladino, Isbell & Casazza, LLC. The ruling is here.

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’s 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’s ruling, seven appellate courts and hundreds of District Court judges have now issued rulings holding that the Trump administration’s new policy of subjecting noncitizens living in the country to categorical detention without a bond hearing is unlawful. “I 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,” said Annelise Araujo, founding principal and owner at Annelise Araujo Law. “We are pleased that the court is vindicating the rights of immigrants unlawfully detained in Maine and throughout New England,” said ACLU of Maine Legal Director Carol Garvan. “The government’s 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.” 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’s novel and erroneous statutory interpretation. As disclosed in subsequent court filings, the government’s 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.