Federal Appeals Court Rejects Indiana’s Efforts to Block Syrian Refugee Resettlement

The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (“OLC”) authored a legal opinion that reportedly claims to justify the Trump administration’s illegal lethal strikes on civilians in boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. Media reports indicate that, in addition to claiming that the strikes are lawful acts in an alleged “armed conflict” with unspecified drug cartels, the OLC opinion also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in the strikes from future criminal prosecution. Because the public deserves to know how our government is justifying these illegal strikes, and why they think the people who carried them out should not be held accountable, the ACLU is seeking immediate release of the OLC legal opinion and related documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the New York Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking the immediate release of an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion and other documents related to President Trump’s illegal lethal strikes on civilian boats in international waters. “The public deserves to know how our government is justifying the cold-blooded murder of civilians as lawful and why it believes it can hand out get-out-of-jail-free cards to people committing these crimes,” said Jeffrey Stein, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Trump administration must stop these illegal and immoral strikes, and officials who have carried them out must be held accountable.” Since Sept. 2, the Trump administration has conducted at least 22 strikes, murdering at least 87 civilians, in clear violation of domestic and international law. Indeed, the U.S. military may not, under any circumstances, execute civilians who are merely suspected of smuggling drugs. The federal government must first pursue non-lethal measures like arrest and demonstrate that lethal force is an absolute last resort to protect against a concrete, specific, and imminent threat of death or serious physical injury. Despite bipartisan outrage over these plainly unlawful attacks, the Trump administration has said they will continue. The groups are suing to force the disclosure of a legal opinion authored by OLC — a part of the Justice Department whose opinions are generally treated as binding within the executive branch — that apparently blesses the ongoing strikes as lawful acts in an alleged “armed conflict” with unspecified “drug cartels.” According to news accounts, the memo also purports to immunize personnel who authorized or took part in these unlawful strikes from future criminal prosecution for what would otherwise simply be homicides. Contrary to the government’s public assertions, the United States is not, and could not be, in an armed conflict with Latin American drug cartels. Under international law, an armed conflict between a state and a non-state actor exists only if the non-state actor is an “organized armed group” that is structured and disciplined like regular armed forces and is engaged in “protracted armed violence” against the state. There is no plausible argument that any drug cartel satisfies this test vis-a-vis the United States. “The Trump administration is displacing the fundamental mandates of international law with the phony wartime rhetoric of a basic autocrat,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name.” The Trump administration has repeatedly acknowledged the existence of the memo and continues to assert that their strikes are on “firm legal ground,” yet they are still refusing to publicly release the OLC opinion that details their reasoning. In mid-November, the Trump administration allowed members of Congress and their staffs to read the opinion. Many found its analysis deeply troubling. Indeed, one senator remarked that the opinion “would not constrain any use of force anywhere in the world. I mean, it is broad enough to authorize just about anything.” “The public deserves to know how the Trump administration is rubber-stamping the bombing of civilians in the Caribbean Sea, with no accountability,” said Ify Chikezie, staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “By claiming that these attacks are legal while refusing to provide any evidence or rationale, Trump shows once again his disdain for basic transparency, human rights, and the rule of law. The courts must step in and order the administration to release these documents immediately.” The groups are asking the court to intervene because the government has not released any records in response to their request, despite urgent public interest in the OLC opinion and the Freedom of Information Act’s (FOIA) clear statutory deadlines.

WASHINGTON – FIFA, the international soccer governing body, awarded President Trump today the inaugural FIFA “Peace Prize” during its World Cup draw at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. In response to this news, Jamil Dakwar, director of the Human Rights Program at the American Civil Liberties Union, had the following reaction: “Attacks on immigrants and those visiting the United States are at an all-time high. ICE is conducting raids across the country, tearing families apart, deporting thousands, without due process, and holding an unprecedented number in inhumane detention centers, including on military bases. The host cities of the upcoming World Cup are among the most heavily impacted – with cities like Los Angeles and Chicago facing extreme surveillance, National Guard deployment and immigration enforcement activity. The Trump administration actions threaten our communities and tourists-fans alike – and FIFA has unique leverage to push for change not to whitewash and capitulate.” “This tournament should be about celebrating unity and our connection to the world – but by giving President Trump trophy instead of a red card, FIFA risks becoming a stage for authoritarianism.”

WASHINGTON — FIFA, the international soccer governing body, needs to match its lofty rhetoric on rights with concrete action, a coalition of human rights organizations, trade unions, and fans groups said today. FIFA is holding its World Cup draw at the Kennedy Center in Washington on December 5, 2025, and awarding its first “FIFA Peace Prize.” The Sport & Rights Alliance, Dignity 2026, ACLU, AFL-CIO, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Independent Supporters Council, NAACP, Athlete Ally and Reporters Without Borders have come together to press FIFA to deliver a World Cup that respects the rights of fans, players, workers, journalists, and local communities. The 2026 FIFA Men's World Cup, co-hosted by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, represents an opportunity to implement a new model for FIFA events—one that supports strong workers’ protections, safeguards children’s rights, upholds media freedom, and ensures that working people and communities benefit from hosting this mega-sporting event, the groups said. “Workers, athletes, fans, and communities make the World Cup possible,” said Andrea Florence, executive director of the Sport & Rights Alliance. “The 2026 World Cup is the first to begin with human rights criteria embedded in the bidding process. But the deteriorating human rights situation in the United States has put those commitments at risk.” With 200 days until kickoff, the escalating attacks on immigrants in the United States, FIFA’s cancellation of anti-discrimination messaging, and threats to press freedom and the rights of peaceful protesters signal a tournament heading in the wrong direction, the human rights and labor groups said. There has ben no transparency around FIFA’s Peace Prize process. Human Rights Watch has written to FIFA to request a list of the nominees, the judges, the criteria, and the process for the Peace Prize. Human Rights Watch received no response. “FIFA’s so-called peace prize is being awarded against a backdrop of violent detentions of immigrants, national guard deployments in US cities, and the obsequious cancellation of FIFA’s own anti-racism and anti-discrimination campaigns,” said Minky Worden, who oversees sport for Human Rights Watch. “There is still time to honor FIFA’s promises for a World Cup not tainted by human rights abuses, but the clock is ticking.” “The Trump administration has aggressively pursued a systematic anti-human rights campaign to target, detain, and disappear immigrants in communities across the US – including the deployment of the National Guard in cities where the World Cup will take place,” said Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the ACLU. “FIFA’s own policy states that they will leverage their business relationships to mitigate adverse human rights impacts – and it’s critical that they wield that influence to end rights violations including freedom of speech and assembly rights. We call on FIFA to honor its human rights commitments, not capitulate to Trump’s authoritarianism.” As part of FIFA’s human rights framework for the 2026 World Cup, each of the 16 host cities is required to develop its own “human rights action plan” to prevent discrimination, support workers’ rights, protet chldren, and combat human trafficking. Human Rights Watch, along with the Sport & Rights Alliance, Dignity 2026, and their member organizations, are calling on FIFA and host committees to: Reinstate anti-discrimination messaging; Commit to ensuring effective protections against racial profiling, arbitrary detention, and unlawful immigration enforcement during the tournament; Work closely with community partners on finalizing the Human Rights Action Plans; Take effective steps to ensure respect for the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful protest; Announce and implement a comprehensive Child Safeguarding Policy; Ensure meaningful community benefit from the 2026 World Cup; and Take effective steps to ensure that the 2026 World Cup does not lead to abuses of vulnerable communities, including the jailing of unhoused populations. Quotes from civil society experts are as follows: "The 2026 World Cup is an opportunity to show that mega-sporting events can be delivered without exploiting workers," said Cathy Feingold, international director at the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), and International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) deputy president. "From stadium construction to match day operations, workers at every level deserve fair wages, safe conditions, and the right to organize. FIFA cannot claim to celebrate peace while ignoring the conditions of the people who make these games possible. We need binding commitments, not just promises." “Every four years, billions of people turn their attention to the World Cup and its host countries,” said Clayton Weimers, executive director, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) USA. “They rely on journalists to deliver reliable information with appropriate context to tell the story of this tournament both on and off the field. Unfortunately, journalists in the US are seeing their access restricted, their visas threatened, and their safety put into question. FIFA and the host governments must guarantee the freedom and safety of journalists before, during, and after the 2026 World Cup.” “Attending a soccer match should never result in arbitrary detention or deportation," said Daniel Noroña, Americas advocacy director, Amnesty International USA. "The threat of immigration enforcement at Club World Cup venues is deeply troubling, and FIFA cannot be silent. FIFA must obtain binding guarantees from US authorities that the tournament will be a safe space for all, regardless of immigration status.” “FIFA's decision to cancel anti-racism and anti-discrimination messaging at the Club World Cup sent a chilling signal to communities of color and all who have fought for equality in sport,” said Jamal Watkins, senior vice president of strategy and advancement, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). “At a time when hate crimes are rising and DEI programs are under attack, FIFA should not be retreating.” “As an out athlete, I know what it means to compete in environments where you're not sure you'll be safe,” said Matthew Pacifici, former men's professional player in the US and Athlete Ally ambassador. “LGBTQ+ players and fans need more than symbolic gestures—we need enforceable protections. The homophobic chants at the Club World Cup in Atlanta show exactly why FIFA's retreat from anti-discrimination messaging is so dangerous. Players and fans must know that FIFA will protect them, not abandon them.” “Supporters are the backbone of this sport, yet FIFA keeps making decisions about our safety without ever talking to the people who actually show up,” said Bailey Brown, president, Independent Supporters Council. “You cannot claim to 'unite the world' while shutting out the very fans who bring the energy and passion to every match. We’re asking for something simple: transparency, real consultation, and concrete protections for every supporter at the 2026 World Cup.” “It is unacceptable that FIFA has no child safeguarding policy for the 2026 World Cup,” said Katherine La Puente, children’s rights coordinator at Human Rights Watch. “Risks children can face in the context of major sporting events include trafficking, sexual exploitation, child labor, and family displacements, among other forms of violence and abuse.” “For the World Cup to truly 'unite the world,' both FIFA and host committees need to ensure that the rights and dignity of everyone, whether residents or visitors, are protected and not exploited,” said Jennifer Li, coordinator of Dignity 2026 and director of the Center for Community Health Innovation at Georgetown Law. “For example, people who are unsheltered should not be criminalized for their status or displaced as part of so-called beautification efforts. FIFA and host cities have a responsibility to ensure that hosting communities benefit from this event, and that the most vulnerable residents do not bear the greatest costs.”