ACLU Back-to-School Bookshelf: Our Reading List to Build a More Perfect Union

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.

MEMPHIS – Four Memphis residents filed suit in federal court to stop the Memphis Safe Task Force from retaliating against them for exercising their First Amendment right to film the Task Force’s immigration and law enforcement activity. The Task Force is comprised of numerous federal agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), and the U.S. Marshals, as well as the Tennessee Highway Patrol. "In the midst of the occupation in Memphis and the lack of transparency from this administration, it's important for people to bear witness to what's actually happening in our community,” said Hunter Demster, plaintiff. “The Memphis Safe Task Force is causing real harm to my friends and neighbors, and recording their abuses is one way to seek accountability and justice. The fact that I've been followed, threatened, and retaliated against for exercising my rights should concern everyone who cares about the First Amendment." Since September 2025, thousands of federal, state, and local agents have flooded the streets of Memphis as part of the Memphis Safe Task Force, a 31-agency Task Force that has aggressively patrolled the city at the invitation of Governor Bill Lee. Agents and officers working with the Memphis Safe Task Force have terrorized local communities, conducting mass traffic stops and large-scale immigration arrests. With Task Force abuses upending daily life in Memphis — a city already rocked by historic and pervasive law enforcement violence — ordinary Memphians have taken to the streets to observe and record their activities. While observing and recording Task Force activities, civilians have reported a disturbing and pervasive pattern of retaliation. Allegations include: Task Force agents tackling an observer seeking to record Task Force activity, pinning her down and arresting and jailing her for 27 hours. Task Force agents swerving at or boxing in observers with their vehicles. Task Force agents consistently photographing observers’ faces, vehicles, and license plates. Observers noticing unmarked vehicles with tinted windows and individuals in tactical vests outside their homes after observing the Task Force. Task Force agents repeatedly identifying and taunting observers by name, when observers have never met them before, making observers “feel hypervigilant.” Task Force agents shining bright lights at observers’ faces, phones, and cameras to obscure photography and filming of Task Force activity. Observers being tailed, stopped, and subjected to questioning without reasonable suspicion of a crime after observing Task Force activity. “Recording publicly visible law enforcement activity is a core First Amendment right,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Like folks in Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles, and elsewhere across the country, Memphis residents have picked up their phones and cameras to document the massive influx of law enforcement officers into their community. “In response, the Memphis Safe Task Force has relentlessly subjected these individuals to intimidation, harassment, and retaliation. We are going to court to seek relief against this egregious suppression of First Amendment protected activity.” The right to record law enforcement officers performing their duties in public has been widely recognized and upheld by the courts. Such video recordings have proven critical to accomplishing the First Amendment’s core purposes: the free discussion of government affairs, the exposure of government misconduct, and democratic pushes for government accountability and policy change. "Sunlight is a powerful disinfectant for a government that abuses its power in darkness," said Zee Scout (she/her), staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee. "Our clients have bravely shined a light on the daily abuses the Memphis Safe Task Force perpetuates against Memphians when it thinks no one is watching, and they have often experienced harm in response. But the Constitution forbids this sort of retaliation. Memphis has a long history of peaceful resistance in response to systemic government violence, and it will not be cowed by this latest attempt." The complaint also seeks to challenge the Task Force’s unlawful application of the state’s “Halo Law," which criminalizes approaching law enforcement within twenty-five feet after one warning. Task Force agents have repeatedly used the law to prevent non-obstructive observers, including our plaintiffs, from gathering information and recording their operations. “Courts have repeatedly upheld the right to record law enforcement in public spaces, because our government is ultimately accountable to the people,” said Faith E. Gay of Selendy Gay PLLC. “Exercising First Amendment rights should not result in arrests, intimidation, or surveillance, and yet that is exactly what is happening to people in Memphis. The pattern of unconstitutional retaliation is severe and chilling, and our brave clients are standing up to these unlawful intimidation tactics to defend their neighbors and the First Amendment.” “The right to record our government is critical to a functioning democracy and public debate,” said Matthew Borden of BraunHagey & Borden LLP. “The footage of the killings of George Floyd, Renee Good, and Alex Pretti prove that civilians’ ability to document abuses and speak truth to power using their camera phones can act as a fundamental check on government power. This suit seeks to stop the government from monopolizing the marketplace of ideas through armed intimidation and a ‘Halo Law’ that prevents people from exercising their right to record.” The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the ACLU Foundation of Tennessee, Selendy Gay PLLC, and BraunHagey & Borden LLP in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The named defendants include Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the heads of DHS, ICE, CBP, the U.S. Marshals, and the Tennessee Highway Patrol.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Supreme Court decided in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport that nonprofits can seek immediate federal court review of state investigatory subpoenas that they claim chill their First Amendment rights. The decision cites an August amicus brief authored by the Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression (FIRE) and joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of New Jersey that argues in support of groups’ right to seek federal relief. “We’re grateful that the Court has recognized that even before they’re enforced, law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information can scare away the supporters that are essential to any nonprofit’s work,” said Brian Hauss, deputy project director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “At a time when government officials throughout the country abuse regulatory powers to punish their ideological opponents, federal courts must remain a venue in which people can vindicate their First Amendment rights.” In 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Platkin issued subpoenas under the state’s consumer protections laws to First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a nonprofit that runs anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. The subpoenas sought wide-ranging information about the nonprofit, including the identity of its donors. First Choice challenged the subpoenas in federal court, arguing that the information sought chilled its First Amendments rights to speech and association. The Third Circuit dismissed First Choice’s claims, saying it could not assert its First Amendment rights in federal court until the state enforced the subpoena in state court. “Thankfully, the Court ruled that federal courts remain open for nonprofits to challenge government subpoenas that could be used to target them based on their viewpoint,” said Jeanne LoCicero, legal director of the ACLU of New Jersey. “It is crucial for advocacy organizations – wherever they fall on the political spectrum - to have a legal path to fight retaliatory conduct by government officials.” The FIRE/ACLU brief argued that state law enforcement subpoenas seeking sensitive donor information threaten to chill protected speech and association even before they are enforced in state court. To ensure that these investigatory tools are not abused to retaliate against the ideological opponents of those in office, federal courts must be available to promptly review claims that law enforcement subpoenas violate the First Amendment. The amicus brief was filed in August. It can be read here. This matter is a part of the ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.