ACLU Statement on States Urging Trump Administration to End DACA

JENA, LA — In a decision that underscores the government’s ongoing retaliation against Mahmoud Khalil in response to his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights, officials from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and private prison contractor GEO Group have refused to allow a contact visit between him and his family. The officials cite a blanket no-contact visitation policy at the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center (CLIPC) and unspecified “security concerns” relating to the presence of a mother and newborn baby in an unsecure part of the facility. ICE’s refusal comes after multiple requests from Mr. Khalil’s legal team that point to federal policies explicitly encouraging contact visits between detained parents and their children. Mr. Khalil’s team has also noted that permission for family visits like these are routinely granted at facilities like the Elizabeth Detention Center in New Jersey, where his attorneys have requested he be transferred. Mr. Khalil’s wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, traveled over 1400 miles from New York to the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center (CLIPC) in Jena, Louisiana, bringing their newborn child in the hopes of a contact visit — one where her husband could meet, touch, and hold his son for the very first time. Instead, facility administrators have repeatedly denied these requests and have insisted the visit proceed behind glass, where no human touch is possible. “I am furious at the cruelty and inhumanity of this system that dares to call itself just,” said Dr. Noor Abdalla. “After flying over a thousand miles to Louisiana with our newborn son, his very first flight, all so his father could finally hold him in his arms, ICE has denied us even this most basic human right. This is not just heartless. It is deliberate violence, the calculated cruelty of a government that tears families apart without remorse. And I cannot ignore the echoes of this pain in the stories of Palestinian families, torn apart by Israeli military prisons and bombs, denied dignity, denied life. Our struggle is not isolated. This system is unjust, and we will fight until Mahmoud is home." The facility's refusal contradicts ICE’s own directives, including ICE Directive 11064.3, which affirms the importance of minimizing disruptions to family life and preserving parental rights. The Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS) also explicitly encourage contact visits, especially where young children and long travel distances are involved. These very same standards are also routinely upheld in other states — including New Jersey — where detained parents are allowed daily visits and to embrace their children. Mr. Khalil has a motion pending before the federal court overseeing his case in New Jersey for his release and transfer to the Elizabeth Detention Facility, which is close to Mr. Khalil’s family. In a filing with that federal court today, he has made a request to that court to order ICE to permit a contact visit with his family. “The government chose to arrest and detain Mahmoud thousands of miles away in the Louisiana detention gulags to punish him for his support for Palestinian human rights, and is doubling down on their retaliatory punishment by denying him the most elementary human contact with his wife and child,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “ICE leadership and elected officials must act to remedy this grotesque and unnecessary inhumanity for Mahmoud – and for all others.” This denial comes just weeks after ICE denied Mr. Khalil’s request to be at his wife’s side as she went into labor, causing him to miss the birth of their son. ICE has also barred press access to his court hearing, refused to grant virtual access for those who want to listen, and blocked his attorney from using electronic materials during critical proceedings. “Mahmoud Khalil deserves to hold his son. Noor Abdalla deserves to see her husband meet their child. And we, as a country, deserve better than policies rooted in cruelty,” said Nora Ahmed, legal director of the ACLU of Louisiana. Despite this heartless decision, Dr. Abdalla still plans to attend her husband’s immigration hearing in person on Thursday, May 22. Mr. Khalil’s legal team will be holding a virtual press briefing tonight at 5:30 pm ET (register here).

OKLAHOMA CITY – In a victory for immigrants’ rights, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma granted a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of Oklahoma’s HB 4156. This harmful law would create a state system to regulate immigration that undermines the exclusively federal system Congress enacted. The court’s order reaffirms its prior ruling that HB 4156 is likely unconstitutional and prevents Oklahoma officials from enforcing HB 4156 for the next 14 days. The court’s order also provisionally certifies a statewide class of plaintiffs subject to the law, and permits individual plaintiffs to proceed anonymously due to the risk of retaliation from federal authorities. The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Oklahoma, 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. With the onset of the Trump administration, the United States government dismissed the challenge last year. Civil rights groups filed an amended lawsuit in mid-May of 2025 with additional plaintiffs, including the League of United Latin American Citizens Oklahoma City (“LULAC-OKC”), and asked the court to temporarily block enforcement of HB 4156 during the pendency of the case. Tamya Cox-Touré, executive director for the ACLU of Oklahoma: “The court’s decision today is a victory for Oklahoma’s immigrant community, but the damage of HB 4156 and the national rhetoric repeated by local politicians has already created an environment of fear in our state. No matter what someone looks like, sounds like, or what their immigration status may be, they should feel safe in their own communities. We will continue to fight for the rights and dignity of immigrants and their families.” Noor Zafar, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project: “HB 4156 puts immigrants in Oklahoma at tremendous risk, and we are grateful that the court has reaffirmed that the law is unconstitutional and temporarily blocked its implementation." Lorena Rivas, an attorney with the Tulsa-based law firm Rivas & Associates: “We were confident in the success of our requests, and we are so grateful to our plaintiffs who were brave enough to be part of this fight against the law.” Today’s court order is the first step in the process to permanently block HB 4156, which usurps federal control over immigration law by subjecting certain groups of noncitizens to arrest and prosecution who have a federal right to remain here.

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.