ACLU Urges Biden Not to Bring Back Rushed Screenings in CBP Custody

WASHINGTON — Immigrants’ rights advocates filed a federal lawsuit today challenging President Trump’s new executive order targeting birthright citizenship. The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of the District of Columbia, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of people subjected to the new executive order. The groups already secured a major Supreme Court victory in June in Trump v. Barbara protecting babies who would have been denied citizenship under Trump’s first failed executive order concerning birthright citizenship. In its ruling, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause puts “the question of citizenship ‘once and forever [to] rest.’” Despite that, the administration is again trying to restrict birthright citizenship, prompting today’s legal action. The groups had initially sought to block the new executive order in the existing Barbara case. After the judge in that case indicated that he viewed this challenge as a new lawsuit, the groups withdrew their requests in Barbara and filed this new lawsuit. The lawsuit, Nathan v. Trump, was filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C. The following is comment from co-counsel: “The Constitution is clear, and the Supreme Court has been clear: Birthright citizenship is the law of the land,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead counsel. “The Trump administration’s newest attack on this fundamental American principle is just as cruel and illegal as its previous executive order, and it will meet the same fate in court.” “This administration does not get to redefine citizenship whenever it’s displeased that it didn't get its way,” said Brittany Carter, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. “The Constitution and Supreme Court precedent protect the right to citizenship that all children born here possess. We will continue to defend that right from any attempt this administration makes to overstep its authority and reshape who it calls American.” “The Trump administration can keep repackaging the same attack, but it cannot rewrite the Constitution,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director at Asian Law Caucus. “The Supreme Court has already affirmed that birthright citizenship is protected by the Constitution, yet this administration continues searching for new ways around that decision instead of addressing the real challenges facing families across the country. No matter how many times President Trump tries to revive this effort, the principle remains the same: citizenship is determined by the Constitution, not by executive order.” “We are demanding accountability for Trump’s dangerous policies, once again” said Tianna Mays, legal director at Democracy Defenders Fund. “The federal government cannot unlawfully strip the rights of babies born in the United States and ignore the Constitution in order to achieve its political goals. We will be relentless in our fight — every unlawful act and order from this administration will be met with a legal challenge.” “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,” said SangYeob Kim, director of the ACLU of New Hampshire. “The president may keep signing unlawful executive orders, but the Supreme Court was clear when it ruled that neither the president nor Congress can end birthright citizenship,” said ACLU of Maine Legal Director Carol Garvan. “We’ll continue defending the Constitution and fighting for the fundamental citizenship rights of all babies born on U.S. soil.” “Despite a clear ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, 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 will stay in court for as long as it takes to stop this lawless assault on a core tenet of American democracy. President Trump cannot rewrite the Constitution. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.” “Once again, the courts must remind President Trump that he cannot ignore constitutional rights he does not like or deny rights to people he does not like,” said Scott Michelman, legal director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia. “The Supreme Court just confirmed that citizenship is the birthright of every child born in the United States. The president’s crusade of cruelty against our nation’s youngest citizens must end.” The complaint is here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/nathan-v-trump?document=COMPLAINT

Argument audio live stream can be found here WHAT: The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear argument over the Trump administration’s March 2025 decision to invoke the wartime Alien Enemies Act to send more than 100 Venezuelan men from the United States to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador in defiance of D.C. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg’s order to halt the removal flights. The American Civil Liberties Union and ACLU of D.C. are counsel in this case, J.G.G. v. Trump. The hearing focuses on accountability — specifically, whether Trump officials will face consequences for openly defying a federal judge’s order. It will be en banc, meaning all 11 active judges will hear the argument — a procedure rarely used in the D.C. Circuit. More than 200 former judges have filed an amicus brief urging the court not to let the administration escape accountability. In opinions issued in connection with prior proceedings in this case, judges on the circuit have already written that the government’s actions forming the basis of Judge Boasberg’s contempt inquiry raised “grave rule-of-law concerns.” Last Friday, a panel of D.C. appellate judges heard argument on whether the men sent to CECOT are entitled to finally get hearings, either remotely or back in the United States, to show that they are not part of the Tren de Aragua gang and that their removal from the United States under the Alien Enemies Act without a hearing was illegal. Listen here. WHO: Lee Gelernt, lead counsel and deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants' Rights Project, will argue the case. WHEN: Tuesday, September 29, 9:30 a.m. ET WHERE: E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse/Courtroom 20 333 Constitution Ave NW Washington, D.C. More court details: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/ Court live audio streaming here: https://www.youtube.com/USCourtsCADC ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: Case page: HERE Amicus brief filed by more than 200 former judges: HERE Let the Record Show Podcast: What Happens When the President Defies a Judge? The ACLU just launched a new podcast, Let the Record Show, and its first episode is on J.G.G. v. Trump. Lee Gelernt explains what it means when the administration deports people without their day in court and in defiance of a judge's order, and why the case has become a referendum on due process, judicial review, and executive power.

In 2025, without authorization from the Nevada Legislature, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) entered into an agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that purports to let LVMPD assist with federal immigration enforcement. This “287(g) agreement” provides that, at ICE’s request, LVMPD will continue detaining a person after they are supposed to be released from criminal custody to make it easier for ICE to pick them up. That is exactly what happened to Sergio Morais-Hechavarria: although a court had ordered him to be released to an inpatient treatment program, LVMPD continued detaining him for another two months at ICE’s behest. Mr. Morais-Hechavarria and the ACLU of Nevada filed a lawsuit challenging LVMPD’s authority to enter into the 287(g) agreement and to detain people for ICE after their criminal custody ends. The district court dismissed the case, and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and ACLU of Nevada have appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.