The Little Film That Could Garners Top Prize

The legal team is seeking emergency relief to block several provisions of the law from taking effect May 15 AUSTIN, Texas — The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Texas, and the Texas Civil Rights Project have filed a class-action lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to block several provisions of Senate Bill 4 (88-4) from going into effect May 15. The 2023 law is one of the most extreme anti-immigrant laws ever passed by any state legislature in the country. S.B. 4 would allow local and state law enforcement to arrest, detain, and remove people they suspect to have entered Texas from another country without federal authorization. The organizations are specifically seeking to prevent four different provisions of the law from going into effect, including: The reentry crime that would apply to anyone living in or traveling through Texas who reentered the United States without federal authorization — 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. Advocates have warned that the law will separate families and directly lead to racial profiling, subjecting thousands of Black and Brown Texans to the state prison system, which is rife with civil rights abuses. “S.B. 4 would transform our police and judges into immigration agents — threatening neighbors who have families here, who have lived here for years, even those who have legal status,” said Adriana Piñon, legal director at the ACLU of Texas. “Immigration enforcement is exclusively the federal government's arena, and no state has ever claimed the power Texas threatens to wield here. We are taking this back to court to defend our Texas communities.” The individual plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit seek to represent thousands of people across the state who may be held liable for violating the reentry provision of S.B. 4. One plaintiff is a lawful permanent resident. A second plaintiff has been approved for a lawful U Visa, a step on the path toward citizenship, which she received after becoming the victim of a crime and helping law enforcement resolve the case. “Every court to have reached the merits of laws like S.B. 4 has found them to be unconstitutional,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “S.B. 4 is cruel and illegal, and we will keep fighting it until it is permanently struck down.” The new filing comes shortly after the en banc Fifth 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, 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 Fifth Circuit's procedural concerns. “Our fight against S.B. 4 isn’t over until justice wins,” said Kate Gibson Kumar, Beyond Borders staff attorney at Texas Civil Rights Project. “S.B. 4 is not only unconstitutional, but a vile law that uses our Texas resources to harm communities across our state. The Texas Civil Rights Project will keep fighting to protect Texas communities from the wrath of S.B. 4.” The en banc Fifth Circuit did not reach the constitutional questions at the heart of this case: whether S.B. 4 violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and unconstitutionally strips the federal government of its exclusive authority over immigration enforcement. The complaint is here. The motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction is here.

Despite abhorrent conditions and increasing deaths in ICE detention, the Trump administration’s new warehouse detention system would increase capacity to 96,000 people and undoubtedly lead to continued abuse.

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court today ruled that President Trump’s Day 1 proclamation aimed at completely shutting down asylum at the border is unlawful. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the “212(f)” proclamation allowed the president to summarily deport asylum seekers who cross the border without allowing them to seek protection as required by Congress. The proclamation had falsely cited an “invasion” as the pretext for denying asylum protections for people who are at risk of persecution. The appeals court held that the government cannot subvert the laws Congress passed with extra-statutory procedures to block people from seeking asylum, which puts tens of thousands of lives at risk. The American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Texas Civil Rights Project, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and ACLU of Texas brought the federal lawsuit on behalf of Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, which provide legal services to asylum seekers, and a nationwide class of people barred from seeking protection in the United States under this proclamation. The following is reaction to today’s ruling: “This decision puts an end to the inhumane Trump policy of sending people, including families with little children, back to horrific danger without even a hearing,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the appeal. “The court made clear that the president does not have the unilateral power to wipe away all of the asylum laws enacted by Congress.” “The circuit court reaffirmed our conviction that a president cannot unilaterally eliminate the right to seek asylum by executive order. We hope that the U.S. government remembers its obligation to consider applications for refugee protections and recommits to upholding the basic rights of people fleeing persecution,” said Keren Zwick, director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “Today marks a victory for the right of people to move freely across borders. It’s a moment to celebrate the connections we have with others, regardless of artificial boundaries,” said Daniel Hatoum, senior supervising attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project. “Today's D.C. Circuit ruling affirms that capricious actions by the president cannot supplant the rule of law in the United States. The right to seek asylum is firmly grounded in U.S. law and binding international obligations. This decision is a meaningful victory for our clients, who have been denied access to protection under policies deliberately designed to shut the door on people fleeing violence and persecution — policies that are inconsistent with those legal standards and basic due process. As organizational plaintiffs in this case, we fought this because in border communities like ours, we see the human consequences every day. Individuals and families arriving here are seeking lawful protection and the opportunity to live and work safely,” said Nicolas Palazzo, director of advocacy and legal services of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. “Today’s decision is a win for every person who seeks safety and protection at our borders,” said Laura St. John, the legal director for the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. “The right to seek asylum in the U.S. is protected by law, and no unilateral executive action can nullify the laws and system Congress has created. We are relieved to see the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirm these principles. We call on the U.S. government to immediately move to uphold its obligation to people seeking protection and restart asylum processing at once.” “Since January of last year, the government has used the proclamation to implement a near-total shutdown of asylum processing, slamming the door on vulnerable families, children, and adults seeking refuge,” said Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “As the court rightly concluded, U.S. law is clear: People seeking safety have a legal right to apply for asylum. The government cannot wield racist, baseless claims of an ‘invasion’ to override Congress and deprive them of that right.” “The D.C. Circuit's decision today confirms what we have long known to be true: U.S. immigration policy, as codified by law, does not grant the president unchecked, autocratic power to override Congress,” said Faisal Al-Juburi, co-chief executive officer at RAICES. “The rule of law is fundamental to our nation, and an independent judiciary remains essential to upholding this principle.” “This ruling confirms that the president cannot invent false pretenses to eliminate life-or-death rights for refugees seeking asylum,” said Arthur Spitzer, senior counsel at the ACLU of the District of Columbia. “Thankfully, the courts still function in a fact-based world and rejected the president's false claims of invasion.” The ruling is here. Case background is here.