ACLU: Our Defense Against Trump: 100 Days In

Our Defense Against Trump: 100 Days In

Just 100 days into President Donald Trump’s second term, the ACLU has filed 51 cases against his administration. We sought emergency relief in 38 of these cases, winning at least some form of preliminary or temporary order in 27 cases. To our clients, these are not just numbers. Our work with them, and on their behalf, has made a real difference in their lives.

Courts Are Checking Unlawful Executive Action

From the start, litigation has been a tool of first resort in protecting people’s rights and freedom. On Inauguration Day, we filed our first case of the second Trump term, challenging his effort to dismantle the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. We won a preliminary injunction before the unconstitutional order’s effective date.

We have also won multiple orders blocking Trump’s extraordinary invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which gives presidents certain powers during wartime, to deport Venezuelan nationals to a gulag in El Salvador without due process. We’ve won preliminary relief from six federal district courts — in Washington, D.C., Texas, New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Nevada — blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, and have scored two victories on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. First, on April 7, the Supreme Court ordered that individuals subjected to deportation under the Alien Enemies Act must be given notice and an opportunity to contest their designation in court. Then, at 12:45 a.m. on April 19, the court granted our emergency motion to temporarily block all deportations under the Alien Enemies Act from the Northern District of Texas pending further order of the court. We also won a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans, affecting 600,000 people currently residing lawfully in the United States.

In four separate cases, we have protected four immigrants targeted for detention and deportation solely because of their First Amendment-protected speech. Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate, was detained after leading peaceful protests in support of Palestinian human rights. Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University doctoral student, was targeted for co-authoring an op-ed that criticized the university’s rejection of various student government resolutions concerning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Dr. Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University professor, was arrested due to his scholarship and advocacy on the Middle East, as well as his U.S.-citizen wife’s family ties to Gaza. And Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student and longtime lawful permanent resident, was arrested at his naturalization interview, also in retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights. In all four cases, we won orders blocking the Trump administration from deporting our clients while litigation continues.

Credit: Scout Tufankjian

We have also filed ten cases challenging the Trump administration’s broader attacks on international students. The U.S. State Department terminated the electronic student visa records of hundreds of students at campuses around the country, without any due process. In the absence of any official reasons, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated in a media interview that he revokes student visas “every day, every time I find one of these lunatics,” referring to his searches through students’ social media accounts for expressions of sympathy for Palestinians. But many of the affected students have never engaged in any form of protest, and there is no discernible reason for the termination of their records or visas. We have obtained preliminary relief in six of our ten pending cases so far. And on April 25, the government announced that it would undo the mass terminations and restore the affected records.

We have also scored significant victories in challenges to Trump’s heinous executive orders targeting transgender Americans: We blocked Trump’s attempt to enforce a nationwide ban on essential health care for transgender people under the age of 19, as well as his executive order requiring passports to indicate the holder’s sex assigned at birth rather than their actual gender identity.

And when Trump has tried to roll back on the hard-won gains of the Civil Rights Movement, we’ve blocked him there, too. We secured a preliminary injunction against his executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, which usurped Congress’ constitutionally assigned role. We blocked the U.S. Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter, which threatened to defund educational institutions over programming on forbidden topics such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and subsequent guidance that would have required states, under threat of legal penalties, to certify that their schools weren’t teaching or supporting DEI programs.

Win or Lose, the Arc Bends Towards Justice

Despite these proofs of concept for the value of litigation, we must acknowledge the serious risk that the Trump administration may, in some cases, simply ignore its defeats in the courts and carry on with its unlawful actions. Although Trump has yet to openly defy a court order, he has already come dangerously close.

In our initial challenge against his use of the Alien Enemies Act, J.G.G. v. Trump, the Trump administration failed to follow the district court’s order that any planes in the air should turn around pursuant to its temporary restraining order. And in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (not an ACLU case), a Maryland man who was deported to a notorious Salvadoran prison, CECOT, despite having an order of humanitarian protection from a U.S. immigration court prohibiting his deportation to El Salvador, the Trump administration has failed to bring him back even after the Supreme Court ordered it to facilitate his return. In these cases, U.S. Justice Department lawyers are still raising legal arguments in the courts, claiming essentially that the courts have exceeded their powers and that the executive branch no longer has custody of Mr. Abrego Garcia. But those lawyers’ words ring hollow when, at the same time, President Trump meets with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele in the White House and Bukele declares he cannot send Mr. Abrego Garcia home against the wishes of the U.S. government, while Trump nods in agreement.

The fate of the Alien Enemies Act in the U.S. courts is far from settled. The ACLU alone has seven pending cases in various district courts, and issues in two of those cases have already reached the Supreme Court's emergency docket. These recently filed cases have cast a spotlight on the president’s repeated lawlessness, drawing attention of both Congress and the American public to the men, over 200 by now, who have been deported by the U.S. government to the Salvadoran gulag. President Trump wants to disappear these men into a legal black hole of his own creation. And in that sense, we and other advocates have already achieved one goal merely by filing lawsuits, because the men have become and remained visible for the world to see, even as our litigation fight continues.

In any litigation, regardless of the outcomes in court, we understand that lawsuits are almost always just one part of a broader strategy to achieve our long-term goals of restoring individual rights and liberties — the essential foundations of U.S. democracy. Win or lose, it matters when we stand up in court to fight for freedom, due process, and the basic notion that the president is not above the law. The ACLU has done so in many of the shameful chapters of American history, when the government has abused its power and trampled on individual liberty — including our fights against the first Trump administration’s Muslim ban and family separation policies, the U.S. military’s illegal and unconscionable use of torture after 9/11, the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, and the targeting of immigrants for deportation raids based on their political ideology in the 1920s.

"Win or lose, it matters when we stand up in court to fight for freedom, due process, and the basic notion that the president is not above the law."

History will be the judge of times like these. For now, the ACLU will continue to bring lawsuits to the courts, and to focus the eyes of Congress, the press, and the American people on the illegal actions of the president. Our impact does not stop at the courthouse steps. Every legal battle becomes a spark for broader organizing, strengthens our shared sense of solidarity, and mobilizes people across the country to come together against government overreach. Together, in the courts, in our communities, and in the streets, we will keep fighting to realize the promise of a free and democratic nation—one where the rule of law protects everyone, and no one is above the law.

Published April 30, 2025 at 08:29PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/sTqw25N

ACLU: Our Defense Against Trump: 100 Days In

Our Defense Against Trump: 100 Days In

Just 100 days into President Donald Trump’s second term, the ACLU has filed 51 cases against his administration. We sought emergency relief in 38 of these cases, winning at least some form of preliminary or temporary order in 27 cases. To our clients, these are not just numbers. Our work with them, and on their behalf, has made a real difference in their lives.

Courts Are Checking Unlawful Executive Action

From the start, litigation has been a tool of first resort in protecting people’s rights and freedom. On Inauguration Day, we filed our first case of the second Trump term, challenging his effort to dismantle the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. We won a preliminary injunction before the unconstitutional order’s effective date.

We have also won multiple orders blocking Trump’s extraordinary invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which gives presidents certain powers during wartime, to deport Venezuelan nationals to a gulag in El Salvador without due process. We’ve won preliminary relief from six federal district courts — in Washington, D.C., Texas, New York, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Nevada — blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, and have scored two victories on the Supreme Court’s emergency docket. First, on April 7, the Supreme Court ordered that individuals subjected to deportation under the Alien Enemies Act must be given notice and an opportunity to contest their designation in court. Then, at 12:45 a.m. on April 19, the court granted our emergency motion to temporarily block all deportations under the Alien Enemies Act from the Northern District of Texas pending further order of the court. We also won a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans, affecting 600,000 people currently residing lawfully in the United States.

In four separate cases, we have protected four immigrants targeted for detention and deportation solely because of their First Amendment-protected speech. Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate, was detained after leading peaceful protests in support of Palestinian human rights. Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University doctoral student, was targeted for co-authoring an op-ed that criticized the university’s rejection of various student government resolutions concerning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Dr. Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University professor, was arrested due to his scholarship and advocacy on the Middle East, as well as his U.S.-citizen wife’s family ties to Gaza. And Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student and longtime lawful permanent resident, was arrested at his naturalization interview, also in retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights. In all four cases, we won orders blocking the Trump administration from deporting our clients while litigation continues.

Credit: Scout Tufankjian

We have also filed ten cases challenging the Trump administration’s broader attacks on international students. The U.S. State Department terminated the electronic student visa records of hundreds of students at campuses around the country, without any due process. In the absence of any official reasons, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated in a media interview that he revokes student visas “every day, every time I find one of these lunatics,” referring to his searches through students’ social media accounts for expressions of sympathy for Palestinians. But many of the affected students have never engaged in any form of protest, and there is no discernible reason for the termination of their records or visas. We have obtained preliminary relief in six of our ten pending cases so far. And on April 25, the government announced that it would undo the mass terminations and restore the affected records.

We have also scored significant victories in challenges to Trump’s heinous executive orders targeting transgender Americans: We blocked Trump’s attempt to enforce a nationwide ban on essential health care for transgender people under the age of 19, as well as his executive order requiring passports to indicate the holder’s sex assigned at birth rather than their actual gender identity.

And when Trump has tried to roll back on the hard-won gains of the Civil Rights Movement, we’ve blocked him there, too. We secured a preliminary injunction against his executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, which usurped Congress’ constitutionally assigned role. We blocked the U.S. Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter, which threatened to defund educational institutions over programming on forbidden topics such as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and subsequent guidance that would have required states, under threat of legal penalties, to certify that their schools weren’t teaching or supporting DEI programs.

Win or Lose, the Arc Bends Towards Justice

Despite these proofs of concept for the value of litigation, we must acknowledge the serious risk that the Trump administration may, in some cases, simply ignore its defeats in the courts and carry on with its unlawful actions. Although Trump has yet to openly defy a court order, he has already come dangerously close.

In our initial challenge against his use of the Alien Enemies Act, J.G.G. v. Trump, the Trump administration failed to follow the district court’s order that any planes in the air should turn around pursuant to its temporary restraining order. And in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia (not an ACLU case), a Maryland man who was deported to a notorious Salvadoran prison, CECOT, despite having an order of humanitarian protection from a U.S. immigration court prohibiting his deportation to El Salvador, the Trump administration has failed to bring him back even after the Supreme Court ordered it to facilitate his return. In these cases, U.S. Justice Department lawyers are still raising legal arguments in the courts, claiming essentially that the courts have exceeded their powers and that the executive branch no longer has custody of Mr. Abrego Garcia. But those lawyers’ words ring hollow when, at the same time, President Trump meets with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele in the White House and Bukele declares he cannot send Mr. Abrego Garcia home against the wishes of the U.S. government, while Trump nods in agreement.

The fate of the Alien Enemies Act in the U.S. courts is far from settled. The ACLU alone has seven pending cases in various district courts, and issues in two of those cases have already reached the Supreme Court's emergency docket. These recently filed cases have cast a spotlight on the president’s repeated lawlessness, drawing attention of both Congress and the American public to the men, over 200 by now, who have been deported by the U.S. government to the Salvadoran gulag. President Trump wants to disappear these men into a legal black hole of his own creation. And in that sense, we and other advocates have already achieved one goal merely by filing lawsuits, because the men have become and remained visible for the world to see, even as our litigation fight continues.

In any litigation, regardless of the outcomes in court, we understand that lawsuits are almost always just one part of a broader strategy to achieve our long-term goals of restoring individual rights and liberties — the essential foundations of U.S. democracy. Win or lose, it matters when we stand up in court to fight for freedom, due process, and the basic notion that the president is not above the law. The ACLU has done so in many of the shameful chapters of American history, when the government has abused its power and trampled on individual liberty — including our fights against the first Trump administration’s Muslim ban and family separation policies, the U.S. military’s illegal and unconscionable use of torture after 9/11, the internment of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II, and the targeting of immigrants for deportation raids based on their political ideology in the 1920s.

"Win or lose, it matters when we stand up in court to fight for freedom, due process, and the basic notion that the president is not above the law."

History will be the judge of times like these. For now, the ACLU will continue to bring lawsuits to the courts, and to focus the eyes of Congress, the press, and the American people on the illegal actions of the president. Our impact does not stop at the courthouse steps. Every legal battle becomes a spark for broader organizing, strengthens our shared sense of solidarity, and mobilizes people across the country to come together against government overreach. Together, in the courts, in our communities, and in the streets, we will keep fighting to realize the promise of a free and democratic nation—one where the rule of law protects everyone, and no one is above the law.

Published April 30, 2025 at 03:59PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/8gnWTEU

ACLU: Medicaid Work Requirements Don’t Work — They Harm People with Disabilities

Medicaid Work Requirements Don’t Work — They Harm People with Disabilities

Medicaid helps tens of millions of people stay healthy, care for their families, and navigate life’s hardest moments. It’s a critical lifeline for people with disabilities. But some lawmakers in Congress are pushing a policy that would do little more than make it harder for people to access that care: Medicaid work requirements.

On paper, work requirements might sound reasonable. Proponents claim they encourage people to find work and contribute to society. But in practice, we’ve already seen how this plays out, and the evidence is clear: Medicaid work requirements don’t increase employment. They do nothing to address “waste, fraud, and abuse.” And they fail to do anything to lower health care costs. Simply put, they just take health care away from people who need it.

We’ve Tried This Before. It Didn’t Work.

In 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement a Medicaid work-reporting requirement. Officials promised it would boost employment among low-income adults. It did not. Instead, the program stripped health care coverage from ove 18,000 Arkansans.

People lost health care not because they weren’t working, but because they got caught in a maze of red tape. The online reporting system was confusing. Reporting requirements were burdensome. People with disabilities, caregivers, and those juggling health issues or unstable schedules fell through the cracks. And after 18 months, there was no increase in employment.

Georgia Followed Suit — With the Same Results

In 2024, Georgia launched a similar program requiring monthly work reports from adults earning up to 100 percent of the federal poverty line (about $15,000 a year). Despite more than 110,000 people wanting to enroll, fewer than 5,500 made it through the process.

Why the gap? The same story: confusing applications, unclear eligibility rules, and bureaucratic barriers. Over 40 percent of people who wanted to apply could not wade through the paperwork. One in five who did were denied.

The costs of these ineffective policies? Enormous. Georgia spent more than $13,000 per enrollee — five times the original estimate — with most of that money going not to health care, but to building and running a bureaucracy.

This Isn’t About Encouraging Work. It’s About Cutting People Off.

Work requirements don’t acknowledge the reality of low-wage work in America. Many people who qualify for Medicaid are already working — and paying taxes. But often they are working in jobs with unpredictable hours, no sick leave, and no health benefits. Others are caring for family, recovering from illness, or dealing with disabilities that make full-time employment difficult or impossible.

Instead of helping people work, these policies punish them for circumstances beyond their control. And rather than investing in job training or support, they impose harsh rules specifically designed to make getting health care harder.

The Hidden Cost: Discrimination and Inefficiency

These policies not only waste taxpayer dollars, they’re patently unjust and bad policy.

Work requirements disproportionately harm people with disabilities. Many disabled people fall into coverage gaps because they don’t meet strict federal definitions of disability yet still face serious barriers to employment. Work requirements ignore that reality, and the result is lost coverage, worse health outcomes, and deepening inequality.

Congress Shouldn’t Pick on Vulnerable People Who Need Health Care

Work requirements make access to health care more burdensome and overwhelming. They target vulnerable individuals whose life circumstances are already dire and who may lack the resources and wherewithal to overcome obstacles created by new, confusing bureaucratic hoops.

Work requirements neither encourage employment nor create a healthy, stable workforce. They are nothing more than a not-so-subtle backdoor to cut Medicaid and deny individuals the health care they need.

Published April 29, 2025 at 12:06AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ryGT8OJ

ACLU: Medicaid Work Requirements Don’t Work — They Harm People with Disabilities

Medicaid Work Requirements Don’t Work — They Harm People with Disabilities

Medicaid helps tens of millions of people stay healthy, care for their families, and navigate life’s hardest moments. It’s a critical lifeline for people with disabilities. But some lawmakers in Congress are pushing a policy that would do little more than make it harder for people to access that care: Medicaid work requirements.

On paper, work requirements might sound reasonable. Proponents claim they encourage people to find work and contribute to society. But in practice, we’ve already seen how this plays out, and the evidence is clear: Medicaid work requirements don’t increase employment. They do nothing to address “waste, fraud, and abuse.” And they fail to do anything to lower health care costs. Simply put, they just take health care away from people who need it.

We’ve Tried This Before. It Didn’t Work.

In 2018, Arkansas became the first state to implement a Medicaid work-reporting requirement. Officials promised it would boost employment among low-income adults. It did not. Instead, the program stripped health care coverage from ove 18,000 Arkansans.

People lost health care not because they weren’t working, but because they got caught in a maze of red tape. The online reporting system was confusing. Reporting requirements were burdensome. People with disabilities, caregivers, and those juggling health issues or unstable schedules fell through the cracks. And after 18 months, there was no increase in employment.

Georgia Followed Suit — With the Same Results

In 2024, Georgia launched a similar program requiring monthly work reports from adults earning up to 100 percent of the federal poverty line (about $15,000 a year). Despite more than 110,000 people wanting to enroll, fewer than 5,500 made it through the process.

Why the gap? The same story: confusing applications, unclear eligibility rules, and bureaucratic barriers. Over 40 percent of people who wanted to apply could not wade through the paperwork. One in five who did were denied.

The costs of these ineffective policies? Enormous. Georgia spent more than $13,000 per enrollee — five times the original estimate — with most of that money going not to health care, but to building and running a bureaucracy.

This Isn’t About Encouraging Work. It’s About Cutting People Off.

Work requirements don’t acknowledge the reality of low-wage work in America. Many people who qualify for Medicaid are already working — and paying taxes. But often they are working in jobs with unpredictable hours, no sick leave, and no health benefits. Others are caring for family, recovering from illness, or dealing with disabilities that make full-time employment difficult or impossible.

Instead of helping people work, these policies punish them for circumstances beyond their control. And rather than investing in job training or support, they impose harsh rules specifically designed to make getting health care harder.

The Hidden Cost: Discrimination and Inefficiency

These policies not only waste taxpayer dollars, they’re patently unjust and bad policy.

Work requirements disproportionately harm people with disabilities. Many disabled people fall into coverage gaps because they don’t meet strict federal definitions of disability yet still face serious barriers to employment. Work requirements ignore that reality, and the result is lost coverage, worse health outcomes, and deepening inequality.

Congress Shouldn’t Pick on Vulnerable People Who Need Health Care

Work requirements make access to health care more burdensome and overwhelming. They target vulnerable individuals whose life circumstances are already dire and who may lack the resources and wherewithal to overcome obstacles created by new, confusing bureaucratic hoops.

Work requirements neither encourage employment nor create a healthy, stable workforce. They are nothing more than a not-so-subtle backdoor to cut Medicaid and deny individuals the health care they need.

Published April 28, 2025 at 07:36PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/N2WPhSI

ACLU: Educators Speak Out on Harms of Unlawful Education Department Directive

Educators Speak Out on Harms of Unlawful Education Department Directive

*indicates name changed to protect identity

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has historically worked to ensure that all students have equal access to quality public education. In February, the ED departed from its role of protecting students’ civil rights. In its February 14th “Dear Colleague Letter,” the ED threatened to revoke federal funding from any educational institution that engages in what it described as “illegal” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work. However, the ED has not defined what it considers to be “illegal DEI” and, from preschool to higher ed, its vague prohibitions in the letter are making it harder for educators, administrators, and students to deliver on and receive an education that explores a wide range of perspectives – including students’ own lived experiences – and encourages critical thinking.

The letter states that any undefined diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, practices are unlawful. It requires educators to act now to revise their lessons or suffer complaints, investigations, and the loss of vital federal funding. The letter failed to follow legal procedures for issuing such demands. If enforced, public schools and universities nationwide could be punished simply for teaching standard topics, like American history, or creating classrooms where each student feels safe to discuss the reality of our lives. Threats that the letter may be enforced have already caused teachers to self-censor.

But the ED does not have the authority to control what schools teach. Educators must be free to design lessons that give students the complete education they deserve, including those that teach history honestly and celebrate diversity. On March 5th, the ACLU, alongside our New Hampshire and Massachusetts affiliates, as well as the National Education Association (NEA), sued the ED on behalf of NEA, NEA-NH, and the Center for Black Educator Development to stop the ED’s unconstitutional intrusion on free speech and academic freedom. Several New Hampshire School Districts have also joined to assert their rights and protect their students.

“It’s clear that the Trump administration is trying to shut down speech it doesn’t like — especially when it deals with race in our educational institutions,” says Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “The ‘Dear ColleagueLetter’ is a brazen attempt to intimidate schools into abandoning lawful efforts to create inclusive learning environments.”

The educators represented in our suit against the ED said they felt like the “Dear Colleague Letter” instigated a “witch hunt” against them. Teachers who have dedicated their lives to helping every student grow into their full potential now fear losing their jobs and teaching licenses if they do not severely restrict what they and their students say and do in their classrooms.

Jordan*, an AP English teacher, describes feeling like their hands are tied. To keep students engaged and prepared for the AP exam, Jordan encourages them to connect older texts to their lived experiences and current events — an approach backed by state certification standards. But under the ED’s letter, even the most thoughtful lesson plans can be misunderstood as a violation of its guidelines. Jordan is now afraid that by allowing discussions of sexism, racism, or colonialism, even when students introduce them, they risk being accused of indoctrination.

“I don’t tell my students what to think,” Jordan says. “That is not teaching. I fear they are losing valuable analytical training and preparation for college if they cannot generate their own opinions on challenging works from our past and connect them to their world today.”

Taylor*, an assistant professor whose research focuses on Indigenous narratives, is already self-censoring. The ED’s vague rules have them worried that topics vital for understanding history and different viewpoints, like colonialism and feminist theory, could be wrongly seen as discriminatory. “As long as the letter is effective,” Taylor notes, “I cannot fully perform my role as an educator and speak freely on these critical topics.”

This self-censorship hurts students. Taylor has always encouraged students to draw on their lived experiences when engaging with course materials. But now, they are hesitant to invite those reflections or even respond to them in class. “I am committed to hearing all my students’ voices,” Taylor explains. “I am concerned that this commitment will become illegal.”

Taylor’s experience is but one of the inevitable consequences of Trump’s war on allegedly “woke” concepts. Since 2020, Trump and other anti-public education extremists have banned books and censored programs and curriculum that address systematic racism and sexism. The ACLU and our partners challenged these three of these efforts, but today, anti-DEI efforts remain the latest effort to erase marginalized communities.

For Billie*, a special education professor, after the Dear Colleague Letter was issued, their university ordered faculty to remove all references to DEI from course descriptions, including words like “disability,” “inclusion,” and “culturally responsive.”

Billie is concerned about the ability to meet the needs of special education students who are diverse in many ways, or share with students materials about the history of the disability rights movement and the fight for inclusion. These changes also conflict with national standards for special education teachers that Billie has prepared students to meet. They, too, come at a moment when schools across the country face a critical shortage of special education teachers. “If we can’t train teachers to meet the needs of diverse learners,” Billie warns, “students with disabilities will suffer.”

That impact is already being felt by the next generation of educators. Jesse*, a student teacher, has had their courses revised because of the ED’s letter, and describes feeling a decline in the quality of their education. Among other changes, their university is removing its education DEI course, taking away critical tools for supporting students from different backgrounds. Jesse lives in a city with a large immigrant population from Mexico and West Africa. They only want to be sure that their future students “can see themselves in the learning and feel welcome in class,” they say. But now, without coursework on cultural understanding and responsiveness, they worry that they will not be fully prepared to do this.

“We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons. Teaching should be guided by what’s best for students, not by threat of illegal restrictions and punishment,” said middle school teacher and president of the National Education Association, Becky Pringle.

When schools cannot teach about the world — including the histories and lived experiences of people of different races, genders, and abilities — students lose the chance to understand themselves, relate to others, and thrive in a diverse society. DEI initiatives allow students to hear a full range of perspectives, even those some anti-public education politicians don’t like.

At the ACLU, we know that classrooms must be shaped by the needs of students, not political agendas or vague legal threats. For more than a century, we have fought federal overreach to silence free speech. We will not back down now.

Published April 22, 2025 at 11:42PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/qQjzy2r

ACLU: Educators Speak Out on Harms of Unlawful Education Department Directive

Educators Speak Out on Harms of Unlawful Education Department Directive

*indicates name changed to protect identity

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has historically worked to ensure that all students have equal access to quality public education. In February, the ED departed from its role of protecting students’ civil rights. In its February 14th “Dear Colleague Letter,” the ED threatened to revoke federal funding from any educational institution that engages in what it described as “illegal” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work. However, the ED has not defined what it considers to be “illegal DEI” and, from preschool to higher ed, its vague prohibitions in the letter are making it harder for educators, administrators, and students to deliver on and receive an education that explores a wide range of perspectives – including students’ own lived experiences – and encourages critical thinking.

The letter states that any undefined diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, practices are unlawful. It requires educators to act now to revise their lessons or suffer complaints, investigations, and the loss of vital federal funding. The letter failed to follow legal procedures for issuing such demands. If enforced, public schools and universities nationwide could be punished simply for teaching standard topics, like American history, or creating classrooms where each student feels safe to discuss the reality of our lives. Threats that the letter may be enforced have already caused teachers to self-censor.

But the ED does not have the authority to control what schools teach. Educators must be free to design lessons that give students the complete education they deserve, including those that teach history honestly and celebrate diversity. On March 5th, the ACLU, alongside our New Hampshire and Massachusetts affiliates, as well as the National Education Association (NEA), sued the ED on behalf of NEA, NEA-NH, and the Center for Black Educator Development to stop the ED’s unconstitutional intrusion on free speech and academic freedom. Several New Hampshire School Districts have also joined to assert their rights and protect their students.

“It’s clear that the Trump administration is trying to shut down speech it doesn’t like — especially when it deals with race in our educational institutions,” says Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “The ‘Dear ColleagueLetter’ is a brazen attempt to intimidate schools into abandoning lawful efforts to create inclusive learning environments.”

The educators represented in our suit against the ED said they felt like the “Dear Colleague Letter” instigated a “witch hunt” against them. Teachers who have dedicated their lives to helping every student grow into their full potential now fear losing their jobs and teaching licenses if they do not severely restrict what they and their students say and do in their classrooms.

Jordan*, an AP English teacher, describes feeling like their hands are tied. To keep students engaged and prepared for the AP exam, Jordan encourages them to connect older texts to their lived experiences and current events — an approach backed by state certification standards. But under the ED’s letter, even the most thoughtful lesson plans can be misunderstood as a violation of its guidelines. Jordan is now afraid that by allowing discussions of sexism, racism, or colonialism, even when students introduce them, they risk being accused of indoctrination.

“I don’t tell my students what to think,” Jordan says. “That is not teaching. I fear they are losing valuable analytical training and preparation for college if they cannot generate their own opinions on challenging works from our past and connect them to their world today.”

Taylor*, an assistant professor whose research focuses on Indigenous narratives, is already self-censoring. The ED’s vague rules have them worried that topics vital for understanding history and different viewpoints, like colonialism and feminist theory, could be wrongly seen as discriminatory. “As long as the letter is effective,” Taylor notes, “I cannot fully perform my role as an educator and speak freely on these critical topics.”

This self-censorship hurts students. Taylor has always encouraged students to draw on their lived experiences when engaging with course materials. But now, they are hesitant to invite those reflections or even respond to them in class. “I am committed to hearing all my students’ voices,” Taylor explains. “I am concerned that this commitment will become illegal.”

Taylor’s experience is but one of the inevitable consequences of Trump’s war on allegedly “woke” concepts. Since 2020, Trump and other anti-public education extremists have banned books and censored programs and curriculum that address systematic racism and sexism. The ACLU and our partners challenged these three of these efforts, but today, anti-DEI efforts remain the latest effort to erase marginalized communities.

For Billie*, a special education professor, after the Dear Colleague Letter was issued, their university ordered faculty to remove all references to DEI from course descriptions, including words like “disability,” “inclusion,” and “culturally responsive.”

Billie is concerned about the ability to meet the needs of special education students who are diverse in many ways, or share with students materials about the history of the disability rights movement and the fight for inclusion. These changes also conflict with national standards for special education teachers that Billie has prepared students to meet. They, too, come at a moment when schools across the country face a critical shortage of special education teachers. “If we can’t train teachers to meet the needs of diverse learners,” Billie warns, “students with disabilities will suffer.”

That impact is already being felt by the next generation of educators. Jesse*, a student teacher, has had their courses revised because of the ED’s letter, and describes feeling a decline in the quality of their education. Among other changes, their university is removing its education DEI course, taking away critical tools for supporting students from different backgrounds. Jesse lives in a city with a large immigrant population from Mexico and West Africa. They only want to be sure that their future students “can see themselves in the learning and feel welcome in class,” they say. But now, without coursework on cultural understanding and responsiveness, they worry that they will not be fully prepared to do this.

“We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons. Teaching should be guided by what’s best for students, not by threat of illegal restrictions and punishment,” said middle school teacher and president of the National Education Association, Becky Pringle.

When schools cannot teach about the world — including the histories and lived experiences of people of different races, genders, and abilities — students lose the chance to understand themselves, relate to others, and thrive in a diverse society. DEI initiatives allow students to hear a full range of perspectives, even those some anti-public education politicians don’t like.

At the ACLU, we know that classrooms must be shaped by the needs of students, not political agendas or vague legal threats. For more than a century, we have fought federal overreach to silence free speech. We will not back down now.

Published April 22, 2025 at 07:12PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/30stGpm

ACLU: How We Help the Immigrant Community Feel Seen

How We Help the Immigrant Community Feel Seen

A lot of people think that immigrants in detention must have done something wrong, but many people have not broken any laws and yet they are still detained. Some have no family anywhere near their detention center and no idea how long they may be held. I decided to visit these individuals. That’s how KWESI began, as a visitation group.

KWESI is a group of volunteers who visit immigrants held in government detention. It’s named after a Ghanaian man, Kwesi, who was transferred to the Mesa Verde detention center in California. The center opened in 2015 and could detain 400 humans. Government agents swiftly started transferring people from other jails and detention centers in the area. With KWESI, I started out visiting a lot of asylum seekers from various countries like Ghana, Cameroon, and El Salvador who were detained and whose families could not visit, either because they live too far away or because their family members were also undocumented.

Play the video

Kwesi, the Ghanaian man we decided to name our volunteer group after, was among those detained in Mesa Verde. He had no family anywhere in the United States. Our group began making weekly visits to the center, and over time, began to develop a relationship with Kwesi and those like him. I remember, specifically, Kwesi telling me that because of our visits he felt like he existed. In a moment when no one else in the world knew where he was or that he was being detained, he felt seen. Our organization honors Kwesi and his experience. Today, KWESI stands for “Kern Welcoming and Extending Solidarity to Immigrants.”

"In a moment when no one else in the world knew where he was or that he was being detained, he felt seen."

Since the election, our organization has assisted not only immigrants in detention, but also those in our communities. We’re a part of a rapid response network that accompanies people who may have check-ins with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or other government appointments that they feel nervous to go to. We also conduct trainings and hand out Know-Your-Rights cards to inform immigrants of their legal protections. This outreach is so important because it works. If somebody hands an ICE agent a card saying, “now I'm taking the Fifth,” meaning invoking the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, it can deter the authorities who’re counting on people not knowing their rights.

When we started this organization, I did not think I would still have to be doing this work years later. But it’s our 10th anniversary this year and I don't think that's a good thing. ICE detention is an unnecessary evil where we isolate and deprive human beings of their basic freedoms. Why? Why are we taking away their freedoms when we are “the land of the free?” They are our neighbors, our family members, and our friends.

"...It’s our 10th anniversary this year and I don't think that's a good thing."

In my previous work as an English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) teacher, I used to teach refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia. I heard their stories and was just so impressed with their resilience and determination. That’s part of how I maintain hope. I've met so many over the last 10 years who had nothing but hope; no family here, no jobs, no prospects—but they had hope. To me, that hope is an antidote to despair.

Published April 21, 2025 at 10:39PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ZMoG28b

ACLU: How We Help the Immigrant Community Feel Seen

How We Help the Immigrant Community Feel Seen

A lot of people think that immigrants in detention must have done something wrong, but many people have not broken any laws and yet they are still detained. Some have no family anywhere near their detention center and no idea how long they may be held. I decided to visit these individuals. That’s how KWESI began, as a visitation group.

KWESI is a group of volunteers who visit immigrants held in government detention. It’s named after a Ghanaian man, Kwesi, who was transferred to the Mesa Verde detention center in California. The center opened in 2015 and could detain 400 humans. Government agents swiftly started transferring people from other jails and detention centers in the area. With KWESI, I started out visiting a lot of asylum seekers from various countries like Ghana, Cameroon, and El Salvador who were detained and whose families could not visit, either because they live too far away or because their family members were also undocumented.

Play the video

Kwesi, the Ghanaian man we decided to name our volunteer group after, was among those detained in Mesa Verde. He had no family anywhere in the United States. Our group began making weekly visits to the center, and over time, began to develop a relationship with Kwesi and those like him. I remember, specifically, Kwesi telling me that because of our visits he felt like he existed. In a moment when no one else in the world knew where he was or that he was being detained, he felt seen. Our organization honors Kwesi and his experience. Today, KWESI stands for “Kern Welcoming and Extending Solidarity to Immigrants.”

"In a moment when no one else in the world knew where he was or that he was being detained, he felt seen."

Since the election, our organization has assisted not only immigrants in detention, but also those in our communities. We’re a part of a rapid response network that accompanies people who may have check-ins with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or other government appointments that they feel nervous to go to. We also conduct trainings and hand out Know-Your-Rights cards to inform immigrants of their legal protections. This outreach is so important because it works. If somebody hands an ICE agent a card saying, “now I'm taking the Fifth,” meaning invoking the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, it can deter the authorities who’re counting on people not knowing their rights.

When we started this organization, I did not think I would still have to be doing this work years later. But it’s our 10th anniversary this year and I don't think that's a good thing. ICE detention is an unnecessary evil where we isolate and deprive human beings of their basic freedoms. Why? Why are we taking away their freedoms when we are “the land of the free?” They are our neighbors, our family members, and our friends.

"...It’s our 10th anniversary this year and I don't think that's a good thing."

In my previous work as an English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) teacher, I used to teach refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia. I heard their stories and was just so impressed with their resilience and determination. That’s part of how I maintain hope. I've met so many over the last 10 years who had nothing but hope; no family here, no jobs, no prospects—but they had hope. To me, that hope is an antidote to despair.

Published April 21, 2025 at 06:09PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/7wXQlLy

ACLU: Trump's Expanded Domestic Military Use Should Worry Us All

Trump's Expanded Domestic Military Use Should Worry Us All

There’s growing concern that President Donald Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act to bring National Guard troops under federal control and deploy them within the U.S. This speculation may be partly because one of President Trump’s Inauguration Day executive orders, which declared a national emergency at the southern border set an April 20 deadline for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to recommend whether to use the Insurrection Act. That date is approaching quickly.

Make no mistake: If Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to activate federalized troops for mass deportation—whether at the border or somewhere else in the country—it would be unprecedented, unnecessary, and wrong. But the president has already been increasing domestic military use. As recently as April 11th, he issued a new memorandum with yet another chill-inducing title: "Military Mission for Sealing the Southern Border of the United States and Repelling Invasions.” It’s worth repeating that there is no invasion of America, and if President Trump doubts that, he could consult himself. Last month he declared on Truth Social that the (fictional) “Invasion of our Country is OVER.” Yet under his new directive, the Defense Department is claiming new and potentially expansive powers over large swaths of federal land—including where US citizens and other border residents live. .

Let’s step back a bit first and recall the military’s proper, limited role on U.S. soil, and the dangerous steps President Trump is already taking in service of his cruel anti-immigrant, anti-American agenda.

What Principles Govern the President’s Use of the Military Domestically?

When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they were concerned about constraining a rogue executive, preventing a standing (i.e. large and permanent) army, ensuring civilian government and a nonpartisan military, and safeguarding civil rights and civil liberties. From then until now, we know that a core component of liberty and democracy is the strong presumption against military enforcement of civil law—put simply, the military should not be policing civilians.

For these reasons, even when the Founders and Congress have given the president war and emergency powers, it is with constraints. For example, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 makes it a crime to use federal military forces “to execute the law,” except when “expressly authorized” under the Constitution or by an act of Congress. In practice, this means that the Defense Department generally forbids federal troops from carrying out direct civilian law enforcement activities on U.S. soil such as surveillance of individuals, questioning and interrogations, arrests, searches, and seizures, among other things.

Another key principle is civilian control over the military, which means that military troops must follow a president’s lawful orders. Troops don’t get to pick and choose which lawful civilian orders they follow and which they don’t. But for this system to work, presidents and military leaders must be careful to ensure that the orders they give are unambiguously lawful. Otherwise, they put troops at legal and ethical risk, weaken military cohesion, and undermine the constitutional design, which prevents direct military involvement in civilian life, except in the limited circumstance of genuine crises.

Nor should the military act—or appear to act—in service of a partisan political agenda. Domestic deployment of the federal military is rare and has historically been reserved for genuine emergencies, like the extreme situation of an actual war, an armed rebellion, or to enforce federal laws if civilian agencies and courts aren’t functioning. One clear example comes from 1958, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act (which is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act) and deployed federal troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board decision and guard the Little Rock Nine against a racist and violent mob. President Eisenhower acted after then- Governor Orval Faubus had deployed the state National Guard to support segregationists in defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Constitution also allocates power between the federal government and the states, generally imposing on the federal government the duty to enforce federal law and defend against truly extreme crises and emergencies, while reserving police powers to the states. Normally, National Guard troops are maintained by states, under the command of their governors, as explained below. States have a critically important role to play in ensuring lawful and appropriate use of police powers within their state while safeguarding individual civil liberties and rights.

What is the Legal Framework for Domestic Military Deployment?

Applying these principles, here are the key things to know about how domestic military deployment normally works:

States’ National Guard Deployment

• The National Guard’s normal, default role is under the control of the governor of each state or territory (or, for Washington, D.C., the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard). Governors may activate their National Guard within the state, at state expense, for purposes authorized by state laws and regulations. When National Guard troops are activated, their conduct—including use of force—is also governed by state law. The federal Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibition against troops carrying out civilian law enforcement functions does not apply to National Guard units in state status, but governors, National Guard commanding officers, and troops themselves must always abide by the limits and protections in their state constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

Federal Role in National Guard Deployment

Congress has enacted laws governing both federal military and National Guard deployment and conduct in Titles 10 and 32 of the U.S. Code.

• Title 32 duty. Under Title 32, National Guard troops can be deployed into active duty to provide support for federal or joint state-federal operations or missions that are authorized by Congress or carried out at the request of the president or secretary of defense. Historically, these federally-supported purposes include things like a large-scale humanitarian or natural disaster response, or drug interdiction. In this status, the troops are federally funded and trained but remain under the command and control of their state governor.
  As a matter of federal law and practice, the president or secretary of defense can request state National Guard deployment in Title 32 status. State governors can decline such a request. If National Guard troops in Title 32 status are deployed across a state’s borders to another state, it is generally with the authorization of both the requesting and “receiving” states. Like with state active-duty troops, the conduct of National Guard troops in Title 32 status is governed—and limited—by state rules and law, as well as the Constitution and other relevant federal laws.

• Title 10 duty. In Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Congress has legislated the roles of the federal armed forces and the Department of Defense. Title 10 federal duty for National Guard troops has historically been rare. The National Guard may be deployed into active duty by the president under Title 10 for a federal purpose, with command and control resting solely with the president and the secretary of defense. National Guard troops deployed under Title 10 are federally funded and are often referred to as “federalized” National Guard.
  Congress has prohibited troops—federal and federalized National Guard—deployed under Title 10 from providing “direct assistance” to civilian law enforcement—under both the Posse Comitatus Act and a separate provision of Title 10. The Posse Comitatus Act applies to all current Title 10 deployments on U.S. soil, and troops deployed under it to the southern border are prohibited from carrying out arrests, searches, and seizures. The Insurrection Act is generally understood as the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibitions.

How Has Trump Deployed the Military Domestically So Far?

On Inauguration Day, Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border, falsely claiming an invasion, and authorized a dramatic increase in the number of federalized National Guard troops deployed to the border under Title 10. Since then, he’s also sent combat vehicles to our border communities. So far, Trump’s domestic troop deployment has been limited to support for border operations. Troops have been supporting border wall construction and materials transportation, monitoring and detection assistance, and providing logistical assistance for civilian agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

But his actions are worsening the conditions under which civilian border communities live. Our southern border is home to approximately 19 million people, in addition to the regular business and trade commuters who come across the border every day. In recent years, U.S. citizens and other border residents have been exposed to intrusive civilian law enforcement surveillance, aggressive federal policing, border patrol checkpoints they must pass through for medical care and daily activities, and environmental degradation from border wall construction. Border patrol agents have engaged in deadly vehicular pursuits and excessive use of force against border residents, and in one of his initial executive orders, President Trump revoked the 2023 Customs and Border Protection policy to limit these deadly chases.

What Did Trump Do Most Recently?

On April 11, Trump issued a memorandum giving the Defense Department use and jurisdiction over public civilian lands along the border—including the Roosevelt Reservation in New Mexico and excluding Federal Indian Reservations—for military activities. Trump’s directive allows the secretary of defense to identify “military activities that are reasonably necessary and appropriate” including actions to “protect and maintain the security of military installations” and exclude people from newly designated “national defense areas.” In other words, Trump is opening the door to an expanding military role that goes beyond logistical support—and potentially beyond the identified zone.

The new policy has serious implications for border residents living under this expanded militarized zone, which includes cities like San Diego, CA; Nogales, Arizona; El Paso, Texas and other heavily populated, thriving communities. People in these areas could now face federal prosecution for trespassing if they unintentionally walk or drive onto a designated “national defense area.”

Given the numerous documented cases of excessive use of force by border patrol agents, we are deeply concerned about the potentially dangerous consequences of adding more armed troops to border communities, in an environment that military personnel may not be trained for. Trump’s new memorandum states that “members of the Armed Forces will follow rules for the use of force prescribed by the Secretary of Defense,” but these rules may be completely inappropriate for densely populated, civilian areas.

President Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act—yet. But his administration continues to invest in the theatre of war, like wrongly invoking wartime authorities such as the Alien Enemies Act, and threatening drone strikes against drug cartels in Mexico. None of this makes us safer, and this latest move to hand over public land to the military forces our civilian communities to live in fear.

Right now, we are calling on members of Congress to insist on oversight for these expanded actions—in particular, any changes to rules governing use of force—and to call for safeguards and transparency to protect border residents from escalating military control over their daily lives.

These developments are bad enough. Invocation of the Insurrection Act is both unnecessary and would make them worse.

Published April 17, 2025 at 12:16AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/HCsXyLb

ACLU: Trump's Expanded Domestic Military Use Should Worry Us All

Trump's Expanded Domestic Military Use Should Worry Us All

There’s growing concern that President Donald Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act to bring National Guard troops under federal control and deploy them within the U.S. This speculation may be partly because one of President Trump’s Inauguration Day executive orders, which declared a national emergency at the southern border set an April 20 deadline for the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to recommend whether to use the Insurrection Act. That date is approaching quickly.

Make no mistake: If Trump invokes the Insurrection Act to activate federalized troops for mass deportation—whether at the border or somewhere else in the country—it would be unprecedented, unnecessary, and wrong. But the president has already been increasing domestic military use. As recently as April 11th, he issued a new memorandum with yet another chill-inducing title: "Military Mission for Sealing the Southern Border of the United States and Repelling Invasions.” It’s worth repeating that there is no invasion of America, and if President Trump doubts that, he could consult himself. Last month he declared on Truth Social that the (fictional) “Invasion of our Country is OVER.” Yet under his new directive, the Defense Department is claiming new and potentially expansive powers over large swaths of federal land—including where US citizens and other border residents live. .

Let’s step back a bit first and recall the military’s proper, limited role on U.S. soil, and the dangerous steps President Trump is already taking in service of his cruel anti-immigrant, anti-American agenda.

What Principles Govern the President’s Use of the Military Domestically?

When the Founders drafted the Constitution, they were concerned about constraining a rogue executive, preventing a standing (i.e. large and permanent) army, ensuring civilian government and a nonpartisan military, and safeguarding civil rights and civil liberties. From then until now, we know that a core component of liberty and democracy is the strong presumption against military enforcement of civil law—put simply, the military should not be policing civilians.

For these reasons, even when the Founders and Congress have given the president war and emergency powers, it is with constraints. For example, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 makes it a crime to use federal military forces “to execute the law,” except when “expressly authorized” under the Constitution or by an act of Congress. In practice, this means that the Defense Department generally forbids federal troops from carrying out direct civilian law enforcement activities on U.S. soil such as surveillance of individuals, questioning and interrogations, arrests, searches, and seizures, among other things.

Another key principle is civilian control over the military, which means that military troops must follow a president’s lawful orders. Troops don’t get to pick and choose which lawful civilian orders they follow and which they don’t. But for this system to work, presidents and military leaders must be careful to ensure that the orders they give are unambiguously lawful. Otherwise, they put troops at legal and ethical risk, weaken military cohesion, and undermine the constitutional design, which prevents direct military involvement in civilian life, except in the limited circumstance of genuine crises.

Nor should the military act—or appear to act—in service of a partisan political agenda. Domestic deployment of the federal military is rare and has historically been reserved for genuine emergencies, like the extreme situation of an actual war, an armed rebellion, or to enforce federal laws if civilian agencies and courts aren’t functioning. One clear example comes from 1958, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act (which is an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act) and deployed federal troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board decision and guard the Little Rock Nine against a racist and violent mob. President Eisenhower acted after then- Governor Orval Faubus had deployed the state National Guard to support segregationists in defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision.

The Constitution also allocates power between the federal government and the states, generally imposing on the federal government the duty to enforce federal law and defend against truly extreme crises and emergencies, while reserving police powers to the states. Normally, National Guard troops are maintained by states, under the command of their governors, as explained below. States have a critically important role to play in ensuring lawful and appropriate use of police powers within their state while safeguarding individual civil liberties and rights.

What is the Legal Framework for Domestic Military Deployment?

Applying these principles, here are the key things to know about how domestic military deployment normally works:

States’ National Guard Deployment

• The National Guard’s normal, default role is under the control of the governor of each state or territory (or, for Washington, D.C., the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard). Governors may activate their National Guard within the state, at state expense, for purposes authorized by state laws and regulations. When National Guard troops are activated, their conduct—including use of force—is also governed by state law. The federal Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibition against troops carrying out civilian law enforcement functions does not apply to National Guard units in state status, but governors, National Guard commanding officers, and troops themselves must always abide by the limits and protections in their state constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

Federal Role in National Guard Deployment

Congress has enacted laws governing both federal military and National Guard deployment and conduct in Titles 10 and 32 of the U.S. Code.

• Title 32 duty. Under Title 32, National Guard troops can be deployed into active duty to provide support for federal or joint state-federal operations or missions that are authorized by Congress or carried out at the request of the president or secretary of defense. Historically, these federally-supported purposes include things like a large-scale humanitarian or natural disaster response, or drug interdiction. In this status, the troops are federally funded and trained but remain under the command and control of their state governor.
  As a matter of federal law and practice, the president or secretary of defense can request state National Guard deployment in Title 32 status. State governors can decline such a request. If National Guard troops in Title 32 status are deployed across a state’s borders to another state, it is generally with the authorization of both the requesting and “receiving” states. Like with state active-duty troops, the conduct of National Guard troops in Title 32 status is governed—and limited—by state rules and law, as well as the Constitution and other relevant federal laws.

• Title 10 duty. In Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Congress has legislated the roles of the federal armed forces and the Department of Defense. Title 10 federal duty for National Guard troops has historically been rare. The National Guard may be deployed into active duty by the president under Title 10 for a federal purpose, with command and control resting solely with the president and the secretary of defense. National Guard troops deployed under Title 10 are federally funded and are often referred to as “federalized” National Guard.
  Congress has prohibited troops—federal and federalized National Guard—deployed under Title 10 from providing “direct assistance” to civilian law enforcement—under both the Posse Comitatus Act and a separate provision of Title 10. The Posse Comitatus Act applies to all current Title 10 deployments on U.S. soil, and troops deployed under it to the southern border are prohibited from carrying out arrests, searches, and seizures. The Insurrection Act is generally understood as the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act’s prohibitions.

How Has Trump Deployed the Military Domestically So Far?

On Inauguration Day, Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border, falsely claiming an invasion, and authorized a dramatic increase in the number of federalized National Guard troops deployed to the border under Title 10. Since then, he’s also sent combat vehicles to our border communities. So far, Trump’s domestic troop deployment has been limited to support for border operations. Troops have been supporting border wall construction and materials transportation, monitoring and detection assistance, and providing logistical assistance for civilian agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

But his actions are worsening the conditions under which civilian border communities live. Our southern border is home to approximately 19 million people, in addition to the regular business and trade commuters who come across the border every day. In recent years, U.S. citizens and other border residents have been exposed to intrusive civilian law enforcement surveillance, aggressive federal policing, border patrol checkpoints they must pass through for medical care and daily activities, and environmental degradation from border wall construction. Border patrol agents have engaged in deadly vehicular pursuits and excessive use of force against border residents, and in one of his initial executive orders, President Trump revoked the 2023 Customs and Border Protection policy to limit these deadly chases.

What Did Trump Do Most Recently?

On April 11, Trump issued a memorandum giving the Defense Department use and jurisdiction over public civilian lands along the border—including the Roosevelt Reservation in New Mexico and excluding Federal Indian Reservations—for military activities. Trump’s directive allows the secretary of defense to identify “military activities that are reasonably necessary and appropriate” including actions to “protect and maintain the security of military installations” and exclude people from newly designated “national defense areas.” In other words, Trump is opening the door to an expanding military role that goes beyond logistical support—and potentially beyond the identified zone.

The new policy has serious implications for border residents living under this expanded militarized zone, which includes cities like San Diego, CA; Nogales, Arizona; El Paso, Texas and other heavily populated, thriving communities. People in these areas could now face federal prosecution for trespassing if they unintentionally walk or drive onto a designated “national defense area.”

Given the numerous documented cases of excessive use of force by border patrol agents, we are deeply concerned about the potentially dangerous consequences of adding more armed troops to border communities, in an environment that military personnel may not be trained for. Trump’s new memorandum states that “members of the Armed Forces will follow rules for the use of force prescribed by the Secretary of Defense,” but these rules may be completely inappropriate for densely populated, civilian areas.

President Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act—yet. But his administration continues to invest in the theatre of war, like wrongly invoking wartime authorities such as the Alien Enemies Act, and threatening drone strikes against drug cartels in Mexico. None of this makes us safer, and this latest move to hand over public land to the military forces our civilian communities to live in fear.

Right now, we are calling on members of Congress to insist on oversight for these expanded actions—in particular, any changes to rules governing use of force—and to call for safeguards and transparency to protect border residents from escalating military control over their daily lives.

These developments are bad enough. Invocation of the Insurrection Act is both unnecessary and would make them worse.

Published April 16, 2025 at 07:46PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/TPCbwDZ

ACLU: Writing an Op-Ed is not Grounds for Deportation

Writing an Op-Ed is not Grounds for Deportation

Since January, the Trump administration has abducted several international students and faculty and detained them thousands of miles away from their loved ones all because these scholars have spoken about Israel and Palestine in ways the government doesn’t like. But criticizing U.S. foreign policy, or voicing any other opinion, is protected by the First Amendment—no matter your immigration status.

The ACLU and its partners are representing Rümeysa Öztürk, a Fulbright scholar and Ph.D. student at Tufts University who was arrested and detained by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Somerville, MA.

Rümeysa Öztürk's legal team

On Monday, April 14, Ms. Öztürk’s legal team asked the Vermont federal judge to affirm that the case should stay in Vermont, and to order her immediate release from ICE detention before she is further harmed by the government’s unconstitutional actions.

So, What Happened?

On March 25, Ms. Öztürk was planning to go to an iftar dinner with friends. Instead, while walking near her apartment, she was approached and then grabbed by a hooded man. Other figures soon closed in, including several wearing face coverings and dark clothing. Finally, one officer flashed a badge; however, in recent court filings Ms. Öztürk has attested that she did not know they were immigration officers and genuinely feared for her life. Footage shows the plainclothes ICE agents arrested and detained her, then placed her in an unmarked vehicle.

That evening, she was brought to Methuen, MA; then, to Lebanon, NH; and, finally, to St. Albans, VT where she spent the night in a detention cell. While ICE was driving Ms. Öztürk all over New England, her lawyer was frantically filing an emergency habeas petition. That night, a Massachusetts court ordered the government not to remove her from Massachusetts without prior notice.

However, early the next morning, without notifying the court, her counsel, or the Department of Justice counsel, federal agents took her to Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport and transported her to Louisiana, where she has remained in detention ever since. While in transit, Ms. Öztürk suffered an asthma attack, which her friends had been worried about as she did not have her medication. Since being detained, she has suffered at least three more medical episodes.

Who is Rümeysa Öztürk?

A child development researcher who is getting her Ph.D. at Tufts University, Ms. Öztürk is known for her dedication to her work, to her community, and to her loved ones.

A former boss said in a letter to the court that as a teaching assistant she was “outstanding—kind, approachable, and deeply attentive to the psychological needs of her students as we navigated the challenges of the pandemic.” He said that "students in her section wrote glowing reviews, highlighting her empathy, dedication, and commitment to their well-being.”

A good friend describes her to ProPublica as a “bookish cat lover” who was “serious about [her] studies and [her] faith.” Her roommate calls her “a friend with a kind heart and uplifting spirit.”

In her own words, she describes herself as “a Ph.D. student working with children and youth,” saying, “we know that injustice in the world and systemic brutality towards people of color has long-lasting negative effects on children, youth, and other communities. My life is committed to choosing peaceful and inclusive ways to meet the needs of children. I believe the world is a more beautiful and peaceful place when we listen to each other and allow different perspectives to be in the room. Writing is one of the most peaceful ways of addressing systemic inequality. Efforts to target me because of my op-ed in the Tufts Daily calling for the equal dignity and humanity of all people will not deter me from my commitment to advocate for the rights of youth and children.”

Why Is the Government Detaining Öztürk?

To be clear, Ms. Öztürk has not been charged with any crime. According to all available evidence, the government is putting Ms. Öztürk through this harrowing experience solely because of the op-ed that she co-wrote with four other students for the college newspaper last spring. The op-ed criticized Tufts leadership’s response to the Tufts Community Union Senate passing several resolutions concerning human rights violations in Gaza. Months after that op-ed was written, and just weeks before she was detained, the website Canary Mission published a profile on Ms. Öztürk, including her photograph, claiming she “engaged in anti-Israel activism.” Its sole support for the contention was a link and screenshots of her op-ed. When asked about her case, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed revoking her visa, adding, “we gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to become a social activist that tears up our university campuses.”

On April 14, the Washington Post obtained an internal State Department memo that was prepared days before Ms. Öztürk was detained, which found no evidence linking her to antisemitism or terrorism.

Why Is ICE Sending People to Louisiana?

The government claims it brought Ms. Öztürk to St. Albans, VT, because there were no overnight beds for women available in Massachusetts. Usually, ICE detains people in Vermont in a state correctional facility; for women, that’s typically Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility (CCRF). ICE officials also said in court documents that out-of-state transfers are “routinely conducted after arrest, due to operational necessity.”

It is true that over half of all immigration detainees are held in Texas and Louisiana; March 2024 data suggests 18,596 people were detained in those two states compared to just 204 in Massachusetts or 648 in New York. However, immigration attorneys say the late-night hopscotch is an increasingly common ICE tactic to complicate jurisdiction and thwart legal attempts to stop them from being removed. Louisiana and Texas, they say, are also favored destinations because the courts often issue decisions limiting migrant rights.

More generally, moving people away from their community isolates them from their attorneys, family, and friends, which the government hopes will drive some to give up their legal fight to stay in the United States.

Has the Government Gone After Other Students?

Ms. Öztürk is one of several students and scholars that the Trump administration has targeted for their protected speech. Her detainment follows those of recent Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent U.S. resident; and Georgetown University’s Dr. Badar Khan Suri.

Since Ms. Öztürk’s detention, the Trump administration has also begun revoking thousands of student visas across the country, often with no explanation whatsoever.

What Happens Next?

Ultimately, the Trump administration cannot order ICE to silence anyone with political opinions they disagree with, which is exactly what the ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Vermont, CLEAR, and the rest of Ms. Öztürk’s legal team are arguing in court. We are urging the judge to order that ICE immediately release Ms. Öztürk so that she can be reunited with her community in Somerville, where she hopes to resume her studies as soon as possible.

---

A version of this article originally appeared on the ACLU of Vermont’s website.

Published April 15, 2025 at 01:58AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/aclfmPX

ACLU: Writing an Op-Ed is not Grounds for Deportation

Writing an Op-Ed is not Grounds for Deportation

Since January, the Trump administration has abducted several international students and faculty and detained them thousands of miles away from their loved ones all because these scholars have spoken about Israel and Palestine in ways the government doesn’t like. But criticizing U.S. foreign policy, or voicing any other opinion, is protected by the First Amendment—no matter your immigration status.

The ACLU and its partners are representing Rümeysa Öztürk, a Fulbright scholar and Ph.D. student at Tufts University who was arrested and detained by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Somerville, MA.

Rümeysa Öztürk's legal team

On Monday, April 14, Ms. Öztürk’s legal team asked the Vermont federal judge to affirm that the case should stay in Vermont, and to order her immediate release from ICE detention before she is further harmed by the government’s unconstitutional actions.

So, What Happened?

On March 25, Ms. Öztürk was planning to go to an iftar dinner with friends. Instead, while walking near her apartment, she was approached and then grabbed by a hooded man. Other figures soon closed in, including several wearing face coverings and dark clothing. Finally, one officer flashed a badge; however, in recent court filings Ms. Öztürk has attested that she did not know they were immigration officers and genuinely feared for her life. Footage shows the plainclothes ICE agents arrested and detained her, then placed her in an unmarked vehicle.

That evening, she was brought to Methuen, MA; then, to Lebanon, NH; and, finally, to St. Albans, VT where she spent the night in a detention cell. While ICE was driving Ms. Öztürk all over New England, her lawyer was frantically filing an emergency habeas petition. That night, a Massachusetts court ordered the government not to remove her from Massachusetts without prior notice.

However, early the next morning, without notifying the court, her counsel, or the Department of Justice counsel, federal agents took her to Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport and transported her to Louisiana, where she has remained in detention ever since. While in transit, Ms. Öztürk suffered an asthma attack, which her friends had been worried about as she did not have her medication. Since being detained, she has suffered at least three more medical episodes.

Who is Rümeysa Öztürk?

A child development researcher who is getting her Ph.D. at Tufts University, Ms. Öztürk is known for her dedication to her work, to her community, and to her loved ones.

A former boss said in a letter to the court that as a teaching assistant she was “outstanding—kind, approachable, and deeply attentive to the psychological needs of her students as we navigated the challenges of the pandemic.” He said that "students in her section wrote glowing reviews, highlighting her empathy, dedication, and commitment to their well-being.”

A good friend describes her to ProPublica as a “bookish cat lover” who was “serious about [her] studies and [her] faith.” Her roommate calls her “a friend with a kind heart and uplifting spirit.”

In her own words, she describes herself as “a Ph.D. student working with children and youth,” saying, “we know that injustice in the world and systemic brutality towards people of color has long-lasting negative effects on children, youth, and other communities. My life is committed to choosing peaceful and inclusive ways to meet the needs of children. I believe the world is a more beautiful and peaceful place when we listen to each other and allow different perspectives to be in the room. Writing is one of the most peaceful ways of addressing systemic inequality. Efforts to target me because of my op-ed in the Tufts Daily calling for the equal dignity and humanity of all people will not deter me from my commitment to advocate for the rights of youth and children.”

Why Is the Government Detaining Öztürk?

To be clear, Ms. Öztürk has not been charged with any crime. According to all available evidence, the government is putting Ms. Öztürk through this harrowing experience solely because of the op-ed that she co-wrote with four other students for the college newspaper last spring. The op-ed criticized Tufts leadership’s response to the Tufts Community Union Senate passing several resolutions concerning human rights violations in Gaza. Months after that op-ed was written, and just weeks before she was detained, the website Canary Mission published a profile on Ms. Öztürk, including her photograph, claiming she “engaged in anti-Israel activism.” Its sole support for the contention was a link and screenshots of her op-ed. When asked about her case, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed revoking her visa, adding, “we gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to become a social activist that tears up our university campuses.”

On April 14, the Washington Post obtained an internal State Department memo that was prepared days before Ms. Öztürk was detained, which found no evidence linking her to antisemitism or terrorism.

Why Is ICE Sending People to Louisiana?

The government claims it brought Ms. Öztürk to St. Albans, VT, because there were no overnight beds for women available in Massachusetts. Usually, ICE detains people in Vermont in a state correctional facility; for women, that’s typically Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility (CCRF). ICE officials also said in court documents that out-of-state transfers are “routinely conducted after arrest, due to operational necessity.”

It is true that over half of all immigration detainees are held in Texas and Louisiana; March 2024 data suggests 18,596 people were detained in those two states compared to just 204 in Massachusetts or 648 in New York. However, immigration attorneys say the late-night hopscotch is an increasingly common ICE tactic to complicate jurisdiction and thwart legal attempts to stop them from being removed. Louisiana and Texas, they say, are also favored destinations because the courts often issue decisions limiting migrant rights.

More generally, moving people away from their community isolates them from their attorneys, family, and friends, which the government hopes will drive some to give up their legal fight to stay in the United States.

Has the Government Gone After Other Students?

Ms. Öztürk is one of several students and scholars that the Trump administration has targeted for their protected speech. Her detainment follows those of recent Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent U.S. resident; and Georgetown University’s Dr. Badar Khan Suri.

Since Ms. Öztürk’s detention, the Trump administration has also begun revoking thousands of student visas across the country, often with no explanation whatsoever.

What Happens Next?

Ultimately, the Trump administration cannot order ICE to silence anyone with political opinions they disagree with, which is exactly what the ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Vermont, CLEAR, and the rest of Ms. Öztürk’s legal team are arguing in court. We are urging the judge to order that ICE immediately release Ms. Öztürk so that she can be reunited with her community in Somerville, where she hopes to resume her studies as soon as possible.

---

A version of this article originally appeared on the ACLU of Vermont’s website.

Published April 14, 2025 at 09:28PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/R4yuETb