ACLU Statement on Senate Vote for Excessive ICE Funding Without Limitations

CONCORD, N.H. — Legal groups that secured a June Supreme Court victory in Trump v. Barbara on behalf of babies who would have been denied citizenship under a failed Trump executive order filed new motions in the case today. The latest filings aim to protect people subjected to the president’s new executive order, which was signed in early August and again targets birthright citizenship. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund successfully argued the Barbara case. On Aug. 11, they asked a New Hampshire federal court, where the Barbara lawsuit was first filed, to make it unquestionably clear that the citizenship of babies covered by that class-action lawsuit is protected despite the new executive order. In their new filings, they are asking the court to certify a new class given the latest executive order. In its June ruling, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause puts “the question of citizenship ‘once and forever [to] rest.’” The following are comments on today’s filings: “The Trump administration continues to threaten birthright citizenship, even after its definitive loss at the Supreme Court,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead counsel. “We will never stop fighting to protect this fundamental constitutional principle.” “The Constitution and the Supreme Court were exceedingly clear: Citizenship is a constitutional right given to all children born in America and any attempt to restrict that right is illegal,” said Amia Trigg, deputy director of litigation at the Legal Defense Fund. “Regardless of race, color, or ancestry, birthright citizenship protects children that are born here. And the president's latest attempt to rescind that protection is just another example of an egregious overreach by the executive branch.” “Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship is yet another attack on the rule of law,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus. “The Trump administration is ignoring the needs of everyday Americans to target immigrant communities. We’re fighting in court to ensure all our rights are protected and stop this administration’s unlawful attempt to ignore the Constitution and Supreme Court.” “Our latest motions demand accountability for Trump’s dangerous policies,” said Tianna Mays, legal director at Democracy Defenders Fund. “This administration cannot unlawfully strip the rights of babies and ignore the Constitution in order to achieve its political goals. We won’t let that stand, and we’ll continue our fight in court.” SangYeob Kim, director of the ACLU-NH Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “Birthright citizenship is the law of the land — as it has been for more than 150 years and as the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed once again just a few months ago. Cruel attacks on this core constitutional right must not be allowed to stand.” “The president may keep signing unlawful executive orders, but the Supreme Court could not have been more clear when it ruled that neither the president nor Congress can end birthright citizenship,” said ACLU of Maine Executive Director Molly Curren Rowles. “We’ll continue defending the Constitution and the core principles reflected in the 14th Amendment: that with very few clear exceptions, every baby born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen.” “Despite a clear ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court just weeks ago, the Trump administration is still trying to deprive babies born in the United States of their constitutional rights,” said Carol Rose, executive director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “We cannot tolerate this brazen act of lawlessness. No matter how many times President Trump tries to deny it, birthright citizenship is here to stay.” Read the motions here.

BOISE – The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Idaho, Stoel Rives, and Cooley LLP filed an opposition brief today on behalf of their clients, urging a federal court to allow a lawsuit challenging the violent mass detention of hundreds of Latino people for an immigration dragnet at a family horse-racing event in Wilder, Idaho to proceed. The lawsuit, Rodriguez et al. v. Porter et al., was filed earlier this year on behalf of three Latino families and a proposed class of people who were at La Catedral Arena on October 19, 2025, when more than 200 federal, state, and local law enforcement officers descended on an otherwise peaceful family event. Law enforcement arrived in armored trucks and a helicopter with flashbang grenades and guns drawn and detained approximately 400 spectators – including U.S. citizens and children – for four hours of detention in inhumane conditions before subjecting everyone to suspicionless immigration interrogations. In their motions to dismiss, defendants continue to characterize the operation as a routine execution of warrants for five people accused of non-violent unlicensed gambling. The ACLU’s brief filed today makes clear that hundreds of heavily-armed officers detaining hundreds of people with no connection to the gambling allegations – and prolonging their detention to investigate everyone's immigration status – was anything but routine. “Our clients are still living with the physical and emotional scars from that day, and yet the defendants continue to try to rewrite what happened,” said Allison Frankel, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Warrants for five people accused of unlicensed gambling do not give police a blank check to round up hundreds of people, hold families at gunpoint, or target people based on their perceived ethnicity. We know what happened at La Catedral, and we’re going to keep fighting to hold those responsible accountable and make clear that law enforcement is not above the law.” Juana Rodriguez, one of the lead plaintiffs, is a U.S. citizen who was at the racetrack with her 3-year-old son. After being violently rounded up with hundreds of other families, Rodriguez was placed in zip ties and detained for several hours without food or water. Law enforcement instructed her toddler to hold onto her pocket, which they had turned inside out, while Rodriguez remained zip tied and unable to comfort her son as he cried out for water. "The cruelty that occurred in Wilder is a tragic example of a government operating with reckless violence and unrestricted power," said Paul Carlos Southwick, legal director for the ACLU of Idaho. "The human cost of this operation is unacceptable. Law enforcement must answer for the large-scale civil rights abuses that took place so we can ensure this never happens again.” The lawsuit alleges that federal, state and local law enforcement used the criminal warrants as a cover to conduct a sweeping immigration dragnet targeting an event where they knew the attendees would be predominantly Latino. The complaint centrally claims that these federal, state and local actors conspired to deprive those detained of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable detentions, and their right to equal protection regardless of ethnicity. The complaint is brought under laws created after the Civil War to prevent racialized government violence. The conspiracy claims provide a path to hold federal actors accountable for civil rights violations. The brief is available here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/rodriguez-et-al-v-porter-et-al?document=Plaintiffs-Opposition-to-Defendants-Motions-to-Dismiss

In 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that Keisy G.M., a lawful permanent resident who had been subjected to mandatory detention for 21 months, could not be detained any longer without a hearing on whether he poses a flight risk or danger. That decision was consistent with the vast majority of federal court rulings on the government’s practice of detaining people for prolonged periods of time without any individual hearings. The Trump administration appealed the ruling in January 2026 and on June 15 the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, setting oral argument for Oct. 13, 2026. The Trump administration is taking a radical position the government has not taken in the 30 years since this mandatory detention statute, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c), was enacted by Congress. It says immigrants like Mr. G.M. do not have a protected liberty interest in not being locked up without a hearing — at a time when the administration is pushing hard to detain and deport as many immigrants as possible, often locking people away in inhumane ICE detention centers, where deaths are already at record levels. On the government’s theory, it can lock up people under this mandatory detention statute for months, years, or even decades, without a hearing — as long as the removal case is still ongoing. The American Civil Liberties Union, New York Civil Liberties Union, MacArthur Justice Center, and Hecker Fink LLP are co-counsel. The groups argue the federal appeals court ruling is correct, and that the Constitution protects all of us, regardless of immigration status, from being locked away without due process.

PHILADEPHIA — Another federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s new policy subjecting millions of immigrants to mandatory detention without access to bond hearings. Today’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stems from a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Pennsylvania, ACLU of New Jersey, and the law firm of Palladino, Isbell & Casazza, LLC. The case is Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC. The Third Circuit decision joins similar rulings from seven other federal appeals courts and hundreds of district court judges in finding the policy unlawful. For decades, immigrants in removal proceedings who were detained by the government have generally had the right to seek release by an immigration judge. In mid-2025, the Trump administration suddenly adopted a new radical reinterpretation of the immigration laws and declared that anyone who entered without inspection must be detained without access to bond. Among those who were affected were people eligible for legal status, even those with long-pending immigration applications who have been waiting years due to administrative backlogs. The following is reaction to today’s ruling: “The courts have repeatedly and resoundingly rejected the Trump administration’s radical reinterpretation of our country’s detention laws. This ruling is another critical victory against the administration’s cruelty and disrespect for the rule of law. We are thrilled for our clients and their families,” said Michael Tan, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Even before the Trump administration began its campaign to detain every person it could round up, immigration detention was a cruel and unnecessary practice,” said Vanessa Stine, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “But denying bond hearings to the individuals ICE detains is an alarming trend that is blatantly at odds with the plain text of the statute and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. We applaud today’s decision and look forward to continuing the fight to end the Trump administration’s dangerous and unconstitutional targeting of immigrant communities.” “This ruling underscores that this administration cannot make up its own rules in order to lock up huge numbers of people without a bond hearing,” said Farrin Anello, senior counsel for the ACLU of New Jersey. “We applaud the court’s careful and painstaking analysis of the statutes in question and its conclusion that the government must follow the plain language of the law and the Constitution in order to take away someone’s freedom. Today is a win for immigrants’ rights and the rule of law.” “Within the Third Circuit, this decision puts an end to a year-long campaign by the administration to indefinitely detain human beings without due process. We feel incredibly fortunate to have co-counseled with this legal team on this case," said Christopher M. Casazza, attorney with Palladino, Isbell & Casazza, LLC. The ruling is here.