250th Anniversary Marks Moment of Both Commemoration and Reckoning

WASHINGTON — In a major victory, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and the Democracy Defenders Fund brought the successful challenge in Trump v. Barbara on behalf of children who would have been denied citizenship under the order. In its 6-to-3 decision, the court struck down the president’s 2025 executive order, which sought to strip citizenship from American children born to undocumented parents. The decision reaffirms that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution and rejects President Trump’s attempt to redefine who is an American citizen through executive action. The following are reactions to today’s ruling: “The court’s decision reaffirms a fundamental American promise — if you are born here, you are a citizen,” said ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang, who argued the case at the Supreme Court. “A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat. Our brave clients and our legal team stand with millions of people around our country who spoke up for one of our most cherished rights. The Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship stands strong.” “With a 6-3 judgment from the U.S. Supreme Court, President Trump suffered a stunning loss on a signature order he signed on day one of his presidency,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “This was one of the most important constitutional cases of the past 100 years. The president bet his legacy trying to secure this policy win — even attending the argument in person — and he lost. It was especially gratifying that the majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Roberts, and that Trump appointees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the decision to strike down the order.” “The Constitution, not the president, defines who is a citizen. And the 14th Amendment makes clear that every child born on U.S. soil is a citizen. Today, a narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed these unequivocal truths,” said Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the Legal Defense Fund. “We cannot and will not turn our attention away from the fact that what should have been 9-0 decision instead revealed that four justices agreed to varying degrees with the president’s desecration of the Constitution. Nor does this absolve the court of its countless decisions that have violated decades of precedent and established doctrine at the expense of Black people, communities of color, and immigrants. Nonetheless, today, we applaud this significant win.” “This is an important victory for all Americans, including Asian Americans who have been told for generations that we don't belong here, and who have been part of the fight for birthright citizenship from the start,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus. “Wong Kim Ark was born just blocks from the Asian Law Caucus. We and our immigrant clients have continued the same fight for full and equal membership in this country. Today, the court reaffirmed what we've always known: We are American, and we are here to stay.” Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, said, “Today’s ruling is more than a legal landmark. It is a human one. For more than a century, birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of equal citizenship and national belonging in our country. This decision reaffirms that fundamental guarantee — no president has the power to decide who is entitled to the rights our Constitution protects. Americans’ rights cannot simply be erased by the Trump administration’s reckless executive actions.” SangYeob Kim, director of the ACLU-NH Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “This decision is about what it means to be an American under our Constitution, and the court’s unwavering opinion makes clear that if you are born here, you are a citizen. We thank the brave immigrant parents and their children who brought this lawsuit to the highest court in the land to protect what we have long known: no politician — including the president — can decide who is worthy of citizenship. We share in their overwhelming emotions, and relief, in our fight to protect the constitutional rights for all born in our nation.” “Today's decision is a victory for immigrant families and maintains over 150 years of legal and bipartisan consensus: that at our best, America is and has always been a nation of immigrants,” said ACLU of Maine Executive Director Molly Curren Rowles. “Our cultural diversity and openness to ideas, innovation, and free expression rest on the principle of equality under the law. While we never should have had to bring this case, this decision can form the foundation of a renewed commitment to our audacious and visionary multicultural democracy.” “This ruling affirms a fundamental and inescapable principle: that everyone born in the United States is entitled to the same rights and protections,” said Carol Rose, executive director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “Bigotry and bluster cannot change that. And the president cannot rewrite the Constitution. This ruling should make that abundantly clear. The ACLU of Massachusetts is proud to be involved in this historic case, and together with our colleagues and allies across the nation, we will continue to build on the inviolable principles of liberty, equality, and justice for all.” The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 1, 2026.

WASHINGTON — Today, Congressman Obernolte and Congresswoman Trahan released a draft regulatory framework for Artificial Intelligence, which they may soon introduce in the House of Representatives. This draft bill – if enacted into law – would largely prohibit states from regulating AI developers. It would block states from enforcing existing state protections and from enacting new protections This could include anything from privacy regulations to antidiscrimination requirements to AI safety laws. Congress has twice overwhelmingly rejected legislative proposals to block states from regulating AI, also known as “preemption.” This includes a 99-1 Senate vote last year against an amendment that would have created a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulation. Seventeen Republican governors joined the bipartisan opposition to that failed amendment. In response, Jina John, senior policy counsel for AI, privacy and technology at the ACLU released the following statement: "This draft bill fails to learn from Congress’s previous attempts to block state AI regulations. States must be able to protect their own residents from harm, hold tech companies accountable, and ensure that AI is safe and trustworthy. "Governors, attorneys general, and lawmakers from both parties have opposed the efforts to push states aside for good reason. AI touches all aspects of people’s lives in this country, including employment, healthcare, lending, education, and so much more. So far, it has been governors and state legislatures—and largely not Congress or the president—who have been trying to protect the American people from harms that AI may cause. The federal government must not grant tech giants a blank check to deploy these technologies without the oversight of states."

NEWARK — Yesterday, federal agents reportedly fired pepper balls and tear gas at people gathered outside the Delaney Hall immigration detention facility in Newark, New Jersey, including U.S. Senator Andy Kim. This comes after days in which hundreds of individuals detained at Delaney Hall have engaged in a hunger strike decrying inhumane conditions and treatment. New Jersey elected officials, including Rep. Rob Menendez, Rep. LaMonica McIver, Rep. Analilia Mejia, Rep. Nellie Pou, Rep. Frank Pallone, Senator Andy Kim, state legislators, and Governor Mikie Sherrill, have continued to call for the closure of Delaney Hall, a facility that has been plagued by abusive conditions since it opened. The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly obstructed officials’ access to the facility. The following is a statement from ACLU-NJ Executive Director Amol Sinha: “People detained at Delaney Hall are facing brutal and inhumane conditions. Their families and community members who are protesting their treatment, and the elected officials who are asking to inspect the facility, should not face pepper spray and rubber bullets for doing so. Our federal representatives – who have the congressional authority to conduct oversight visits of the facility – have instead taken pepper spray to their eyes and experienced abuse at the hands of federal agents.” “The calls for closure from officials across all levels of government reflect the will of a state that believes in due process, human dignity, and the rule of law. We urge the federal government to heed those calls, end the obstruction of congressional oversight, and immediately address the conditions that have driven detained people to risk their health and safety to be heard. No one should have to starve themselves to be treated with basic humanity. “The Trump administration continues to target people decrying its horrific mass detention and deportation agenda, and we need leaders at every level of government to take action to hold ICE accountable and end immigration detention. We also urge state leaders to ensure universal representation for people detained in New Jersey by increasing funding for the Detention and Deportation Defense Initiative to $20 million to meet the increased demand for legal services.” Haddy Gassama, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, had the following reaction: “The hunger strike at Delaney Hall is not an isolated action. It is a response to longstanding, systematic abuse in immigration detention, and it joins many other similar actions across the country. Against this brutal backdrop, the rates of death in detention have been steadily rising, at an average of one death in ICE custody every six days. “It just so happens Congress is debating whether to give the Department of Homeland Security another $70 billion to continue ramping up their mass deportations, all while federal agents shoot rubber bullets and pepper spray at elected officials, families of detainees, and community members. Their sickening display in Newark this Memorial Day weekend is but the latest reminder why our representatives and Senators must hold firm and refuse to be complicit in fueling ICE’s reckless abuses in our communities."

This case concerns the constitutionality of a highly intrusive law enforcement practice: the use of geofence warrants. Geofence warrants compel tech companies like Google to provide to law enforcement location data from every cell phone likely to have been within a certain area during a given time window. Then, law enforcement officers decide for themselves which users to focus on, and demand additional location information—and eventually identifying information—for the users they select. Geofence warrants raise grave constitutional concerns, including that (1) they authorize dragnet searches that sweep up the private data of many people without probable cause to believe that all or any of them were involved in any crime, and (2) they allow law enforcement officers to decide which users to focus on for additional data collection without judicial oversight. This case therefore has significant implications for Texans’ ability to secure their digital privacy and property against unjustified government intrusion.