ACLU Comment on TPS Redesignation for Haiti

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has granted review in Mullin v. RAICES, a challenge to President Trump’s proclamation completely shutting down asylum at the border. 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 a nationwide class of people barred from seeking protection in the United States under this proclamation, as well as three immigrant legal service providers, Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. The federal district court in Washington, D.C. and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit both rejected the Trump administration’s unlawful proclamation barring people from seeking asylum by invoking Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act and a nonexistent “invasion.” The lower federal courts ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor because the Trump administration’s action is contrary to laws enacted by Congress to ensure that people receive an opportunity to have their asylum claims heard. The Supreme Court granted the government’s petition to hear the case, and argument is expected in spring 2027. The following is reaction to the Supreme Court decision to hear the case: “The president does not have the right to unilaterally override the protections Congress has afforded those fleeing danger,” said Lee Gelernt, lead counsel and deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The courts are right to reject this unprecedented power grab that would put countless lives in danger. We look forward to making our case before the Supreme Court.” “The plaintiffs in this case fled persecution and torture, including political imprisonment and threats from the Taliban. Yet, the Trump administration refused to honor its obligation to consider them for asylum,” said Keren Zwick, executive director of the National Immigrant Justice Center. “Some plaintiffs were removed to third countries and then pushed back to the very place they fled; others faced prolonged detention without access to legal due process. Even after the lower courts rejected the president’s proclamation, the administration has continued to block access to asylum at the U.S. border. This vicious attack on due process and human rights has put thousands of lives in danger. We are honored to represent these asylum seekers, and their advocates, as this important case proceeds.” “For nearly two years, the Trump administration’s unlawful asylum shutdown has deprived people seeking safety of their rights, placing vulnerable families, children, and adults in harm’s way,” said Melissa Crow, director of litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “Refugees fleeing persecution and torture have been denied access to the asylum process and deported to danger. The lower courts got it right: The president cannot unilaterally rewrite our immigration laws and defy the will of Congress to get its way. It is now up to the Supreme Court to decide whether it will uphold the rule of law or bend to the administration’s agenda.” “No one seeking safety at our borders should be denied that opportunity. It is incredibly timely that the Supreme Court will hear our case, as the nation saw a clear mandate from midterm voters earlier this month. Our communities made their voices heard on immigration, economic justice, and the many misdirections this administration has taken,” said Rochelle Garza, president of the Texas Civil Rights Project. “Asylum seekers deserve to have their rights protected, and we will continue fighting to ensure that the dedicated organizations who serve them directly have the ability to do so.” “The Supreme Court faces a stark choice. Respect the rule of law and uphold the right to asylum, or allow the executive to decide on its own who gets to ask for safety,” said Nicolas Palazzo, interim executive director of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center. “For the people we represent in El Paso and along the border, the court’s answer will decide whether they find protection or are sent back to the danger they fled.” “Congress has determined that the United States has not only a moral but a legal obligation to provide people seeking safety at our borders a process to access protection. This attempt to unilaterally stop all asylum processing at the border is an unprecedented and illegal overreach that puts countless people in danger,” said Laura St. John, the legal director for the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. “Across this country, the American people firmly reject an unchecked executive that operates with disregard for the law,” said Faisal Al-Juburi, co-chief executive officer of RAICES. “Our system of checks and balances exists for moments precisely like this — to ensure no single branch can consolidate power at will. By agreeing to hear this case, the Supreme Court faces a critical constitutional responsibility: to uphold the limits of executive power and make clear that no president is beyond congressional authority. Future generations will look back at this decision, and the court must demonstrate that the rule of law applies equitably to all.”

The Supreme Court will hear Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, stemming from our lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s unlawful policy that subjects millions of immigrants to mandatory detention without access to bond hearings. Mandatory detention has played a key role in this administration’s cruel and lawless campaign of mass deportations. This case will decide whether the government can upend how our laws have been understood and applied for decades to lock up millions of immigrants without a chance to show there is no justification for their detention while they fight their removal. The American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union, Law Office of Paul O’Dwyer, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and MacArthur Justice Center are counsel in this case. Oral argument is expected in late February or early March 2027.

BOSTON — A group of legal services organizations today filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s new policy of hiding the locations of thousands of people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The policy unlawfully interferes with communication between detainees, their families, and their lawyers. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of Greater Boston Legal Services, Rian Immigrant Center, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, and Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. The groups argue the new policy unlawfully blocks them from locating, communicating with, and providing legal services to their clients and potential clients. For over 16 years, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has made the location of detained noncitizens available via its Online Detainee Locator System. In September, DHS abruptly changed course and stopped sharing the location of detained people with final orders of removal, either via the locator service or in direct response to queries from family members or attorneys. This policy of mass disappearance has thrown thousands into an administrative black box without any justification. The new policy facilitates the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign by making it more difficult to provide detainees with access to attorneys and the judicial system — and thus more difficult to challenge unlawful detention and pursue lawful pathways to remain in the United States. Noncitizens with final orders of removal may still pursue a number of legal remedies to challenge their detention and deportation — but if they cannot access legal counsel or the courts, they may never have a chance to seek these remedies before they are deported. The lawsuit alleges that ICE’s implementation of this new policy is arbitrary and capricious, and thus a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint also alleges that ICE’s policy violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. Finally, the complaint alleges violations of the Freedom of Information Act because the government failed to publish details of their new policy. The plaintiffs are asking the court to vacate the new policy, and will shortly file a motion to stay the new policy while their case proceeds. The plaintiffs are represented by the National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and Annelise Araujo Law. The following are statements from the plaintiffs and their legal counsel: Attorneys representing the plaintiffs: “The Trump administration’s new policy of mass disappearance should send a chill through everybody’s spine. By choosing to hide even the most basic information about thousands of people in its custody, the government is unlawfully blocking their access to legal counsel and the courts, and keeping desperate loved ones in the dark. This shockingly malicious policy was implemented suddenly, without any legal basis or justification, and with immediate, devastating impacts for our clients and the people they serve. The government must reverse course immediately, restore the Online Detainee Locator System, and stop hiding people in its vast network of detention facilities.” Jacquelynne J. Bowman, executive director of Greater Boston Legal Services: “No one should be denied a meaningful opportunity to defend their rights because the government has made it impossible for their lawyer to find them. Even with representation, navigating the legal system is complex for immigrants facing deportation. This arbitrary new administrative change leaves hundreds of thousands of people at risk of potentially life-altering consequences without essential legal help.” Jackie Kelley, director of immigration legal services at the Rian Immigrant Center: “We cannot allow the United States government to indefinitely disappear human beings. If we cannot locate our clients, we cannot pursue the relief for which they are legally eligible. The law gives our clients the right to seek protection. This policy obstructs that right when our clients need it most.” Laura St. John, legal director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project: “The Trump administration is disappearing people within the immigration detention system. This should terrify every single one of us. Thousands of people are no longer being shown on the online detainee locator system, making it impossible for attorneys to locate their clients or identify people who might need emergency legal assistance. How can people in detention possibly have access to due process and safety if there is no way for their families or advocates to know where they are being held?” Aimee Mayer-Salins, deputy program director of legal coordination at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights: “When someone you love is in ICE custody, they shouldn’t simply disappear into a black hole. Families deserve to know where their loved ones are being held, and this lawsuit is about protecting that basic right.” For more information about Greater Boston Legal Services et al. v. Mullin, visit: https://www.aclu.org/cases/greater-boston-legal-services-et-al-v-mullin