ACLU Comment on Biden Administration Sending Troops to Southern Border

SAN FRANCISCO — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agreed yesterday to provide immediate medical care for two individuals being held in the California City Detention Facility, after the individuals filed their petition for emergency relief. The agreement was entered as a court order by the federal judge in San Francisco overseeing the case. Earlier this month, Yuri Roque Campos and Fernando Viera Reyes filed the motion seeking medical care on an emergency basis after medical staff at the facility ignored their worsening health issues. A medical expert previously warned in a sworn declaration that any delays in medical care would lead to suffering and even possible death. The duo are represented by the Prison Law Office, Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, and are part of an ongoing class-action lawsuit challenging the abusive conditions in the California City Detention Facility, California’s largest immigration detention facility. Quotes from co-counsel are as follows: “While we’re relieved that Mr. Roque Campos and Mr. Viera Reyes will finally receive the medical care they urgently need, ICE should have never denied them adequate medical care in the first place,” said Kyle Virgien, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “Many more people remain at the detention facility, facing the same inhumane conditions that put these two men’s lives in jeopardy. We will continue to fight to ensure all people detained at the California City Detention Facility receive the medical care that they urgently need.” “It should not take a team of lawyers and a federal judge’s attention to ensure that people in ICE’s custody have access to adequate medical care when facing life-threatening medical issues,” said Cody Harris, partner at Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP. “We are relieved that our motion spurred the government to act after months of neglect. We now turn our attention to ensuring that the conditions and medical care at California City comply with the law.” “Yuri Roque Campos and Fernando Viera Reyes should not have had to wait months to get the medical care ICE knew they needed the moment they arrived at the facility,” said Tess Borden, supervising staff attorney at the Prison Law Office. “We’re not stopping with this win. We’ll continue to work to ensure that they— and everyone detained at California City — receive the medical care they need and are entitled to under the law.” The order is online here.  

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — A federal court in California has ruled that a Trump administration policy that seeks to end bond eligibility for thousands of immigrants is unlawful and again declared that all members of the nationwide class are eligible for bond hearings. The ruling, issued late last week, clarifies the government’s obligation after weeks of immigration judges and government attorneys continuing to deny bond hearings to class members. In explaining why she was issuing the clarifying order, U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes of Central California pointed to evidence submitted demonstrating the government’s disregard of her summary judgment orders issued late November. She noted confusion about the effect and nature of the court’s orders and how troubling it was that the government specifically directed immigration judges to ignore those orders. Because of this, the judge issued a final judgment on behalf of the nationwide class, declaring the rights of class members and setting aside the Department of Homeland Security’s unlawful policy. The order stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Southern California, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and USC Gould School of Law Immigration Clinic. In July 2025, DHS and the Department of Justice announced a new policy, declaring that any noncitizen who entered without inspection is categorically subject to mandatory detention and thus not eligible to seek release on bond during their removal proceedings. This policy upends decades of prior practice that had been consistent with due process. As a result, since July, thousands of people have been jailed indefinitely with no opportunity for a bond hearing while their immigration cases proceed for months or years. While over 220 judges in hundreds of cases across the country have declared the government’s new detention policy to be contrary to immigration law and the Constitution, the vast majority of people have not been able to get bond hearings. The district court in this case certified a nationwide class last month and declared that all class members had been unlawfully subject to mandatory detention and should instead have access to a bond hearing. However, despite that court’s order, the government took the position that it was not bound by the declaratory judgment — forcing people to continue filing habeas petitions in district courts to vindicate their rights. Plaintiffs in this case quickly went back to the district court, which rejected the government’s arguments and issued a final judgment affirming that all class members are eligible for bond and vacating the DHS memo. The following is reaction to the ruling: “For months, the government’s new no-bond policy has upended the lives of countless people as this administration uses mandatory detention to punish and coerce people into self-deportation,” said My Khanh Ngo, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The court’s order reaffirms our class members’ rights and sends a message that this administration must abide by legal pronouncements.” “This order is critical to respond to the misinformation that immigration judges across the country have been relying on to justify denying bond hearings,” said Matt Adams, legal director for NWIRP. “This makes clear that the law requires they provide bond hearings to our class members, so they may have the opportunity to return to their families, homes and jobs.” The order granting the motion to reconsider is here and the amended order granting class certification and summary judgment is here. The final judgment is here.

Landmark case protects babies born on U.S. soil who would be denied citizenship under President Trump’s unconstitutional executive order WASHINGTON — Heading into the new year, immigrants’ rights and civil rights advocates are busy preparing for Supreme Court arguments, expected in the spring, in a case challenging President Trump’s unprecedented birthright citizenship executive order that seeks to deny U.S. citizenship to many babies born in the United States. Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and a second-generation American, will argue this landmark case, Trump v. Barbara, at the Supreme Court. An ACLU lawyer for more than two decades, Wang has played a central role in shaping the organization’s civil rights and constitutional litigation. Under her leadership during the first Trump administration, the ACLU challenged the Muslim ban, family separation policy, illegal funding of border wall projects Congress had rejected, and attempts to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Earlier in her career, she directed the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, which won cases involving immigration detention, racial profiling, and discriminatory state and federal immigration laws. As a second-generation American, her own citizenship was made possible by the repeal of racially discriminatory immigration laws through the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, and by the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship guarantee. Those reforms grew directly out of the anti-slavery and civil rights movements and expanded who has citizenship and belonging in the United States. “This is the case of the century — the stakes are unfathomably high. Can a president of the United States unilaterally end birthright citizenship by executive order — overriding more than 150 years of settled constitutional law, and redefining who is recognized as American at birth? Absolutely not,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “Cecillia Wang is one of the country’s great litigators, which is why she’s the ACLU’s top lawyer. She has decades of experience fighting government overreach, including two trial victories against Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s racial profiling and contempt of court. Now, she’s up against a more formidable adversary as this case is a linchpin to Donald Trump and Stephen Miller’s agenda. Our clients are in the best possible hands with Cecillia Wang and this incredible co-counsel team presenting arguments — they will do all it takes to make sure birthright citizenship remains a cornerstone of our democracy.” The Barbara case is a nationwide class action brought by the national ACLU, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, the Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of babies who would be subject to the executive order. This summer, the federal court in the Barbara case granted a preliminary injunction that protects birthright citizenship for all children born on U.S. soil, prompting the Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court. Courts have uniformly rejected President Trump’s attempts to strip away a core constitutional protection and blocked his birthright citizenship executive order. The groups will argue that the administration’s assault on birthright citizenship — the legal principle guaranteed by the 14th Amendment that every baby born in the United States is a U.S. citizen — flouts the Constitution’s dictates, longstanding Supreme Court precedent, a statute passed by Congress, and fundamental American values.