ACLU Statement on Trump’s Plan to Use Military to Mass Deport Immigrants

The ACLU, ACLU of Arizona, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project are seeking an emergency injunction to stop the previously deferred Section 5 of Proposition 314 from taking effect PHOENIX — The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Arizona filed a federal lawsuit last night on behalf of the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project challenging Section 5 of Proposition 314, a previously deferred provision that would unconstitutionally usurp federal immigration enforcement power by making it a state crime for some immigrants to enter or remain in Arizona. Courts across the country have repeatedly reaffirmed that immigration enforcement is a power that belongs exclusively to the federal government — not the states. Section 5 had been on hold due to litigation against similar laws in other states, but it is now poised to take effect. The groups are asking the court to immediately block the provision, citing a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly establishes that immigration is a federal responsibility. “Section 5 of Proposition 314 is a permission slip for local and state law enforcement to engage in blatantly unconstitutional acts like racial profiling, unlawful arrests, and illegal detentions,” said Tara DeGeorge, legal director at the ACLU of Arizona. “It will upend Arizona courts, tax an already overextended state prison system, and result in mass due process violations. Arizona’s communities should not have to pay the price for this unconstitutional experiment.” The groups seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent the harm that Section 5 would cause immigrant, Latino, and communities of color across the state. “Section 5 of Proposition 314 creates an entirely separate and parallel detention and deportation system,” said Roxana Avila-Cimpeanu, deputy director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. “If it goes into effect, countless members of our communities, including vulnerable youth and individuals with mental health concerns, could end up jailed throughout Arizona on state immigration charges, intentionally isolated from expert legal support and potentially deported without ever having a fair day in court.” “Regulation of immigration into the United States is an exclusively federal power that cannot be usurped by Arizona or any other state. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this basic principle in response to an unconstitutional Arizona law 14 years ago,” said Kate Huddleston, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Proposition 314’s Section 5 is likewise unlawful and inhumane, so we’re suing to block it.” Prop. 314 was passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2024 and approved by voters later that year, but Section 5 remained dormant while a similar anti-immigrant law in Texas, Senate Bill 4, was blocked in court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a lower court’s injunction against S.B. 4 solely on procedural grounds on May 15. Section 5 of Prop. 314 goes into effect after a comparable state law has been in effect for 60 days. Without court intervention, local and state law enforcement agencies may move to enforce Section 5 as early as July 14. While at the Legislature, Prop. 314 (then House Concurrent Resolution 2060) faced scrutiny from stakeholders across the political spectrum. At the time, the ACLU of Arizona repeatedly raised concerns about the bill’s unconstitutionality, and immigrants’ rights advocacy groups pointed to parallels between the resolution and Arizona’s notorious anti-immigrant law, S.B. 1070, portions of which were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. To take effect now, amidst the Trump administration’s rampant and extreme immigration enforcement tactics, Section 5 would put Arizona’s criminal justice system at the center of cruel, inhumane, and in many cases unlawful actions against Arizona’s immigrant communities. Read the complaint here. Read the motion for preliminary injunction here. Read this press release in Spanish here.

The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of Arizona filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project challenging Section 5, a previously deferred provision of Proposition 314 that would unconstitutionally usurp federal immigration enforcement power by making it a state crime for some immigrants to enter or remain in Arizona. Courts across the country have repeatedly reaffirmed that immigration enforcement is a power that belongs exclusively to the federal government — not the states.

DENVER — The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Trump administration policy on Tuesday, June 30, that mandated the detention of Rigoberto Santillan-Quiroz, a longtime U.S. resident, without bond. The court ordered a bond hearing for Santillan-Quiroz, who, after eight months of detention, will finally have an opportunity to demonstrate that there is no justification for his continued detention. The Tenth Circuit’s ruling joins three appeals courts and decisions from over 450 district court judges across the country. Judges have mandated that the Trump administration release many of these immigrants from detention, routinely finding that their categorical detention without a bond hearing is unlawful. “Every person has rights protected by the Constitution, no matter the color of our skin, the languages we speak, or our immigration status,” said Travis Handler, ACLU of Oklahoma legal fellow. “With this order, the court unanimously found that all people residing within the Tenth Circuit who are detained by ICE are entitled to a bond hearing and, absent special circumstances, are eligible for release on bond. This is a huge step toward ending the mass deportation machine. We will continue to hold this administration accountable and fight for the safety of our communities.” Santillan-Quiroz has lived in the U.S. for about twenty years, is married to a legal permanent resident, and has a U.S. citizen stepdaughter. He was detained in November 2025 after a traffic stop and held without bond per the Trump administration’s new policy, despite not being a flight risk nor a danger to public safety. Santillan-Quiroz filed a habeas petition seeking his release. A magistrate judge recommended a bond hearing and his release, but an Oklahoma district court ultimately denied his habeas petition. Santillan-Quiroz, with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, ACLU of Oklahoma, ACLU of Colorado, and immigration attorney Kelli Stump appealed the district court’s decision in January 2026. "This is a huge victory for thousands of people currently being held without access to bond in immigration detention centers across Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. These individuals are now entitled to have the bond hearings that should result in release for many after months of being wrongfully held by ICE,” said Tim Macdonald, ACLU of Colorado legal director. “This ruling from the Tenth Circuit sends a message that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally change the law and create unlawful policies that violate the rights of immigrants in our country and deny them fundamental fairness and due process.” In July 2025, the Trump administration issued new guidance that denies bond to people in detention while their immigration cases proceed in court, impacting millions of people in the country. This new guidance defies longstanding Department of Homeland Security (DHS) practices, federal law, and fundamental due process protections. It also exacerbates longstanding problems with immigration detention, including overcrowding, medical neglect, inadequate nutrition, and more. “The courts have once again correctly rejected the government’s attempt at rewriting our immigration laws to categorically deny immigrants like Mr. Santillan-Quiroz their right to basic review of their detention,” said My Khanh Ngo, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the appeal. “This order checks that executive overreach and we are thrilled that our client will finally have the chance to be reunited with his family.” "Immigration detention is intended to ensure appearance at proceedings — not to impose punishment before a case is decided," said Kelli Stump, Santillan-Quiroz' initial habeas attorney and co-immigration counsel. "The Tenth Circuit's decision recognizes that liberty cannot depend on a blanket policy. Every person deserves an individualized determination based on the law and the facts, and that is exactly what Congress required."

The Supreme Court ruling held that President Donald Trump’s effort to get rid of birthright citizenship violated the constitution and federal law.