ACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals Information About ICE Capacity, Contracts in Facilities Nationwide

OKLAHOMA CITY – Today, civil rights groups filed an amended complaint with a motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to block Oklahoma’s HB 4156, a harmful law that would create a state system to regulate immigration that undermines the exclusively federal system Congress enacted. HB 4156 usurps federal control over immigration law by subjecting certain groups of noncitizens to arrest and prosecution who have a federal right to remain here. Under the law, large swaths of immigrants would be barred from entering the state – or could be ordered to leave – even if they are legally pursuing asylum or other lawful immigration status. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Oklahoma, National Immigration Law Center, and law firm Rivas & Associates previously filed a lawsuit in May of 2024 on behalf of the Oklahoma-based organization Padres Unidos de Tulsa and several individual plaintiffs who live in the state. The lawsuit was consolidated with a similar challenge filed by the United States. The law was set to take effect on July 1, 2024, but the court granted the United States’s request for an injunction. With the onset of the Trump administration, the United States dismissed its challenge. Civil rights groups have now filed an amended lawsuit with additional plaintiffs, including the League of United Latin American Citizens Oklahoma City (“LULAC-OKC”), in an effort to enjoin the law once more. “We are fighting once more against this harmful law, which the court already enjoined last year as unconstitutional” said Noor Zafar, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Every day that HB 4156 is in effect, it puts immigrants in Oklahoma at risk of arrest, detention, and banishment from the state and undermines the federal immigration system that Congress set up. We are using every legal tool available to stop this law from tearing apart communities across Oklahoma.” “People who are immigrants are part of our families, communities, workplaces and places of worship,” said Tamya Cox-Touré, executive director for the ACLU of Oklahoma. “Like many of our families, they join the long American tradition of coming here in search of a better life and freedom. HB 4156 is one of the most extreme anti-immigrant bills ever to be passed by any state. Our local law enforcement lacks the expertise and the constitutional authority to interpret and enforce immigration law, putting all community members at risk – citizen or not. We will continue to fight for the rights and dignity of immigrants and their families. ” “LULAC is proud to stand against HB 4156,” said Nicole Maldonado, President of LULAC Oklahoma. “This bill doesn’t solve any real issues. It unfairly targets our LULAC family and undocumented immigrants, instilling fear in our communities. We need solutions that build trust and uplift hardworking families, not policies that punish people seeking a better life.” “For Padres Unidos de Tulsa, this lawsuit is deeply personal,” said Michelle Lara, President of Padres Unidos de Tulsa. “It's not just about a piece of legislation; it strikes at the heart of our community: our children, our neighbors, our families. Like so many others across the country, we refuse to be intimidated or live in fear of these anti-immigrant bills. We are taking this action because this policy will undeniably harm a community already struggling with significant hurdles. Our schools are underfunded and misdirected. As a state, we face high rates of incarceration. Our community experiences poor health outcomes. To enact a law that further marginalizes us, that seems to question our very right to exist, is wrong. We are parents, we are your neighbors, and we are determined. We will not back down from this fight for our community's future.” “We are committed to standing side by side with our immigrant community and ensuring that such an unfair and punitive law is stopped before it further harms Oklahomans,” said Lorena Rivas, an attorney with the Tulsa-based law firm Rivas & Associates. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

WHAT: One day after the Columbia University commencement ceremony where Mahmoud Khalil was supposed to be walking with his peers, Mr. Khalil will instead be attending his immigration court hearing in Jena, LA. Virtual access is not guaranteed, but there are approximately 20 seats in the courtroom. Mr. Khalil’s legal team has requested the court grant either virtual or in-person access to interested press and public who wish to view these proceedings. The immigration court judge has not ruled on the motion. Following the hearing, his lawyers will be available for questions. WHEN: Thursday, May 22 (Exact timing yet to be announced) WHERE: Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center (830 Pine Hill Road, Jena, Louisiana) BACKGROUND: On March 8, the Trump administration and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) illegally arrested and detained Mr. Khalil in direct retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian human rights at Columbia University. Shortly after, DHS transferred him 1400 miles away to a Louisiana detention facility — ripping him away from his wife and legal counsel. While stuck in detention, he was forced to miss the birth of his first child. It later came out that they did not have a warrant. At his last immigration hearing in April, in what appeared to be a pre-written decision, a judge ruled that Mr. Khalil was removable under U.S. immigration law — despite a lack of evidence. In May, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s decision that Khalil’s case should be heard in New Jersey, where he was located when his habeas petition was filed. A decision on bail is outstanding.

Emergency lawsuit filed in federal court to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act for people within that court’s judicial district.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today issued a victory for the plaintiffs in Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, striking down key parts of a Biden administration rule severely restricting asylum. In a major win for asylum rights, the Court found that the rule’s limitation on asylum eligibility violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court also ruled that the rule’s departure from longstanding policy requiring immigration officers to ask people if they fear persecution before deporting them is “arbitrary and capricious,” and would harm to people seeking asylum. The Biden-era rule, which was first announced in June 2024, barred people from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, unless they were able to obtain a scarce appointment via the government’s CBP One smartphone app, a process that was terminated on President Trump’s first day in office. Days after the rule was first announced, the American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Jenner & Block LLP, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the rule on behalf of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center (Las Americas) and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES). Today’s ruling sets an important precedent for future efforts to restrict people’s right to seek asylum. In response to the Court’s ruling, immigrants’ rights groups issued the following comment: “Today's decision is a critical step in peeling back the illegal asylum restrictions at the border,” said Lee Gelernt, Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Unfortunately, as a country we have forgotten the historic commitment we made after World War II to never turn our back on people fleeing persecution.” “For multiple years, courts have rejected policies that block access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, and we are grateful that today’s ruling follows that trend,” said Keren Zwick, Litigation Director at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “We also appreciate the recognition that asylum seekers require more than four hours to consult with the outside world before a life-altering interview and that immigrants cannot be expected to spontaneously shout out a fear without being given a chance to do so. We hope these aspects make it clear that procedural fairness is required in the U.S. legal system.” “Today's decision recognizes the Biden-era border rule was yet another unlawful attempt to deprive people fleeing persecution of eligibility for asylum,” said Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “As evidenced by our plaintiffs' experiences, the rule emboldened border officers to ignore explicit expressions of fear and to intimidate or mislead asylum seekers into giving up their claims for protection. Many people seeking safety were summarily deported to danger, and family members were separated despite having identical claims. This decision affirms that no president can rewrite our asylum laws by executive fiat." “This decision confirms what advocates have been saying for years: asylum seekers have a legal right to a meaningful opportunity to seek protection in this country. Four hours to find and then speak with an attorney, while in federal custody, is not the way to achieve a legitimate process,” said Jennifer Babaie, Director of Advocacy and Legal Services at Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso, Texas, Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua and New Mexico. “At Las Americas, we will not stop fighting until we do right by the countless individuals blocked from seeking safety at our borders.” “For the last year, the U.S. government has given border officials the freedom to ignore anyone’s viable claims of fear and to send them back to the legitimate harms from which they fled, endangering countless lives in the process. Today’s federal court ruling reaffirms what we’ve said time and again — that the bipartisan war on asylum has obstructed equitable access to fundamental human and legal rights in ways both arbitrary and capricious,” said Javier Hidalgo, Legal Director at RAICES. “This is a major step in righting some of the many wrongs inflicted upon people and families seeking safety in accordance with federal and international law.”