ACLU: The Supreme Court Cases to Watch

The Supreme Court Cases to Watch

The Supreme Court’s docket this term includes many of the complex issues American society is currently facing, including: immigration, free speech, religious liberty, LGBTQ rights and voting rights.

The ACLU has served as counsel or filed friend-of-the-court briefs in all of the cases addressing these hot-button issues. In addition to its official docket, the court will also decide cases on its “shadow docket,” or emergency docket, that touch on contentious issues like immigration enforcement and birthright citizenship.

Below, read more about key cases on the court’s main and emergency docket, including what they mean for the future of our civil liberties.

---

LGBTQ RIGHTS

U.S. v Skrmetti

The Facts: The question in this case is whether Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

Our Argument: The ACLU argues that Tennessee’s ban is a clear example of discrimination on the basis of sex and transgender status making it a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

We made a similar argument in 2020 when, alongside other legal advocates, we successfully argued in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of LGBTQ clients fired because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, including a transgender woman fired from her job at a Michigan funeral home. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of LGBTQ workers and found “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex” and therefore discrimination against LGBTQ workers was impermissible sex discrimination under Title VII, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in employment.

Why it Matters: In this case, the Supreme Court must now decide whether states can ban medical treatment for transgender youth with gender dysphoria, but not whether they must. If the court finds Tennessee’s law constitutional, the immediate impact on access to these treatments will be limited to the two states where the bans are already in effect.

Importantly, when arguing against transgender people and their families, states with bans like Tennessee’s have relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s opinion Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to ban abortion. U.S. v. Skrmetti will be a major test of how far the court is willing to stretch Dobbs to allow states to ban other health care. The court’s ruling could serve as a stepping stone towards further limiting access to abortion, IVF, and birth control.

---

FREE SPEECH

FSC v. Paxton

The Facts: The court must decide if a Texas law that forces people to share personally identifying information — potentially including a picture of themselves, biometric scans, or their government ID — before they can access websites that host some amount of sexual content is a violation of the First Amendment.

Our Argument: This law threatens all of our First Amendment rights, regardless of age. It reflects the government’s distaste for specific topics and messages–those about sex–and so it has to pass a very strict test to satisfy the First Amendment. The government argues that the law just has to be reasonable since its goal is to protect kids, but accepting that argument could open the door to all manner of speech regulation – and it doesn’t even actually protect kids. Pornography is often the canary in the coalmine when it comes to protecting free speech.

While proponents of age-verification laws liken them to showing your ID before buying pornography in person, the reality of online age verification is much more invasive. In the physical world, age-gating is easy, but the online version of this process is far more burdensome, time-consuming, and risky.

Why it Matters: Texas’s age-verification law is another insidious attempt to dismantle our right to access information — and to express ourselves freely.

Forcing people to identify themselves to access information online threatens the internet’s very spirit, and it compromises our rights to privacy and free speech without preventing children from accessing porn. In an age marked by data breaches and digital surveillance, linking your identity to your browsing history will inevitably discourage speech—and if that is deemed okay for sexual content, it could keep spreading to any number of other topics or mediums. Several states have already passed similar laws restricting access to social media for minors, and if those regulations continue to pass, the future of the internet looks a lot more fenced in.

---

RELIGION

Mahmoud v. Taylor

ACLU / Yousef Sindi

The Facts: This case asks whether a Maryland school district’s refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of an LGBTQ-inclusive English curriculum a violation of parents’ free-speech, free-exercise, and substantive-due-process rights under the U.S. Constitution and Maryland law.

Our Argument: In a friend-of-the-court brief, we argue that the “no opt-out” policy does not violate parents’ free exercise First Amendment rights. Although the school district previously allowed opt-outs for any reason from portions of the English Language Arts curriculum featuring storybooks with LGBTQ characters and themes, the growing number of opt-outs proved to be disruptive and divisive. Teachers were forced to divert time and resources to create alternative lessons for students who opted out, and many students simply did not attend school at all for the day. In addition, the opt-outs stigmatized LGBTQ students and those with LGBTQ family members.

Why it Matters: Religious liberty is fundamentally important, but it doesn’t force public schools to exempt students from secular lessons that don’t align with their families’ religious views. Mandating opt-outs would wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions, stoking divisiveness and disruption, and undermining a core purpose of public education — to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society.

---

VOTING

Robinson v. Callais/Louisiana v. Callais

ACLU / Janie Osborne

The Facts: In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether Louisiana's congressional map, which now includes two majority-Black districts, constitutes a racial gerrymander.

Our Argument: With such a significant Black population in Louisiana, it's imperative that the state’s congressional districts mirror this demographic reality to ensure fair representation. Simply put, the new map allows Black voters to elect candidates who genuinely represent their communities' concerns and interests. This aligns with the Voting Rights Act, which mandates that electoral maps not dilute the voting power of communities of color.

Why it Matters: Louisiana has a long history of racial discrimination in voting, including practices like literacy tests and poll taxes that targeted and disenfranchised Black voters.

Establishing a second majority-Black district ensures that the political landscape reflects Louisiana's diverse population -- of which Black people make up one third -- and is simply put: fair representation. Louisiana’s actions should set a precedent and inspire similar moves toward improving democratic processes in other states.

---

THE SHADOW DOCKET

While not “official” Supreme Court cases, the so-called shadow docket, or emergency docket, cases are brought to the court by a state, or a company, or a person who has lost in the lower courts and asks the Supreme Court to block the lower court's order while the case proceeds through the appeals process. The shadow docket is the way many cases today are decided, without full briefing or oral argument, and without any written opinion.

The Trump administration has utilized the shadow docket to address contentious issues – notably immigration enforcement and birthright citizenship – raising alarm over whether the administration is attempting to circumvent the rule of law to enforce unlawful and harmful policies.

A major case on the shadow docket involved Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man wrongfully deported to El Salvador. The court largely upheld a district judge’s order for his return. Other immigration-related shadow docket cases include Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan detainees to El Salvador. The Supreme Court intervened to temporarily block these deportations. The court also heard arguments in a case challenging Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The administration seeks to limit nationwide blocks on use of the law from lower courts, requesting they apply only to the parties involved. The court has yet to issue any rulings in this case.

Published May 28, 2025 at 07:54PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ah3NTyt

ACLU: The Supreme Court Cases to Watch

The Supreme Court Cases to Watch

The Supreme Court’s docket this term includes many of the complex issues American society is currently facing, including: immigration, free speech, religious liberty, LGBTQ rights and voting rights.

The ACLU has served as counsel or filed friend-of-the-court briefs in all of the cases addressing these hot-button issues. In addition to its official docket, the court will also decide cases on its “shadow docket,” or emergency docket, that touch on contentious issues like immigration enforcement and birthright citizenship.

Below, read more about key cases on the court’s main and emergency docket, including what they mean for the future of our civil liberties.

---

LGBTQ RIGHTS

U.S. v Skrmetti

The Facts: The question in this case is whether Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming hormone therapies for transgender minors violates the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

Our Argument: The ACLU argues that Tennessee’s ban is a clear example of discrimination on the basis of sex and transgender status making it a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

We made a similar argument in 2020 when, alongside other legal advocates, we successfully argued in front of the Supreme Court on behalf of LGBTQ clients fired because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, including a transgender woman fired from her job at a Michigan funeral home. In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of LGBTQ workers and found “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex” and therefore discrimination against LGBTQ workers was impermissible sex discrimination under Title VII, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in employment.

Why it Matters: In this case, the Supreme Court must now decide whether states can ban medical treatment for transgender youth with gender dysphoria, but not whether they must. If the court finds Tennessee’s law constitutional, the immediate impact on access to these treatments will be limited to the two states where the bans are already in effect.

Importantly, when arguing against transgender people and their families, states with bans like Tennessee’s have relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s opinion Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to ban abortion. U.S. v. Skrmetti will be a major test of how far the court is willing to stretch Dobbs to allow states to ban other health care. The court’s ruling could serve as a stepping stone towards further limiting access to abortion, IVF, and birth control.

---

FREE SPEECH

FSC v. Paxton

The Facts: The court must decide if a Texas law that forces people to share personally identifying information — potentially including a picture of themselves, biometric scans, or their government ID — before they can access websites that host some amount of sexual content is a violation of the First Amendment.

Our Argument: This law threatens all of our First Amendment rights, regardless of age. It reflects the government’s distaste for specific topics and messages–those about sex–and so it has to pass a very strict test to satisfy the First Amendment. The government argues that the law just has to be reasonable since its goal is to protect kids, but accepting that argument could open the door to all manner of speech regulation – and it doesn’t even actually protect kids. Pornography is often the canary in the coalmine when it comes to protecting free speech.

While proponents of age-verification laws liken them to showing your ID before buying pornography in person, the reality of online age verification is much more invasive. In the physical world, age-gating is easy, but the online version of this process is far more burdensome, time-consuming, and risky.

Why it Matters: Texas’s age-verification law is another insidious attempt to dismantle our right to access information — and to express ourselves freely.

Forcing people to identify themselves to access information online threatens the internet’s very spirit, and it compromises our rights to privacy and free speech without preventing children from accessing porn. In an age marked by data breaches and digital surveillance, linking your identity to your browsing history will inevitably discourage speech—and if that is deemed okay for sexual content, it could keep spreading to any number of other topics or mediums. Several states have already passed similar laws restricting access to social media for minors, and if those regulations continue to pass, the future of the internet looks a lot more fenced in.

---

RELIGION

Mahmoud v. Taylor

ACLU / Yousef Sindi

The Facts: This case asks whether a Maryland school district’s refusal to allow parents to opt their children out of an LGBTQ-inclusive English curriculum a violation of parents’ free-speech, free-exercise, and substantive-due-process rights under the U.S. Constitution and Maryland law.

Our Argument: In a friend-of-the-court brief, we argue that the “no opt-out” policy does not violate parents’ free exercise First Amendment rights. Although the school district previously allowed opt-outs for any reason from portions of the English Language Arts curriculum featuring storybooks with LGBTQ characters and themes, the growing number of opt-outs proved to be disruptive and divisive. Teachers were forced to divert time and resources to create alternative lessons for students who opted out, and many students simply did not attend school at all for the day. In addition, the opt-outs stigmatized LGBTQ students and those with LGBTQ family members.

Why it Matters: Religious liberty is fundamentally important, but it doesn’t force public schools to exempt students from secular lessons that don’t align with their families’ religious views. Mandating opt-outs would wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions, stoking divisiveness and disruption, and undermining a core purpose of public education — to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society.

---

VOTING

Robinson v. Callais/Louisiana v. Callais

ACLU / Janie Osborne

The Facts: In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether Louisiana's congressional map, which now includes two majority-Black districts, constitutes a racial gerrymander.

Our Argument: With such a significant Black population in Louisiana, it's imperative that the state’s congressional districts mirror this demographic reality to ensure fair representation. Simply put, the new map allows Black voters to elect candidates who genuinely represent their communities' concerns and interests. This aligns with the Voting Rights Act, which mandates that electoral maps not dilute the voting power of communities of color.

Why it Matters: Louisiana has a long history of racial discrimination in voting, including practices like literacy tests and poll taxes that targeted and disenfranchised Black voters.

Establishing a second majority-Black district ensures that the political landscape reflects Louisiana's diverse population -- of which Black people make up one third -- and is simply put: fair representation. Louisiana’s actions should set a precedent and inspire similar moves toward improving democratic processes in other states.

---

THE SHADOW DOCKET

While not “official” Supreme Court cases, the so-called shadow docket, or emergency docket, cases are brought to the court by a state, or a company, or a person who has lost in the lower courts and asks the Supreme Court to block the lower court's order while the case proceeds through the appeals process. The shadow docket is the way many cases today are decided, without full briefing or oral argument, and without any written opinion.

The Trump administration has utilized the shadow docket to address contentious issues – notably immigration enforcement and birthright citizenship – raising alarm over whether the administration is attempting to circumvent the rule of law to enforce unlawful and harmful policies.

A major case on the shadow docket involved Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man wrongfully deported to El Salvador. The court largely upheld a district judge’s order for his return. Other immigration-related shadow docket cases include Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan detainees to El Salvador. The Supreme Court intervened to temporarily block these deportations. The court also heard arguments in a case challenging Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. The administration seeks to limit nationwide blocks on use of the law from lower courts, requesting they apply only to the parties involved. The court has yet to issue any rulings in this case.

Published May 29, 2025 at 12:24AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/6lpbjxa

ACLU: What Is Due Process?

What Is Due Process?

In the first months of his administration, President Donald Trump repeatedly threatened due process, a fundamental principle enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. His attacks have spanned from the arbitrary use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport legal residents, to the unlawful detention of students.

For years due process has protected us from such unfair, unlawful and unequal treatment. But what is due process? Why do we all have a stake in defending it?

What is Due Process?

It’s in the Constitution that the government shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This legal guarantee takes two forms: procedural due process and substantive due process.

• Procedural due process means that the government is required to follow a set of procedures when it attempts to deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property. This means that the government must tell you what’s happening, quickly provide you an opportunity to be heard in court, and provide you with a neutral decision-maker (i.e. a court of law).
• Substantive due process means that the government must give a compelling reason before infringing upon certain fundamental rights, no matter what process is followed.

In practice, procedural due process means that the government must give people a chance to defend themselves in a fair hearing before infringing on their rights. It is not merely a formality or an amorphous part of the law. It is a cornerstone of American justice. Our country was founded on the idea that the government cannot take away your rights and liberties arbitrarily and that everyone has a right to defend themselves in court.

Can the Government Restrict or Eliminate Due Process?

Not legally. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments explicitly state that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law under any circumstance.

The government is required to respect due process before it can take actions that affect a person's life, liberty, or property. This includes:

• Informing you of what is happening, such as why you’ve been arrested
• Providing you with a chance to challenge any accusations made against you
• Providing you with a fair and impartial jury of your peers should you go to trial

These rules are written in the Constitution and apply to everyone – regardless of origin, political beliefs, financial status or criminal status.

Why is Due Process Important?

At a high level, due process is the foundation of our legal system. We are not a monarchy or a dictatorship, meaning that power is derived from the people. The president is not allowed to disregard the Constitution and laws passed by the people’s representatives when dispensing justice.

At an individual level, due process protects us from arbitrary judgement by the government. Whether someone is fighting an eviction, seeking asylum, defending against criminal charges, or protecting custody of their children, we all rely on due process every time we engage with the justice system. Without due process, the government could unlawfully deport people, jail people for lengthy periods of time without a fair trial, demand money, seize homes or otherwise harm people without giving them a chance to defend themselves.

How Has the Trump Administration Infringed on Due Process?

President Trump has spent the first 100 days of his second presidency pushing unconstitutional executive orders and actions and targeting judges, private law firms, public interest firms, nonprofits, and individual lawyers. Taken together, these attacks are a direct affront to the due process protections enshrined in the Constitution.

Expedited deportations: The Trump administration has illegally fast-tracked deportations without fair legal processes. For example, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was shipped to a torture prison in El Salvador in the middle of the night without notice or a hearing, and in spite of a court order prohibiting his deportation. This is a clear violation of due process and the rights owed to all individuals. His story is one of many who have been banished without adequate justification.

Arrests of outspoken students: The Trump administration has directed masked ICE officers to arrest multiple students and professors for their First Amendment protected speech. This is a clear violation of due process, and a warning sign of authoritarianism that people across the political spectrum have condemned. In a free society, plainclothes officers cannot pull us into unmarked vehicles at a moment’s notice.

There are countless other examples, including the most recent suggestion by Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller that the government might suspend habeas corpus,which guarantees that people can challenge their unlawful detention by the government. This and other threats to our country’s commitment to due process put us in precarious positions.

The government does not get to pick and choose who deserves the protections enshrined in the Constitution. Allowing the Trump administration to do so is a slippery slope that leaves us all vulnerable. Lawyers, students, immigrants, and members of civil society will play a crucial role in checking the worst inclinations of this Trump administration. We must meet this moment with fierce and unwavering resistance in the courts, in the streets, and in statehouses across the country. Our Constitution demands it and our democracy depends on it.

Published May 28, 2025 at 07:52PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/cKUXCRh

ACLU: What Is Due Process?

What Is Due Process?

In the first months of his administration, President Donald Trump repeatedly threatened due process, a fundamental principle enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. His attacks have spanned from the arbitrary use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport legal residents, to the unlawful detention of students.

For years due process has protected us from such unfair, unlawful and unequal treatment. But what is due process? Why do we all have a stake in defending it?

What is Due Process?

It’s in the Constitution that the government shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” This legal guarantee takes two forms: procedural due process and substantive due process.

• Procedural due process means that the government is required to follow a set of procedures when it attempts to deprive someone of their life, liberty, or property. This means that the government must tell you what’s happening, quickly provide you an opportunity to be heard in court, and provide you with a neutral decision-maker (i.e. a court of law).
• Substantive due process means that the government must give a compelling reason before infringing upon certain fundamental rights, no matter what process is followed.

In practice, procedural due process means that the government must give people a chance to defend themselves in a fair hearing before infringing on their rights. It is not merely a formality or an amorphous part of the law. It is a cornerstone of American justice. Our country was founded on the idea that the government cannot take away your rights and liberties arbitrarily and that everyone has a right to defend themselves in court.

Can the Government Restrict or Eliminate Due Process?

Not legally. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments explicitly state that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law under any circumstance.

The government is required to respect due process before it can take actions that affect a person's life, liberty, or property. This includes:

• Informing you of what is happening, such as why you’ve been arrested
• Providing you with a chance to challenge any accusations made against you
• Providing you with a fair and impartial jury of your peers should you go to trial

These rules are written in the Constitution and apply to everyone – regardless of origin, political beliefs, financial status or criminal status.

Why is Due Process Important?

At a high level, due process is the foundation of our legal system. We are not a monarchy or a dictatorship, meaning that power is derived from the people. The president is not allowed to disregard the Constitution and laws passed by the people’s representatives when dispensing justice.

At an individual level, due process protects us from arbitrary judgement by the government. Whether someone is fighting an eviction, seeking asylum, defending against criminal charges, or protecting custody of their children, we all rely on due process every time we engage with the justice system. Without due process, the government could unlawfully deport people, jail people for lengthy periods of time without a fair trial, demand money, seize homes or otherwise harm people without giving them a chance to defend themselves.

How Has the Trump Administration Infringed on Due Process?

President Trump has spent the first 100 days of his second presidency pushing unconstitutional executive orders and actions and targeting judges, private law firms, public interest firms, nonprofits, and individual lawyers. Taken together, these attacks are a direct affront to the due process protections enshrined in the Constitution.

Expedited deportations: The Trump administration has illegally fast-tracked deportations without fair legal processes. For example, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was shipped to a torture prison in El Salvador in the middle of the night without notice or a hearing, and in spite of a court order prohibiting his deportation. This is a clear violation of due process and the rights owed to all individuals. His story is one of many who have been banished without adequate justification.

Arrests of outspoken students: The Trump administration has directed masked ICE officers to arrest multiple students and professors for their First Amendment protected speech. This is a clear violation of due process, and a warning sign of authoritarianism that people across the political spectrum have condemned. In a free society, plainclothes officers cannot pull us into unmarked vehicles at a moment’s notice.

There are countless other examples, including the most recent suggestion by Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller that the government might suspend habeas corpus,which guarantees that people can challenge their unlawful detention by the government. This and other threats to our country’s commitment to due process put us in precarious positions.

The government does not get to pick and choose who deserves the protections enshrined in the Constitution. Allowing the Trump administration to do so is a slippery slope that leaves us all vulnerable. Lawyers, students, immigrants, and members of civil society will play a crucial role in checking the worst inclinations of this Trump administration. We must meet this moment with fierce and unwavering resistance in the courts, in the streets, and in statehouses across the country. Our Constitution demands it and our democracy depends on it.

Published May 28, 2025 at 03:22PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/GcEfDSA

ACLU: George Takei: How the Alien Enemies Act Was Weaponized to Incarcerate My Family

George Takei: How the Alien Enemies Act Was Weaponized to Incarcerate My Family

George Takei has joined the ACLU as a special guest contributor for Asian American Pacific Islander History Month.

On March 14, Donald Trump signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act to carry out his mass deportations. The last time this law was invoked was during World War II, when it was weaponized to justify the incarceration of Japanese Americans, including my family. Now, I see history echoing in disturbing ways.

I was only a child when my parents and I were forcibly removed from our home and placed in internment camps without charge or trial — what we call due process — and branded as enemies solely because of our ancestry.

Just a few weeks after my fifth birthday, my parents woke me and my brother up very early and dressed us hurriedly. My brother and I watched out our living room window as two soldiers marched up our driveway, banged on our door, and ordered us out of our home. My father gave my brother and me some luggage to carry, and we all walked out to stand on our driveway, waiting for my mother. When she finally walked out, she carried my baby sister in one arm and carried a huge duffel bag in the other. Tears were streaming down both her cheeks.

George Takei

Brenda Bazán

I will never be able to forget that moment. It is burned into my memory.

My family was first incarcerated at the Santa Anita racetrack, where we were forced to live in a horse stable. Once the camps were built, we were put on a train and transferred across the country to the Rohwer War Relocation Center, in the swamps of Arkansas. We lived there for a portion of the war, before my family was transferred one final time to the Tule Lake War Relocation Center in Northern California.

It was a degrading, humiliating experience, especially for my parents. As a child, I was too young to fully understand why this had happened to us. But I could sense my parents' anxiety. Things that should have been grotesquely abnormal quickly became my new normal. I still remember the barbed wire fences that surrounded us, the tall sentry towers with machine guns pointed into the camps at us, the tanks that patrolled the camps’ perimeter.

Even after the war ended and we were released from the camps, my family still suffered. We faced intense hostility. Everything we owned had been taken from us when we were rounded up for incarceration, leaving us penniless. Our first home after we left the camps was on Los Angeles’ Skid Row, where we lived in horrific conditions. My parents had to work hard to rebuild their lives.

That dark chapter in American history left scars that persist to this day. Now, we see history echoing in disturbing ways, as the government attempts to invoke the very same law that was weaponized to incarcerate my family to carry out mass deportations — again, without charge or trial, stripping individuals of due process.

We must learn from the past, not repeat it. The erosion of rights and the targeting of communities based on fear and prejudice must be challenged at every turn.

My father taught me that our democracy is a people’s democracy. It can be as great as a people can be, but it is also as fallible as people are. Our democracy depends on good people who cherish the ideals of our system, and who are willing to engage in the process of making our democracy work. That is why I stand with the ACLU in fighting to prevent these injustices from happening again.

Published May 28, 2025 at 12:10AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/yBFxj1X

ACLU: George Takei: How the Alien Enemies Act Was Weaponized to Incarcerate My Family

George Takei: How the Alien Enemies Act Was Weaponized to Incarcerate My Family

George Takei has joined the ACLU as a special guest contributor for Asian American Pacific Islander History Month.

On March 14, Donald Trump signed a proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act to carry out his mass deportations. The last time this law was invoked was during World War II, when it was weaponized to justify the incarceration of Japanese Americans, including my family. Now, I see history echoing in disturbing ways.

I was only a child when my parents and I were forcibly removed from our home and placed in internment camps without charge or trial — what we call due process — and branded as enemies solely because of our ancestry.

Just a few weeks after my fifth birthday, my parents woke me and my brother up very early and dressed us hurriedly. My brother and I watched out our living room window as two soldiers marched up our driveway, banged on our door, and ordered us out of our home. My father gave my brother and me some luggage to carry, and we all walked out to stand on our driveway, waiting for my mother. When she finally walked out, she carried my baby sister in one arm and carried a huge duffel bag in the other. Tears were streaming down both her cheeks.

George Takei

Brenda Bazán

I will never be able to forget that moment. It is burned into my memory.

My family was first incarcerated at the Santa Anita racetrack, where we were forced to live in a horse stable. Once the camps were built, we were put on a train and transferred across the country to the Rohwer War Relocation Center, in the swamps of Arkansas. We lived there for a portion of the war, before my family was transferred one final time to the Tule Lake War Relocation Center in Northern California.

It was a degrading, humiliating experience, especially for my parents. As a child, I was too young to fully understand why this had happened to us. But I could sense my parents' anxiety. Things that should have been grotesquely abnormal quickly became my new normal. I still remember the barbed wire fences that surrounded us, the tall sentry towers with machine guns pointed into the camps at us, the tanks that patrolled the camps’ perimeter.

Even after the war ended and we were released from the camps, my family still suffered. We faced intense hostility. Everything we owned had been taken from us when we were rounded up for incarceration, leaving us penniless. Our first home after we left the camps was on Los Angeles’ Skid Row, where we lived in horrific conditions. My parents had to work hard to rebuild their lives.

That dark chapter in American history left scars that persist to this day. Now, we see history echoing in disturbing ways, as the government attempts to invoke the very same law that was weaponized to incarcerate my family to carry out mass deportations — again, without charge or trial, stripping individuals of due process.

We must learn from the past, not repeat it. The erosion of rights and the targeting of communities based on fear and prejudice must be challenged at every turn.

My father taught me that our democracy is a people’s democracy. It can be as great as a people can be, but it is also as fallible as people are. Our democracy depends on good people who cherish the ideals of our system, and who are willing to engage in the process of making our democracy work. That is why I stand with the ACLU in fighting to prevent these injustices from happening again.

Published May 27, 2025 at 07:40PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/xBaCzZK

ACLU: A Quiet Threat to Veterans’ Civil Rights

A Quiet Threat to Veterans’ Civil Rights

As the nation pauses this Memorial Day to honor and remember those who have served, many veterans are now facing a new battle at home.

Recently, the Trump administration has launched a series of attacks on veterans and servicemembers, including massive layoffs at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that are expected to add to delays in getting services, efforts to scrub Black and female leaders from U.S. military history, and a ban on transgender servicemembers.

In addition to these abuses that have dominated the news cycle, there’s another threat to veterans’ civil rights that hasn’t received as much attention. In two current legal cases, the federal government is arguing that a law known as the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA) blocks the veteran plaintiffs from going to federal district court to pursue their federal civil rights claims.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of legal scholars to ensure that the veteran plaintiffs get their day in court.

What is the VJRA?

Enacted in 1998, the VJRA is a federal law that establishes the process for veterans to challenge their VA benefits decisions. The VJRA directs veterans to appeal their benefits decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), then to the U.S. Federal Circuit, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. It also prohibits federal district courts from reviewing judgments made by the VA in determining individualized benefits.

Prior to the VJRA, veterans had no way of challenging their benefits decisions; they simply had to accept the VA’s determination -- erroneous or not. When Congress passed the VJRA, it gave veterans access to a formal system of judicial review. Now, however, the government is trying to weaponize that system to deny veterans justice.

Over the past decade, the government has argued -- and some courts have accepted -- that the VJRA prevents federal district courts from reviewing any decision that the VA may make in benefits determinations, even when the veteran is not challenging a prior benefit decision. Most recently, in Powers v. McDonough—a case brought by disabled veterans seeking reasonable accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act for VA benefits they had already been awarded—the government argued that the VJRA bars the veteran plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claims. Similarly, in NOW-NYC v. Department of Defense—a challenge to the VA’s restrictive eligibility requirements for IVF care—the government claimed that the VJRA prevents veterans from bringing civil rights challenges to laws affecting VA benefits.

Why the Government’s Arguments Harm Veterans

The government’s interpretation of the VJRA effectively denies veterans a meaningful opportunity to pursue their civil rights claims.

Take, for example, the issue in Powers. The government claims that a veteran can channel their Rehabilitation Act claims through the VJRA process—filing a claim with the VA, appealing to the CAVC, and so forth. But under VA regulations, veteran courts can only review claims for benefits administered under VA law. The VA cannot process a veteran’s Rehabilitation claims because the Rehabilitation Act is not a law administered by the VA. Even if the VA were somehow able to process such a claim, veteran courts are not able to provide the full suite of remedies available under civil rights law. Only a federal district court can provide such relief. Thus, the government’s argument would leave the veterans in a jurisdictional no-man’s land where they couldn’t present their civil rights claim in any court.

This is the same issue in NOW-NYC. There, the veteran plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to challenge a federal law that restricts eligibility for IVF benefits. They argue that the law violates the Constitution and the Affordable Care Act. But VA regulations do not permit the agency to resolve such a case. Nor do they allow veteran courts to issue the type of relief that the veteran plaintiffs seek.

Setting aside the practical issues with the government’s argument, it is also legally wrong. The VJRA was never intended to categorically prevent veterans from accessing federal district courts in cases where they are neither challenging nor seeking review of individualized benefits decisions. The VJRA was designed to prevent veterans from relitigating their benefits decisions and provide veterans a formal judicial review process.

Put simply, neither the VJRA’s text nor purpose supports denying the veteran plaintiffs in Powers and NOW-NYC their right to bring these claims in federal district court.

How We're Supporting Veterans

Given the government’s dangerous interpretation of the VJRA, we filed friend-of-the-court briefs in Powers v. McDonough and NOW-NYC v. Department of Defense, urging the courts to recognize that the VJRA does not prohibit federal district courts from hearing the veteran plaintiffs’ civil rights claims. We hope the courts will reject the government’s position and read the VJRA for what it was intended to be: a law designed to protect veterans—not hurt them.

Published May 26, 2025 at 02:00PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/WRbOYfQ

ACLU: A Quiet Threat to Veterans’ Civil Rights

A Quiet Threat to Veterans’ Civil Rights

As the nation pauses this Memorial Day to honor and remember those who have served, many veterans are now facing a new battle at home.

Recently, the Trump administration has launched a series of attacks on veterans and servicemembers, including massive layoffs at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that are expected to add to delays in getting services, efforts to scrub Black and female leaders from U.S. military history, and a ban on transgender servicemembers.

In addition to these abuses that have dominated the news cycle, there’s another threat to veterans’ civil rights that hasn’t received as much attention. In two current legal cases, the federal government is arguing that a law known as the Veterans Judicial Review Act (VJRA) blocks the veteran plaintiffs from going to federal district court to pursue their federal civil rights claims.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of legal scholars to ensure that the veteran plaintiffs get their day in court.

What is the VJRA?

Enacted in 1998, the VJRA is a federal law that establishes the process for veterans to challenge their VA benefits decisions. The VJRA directs veterans to appeal their benefits decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), then to the U.S. Federal Circuit, and then to the U.S. Supreme Court. It also prohibits federal district courts from reviewing judgments made by the VA in determining individualized benefits.

Prior to the VJRA, veterans had no way of challenging their benefits decisions; they simply had to accept the VA’s determination -- erroneous or not. When Congress passed the VJRA, it gave veterans access to a formal system of judicial review. Now, however, the government is trying to weaponize that system to deny veterans justice.

Over the past decade, the government has argued -- and some courts have accepted -- that the VJRA prevents federal district courts from reviewing any decision that the VA may make in benefits determinations, even when the veteran is not challenging a prior benefit decision. Most recently, in Powers v. McDonough—a case brought by disabled veterans seeking reasonable accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act for VA benefits they had already been awarded—the government argued that the VJRA bars the veteran plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claims. Similarly, in NOW-NYC v. Department of Defense—a challenge to the VA’s restrictive eligibility requirements for IVF care—the government claimed that the VJRA prevents veterans from bringing civil rights challenges to laws affecting VA benefits.

Why the Government’s Arguments Harm Veterans

The government’s interpretation of the VJRA effectively denies veterans a meaningful opportunity to pursue their civil rights claims.

Take, for example, the issue in Powers. The government claims that a veteran can channel their Rehabilitation Act claims through the VJRA process—filing a claim with the VA, appealing to the CAVC, and so forth. But under VA regulations, veteran courts can only review claims for benefits administered under VA law. The VA cannot process a veteran’s Rehabilitation claims because the Rehabilitation Act is not a law administered by the VA. Even if the VA were somehow able to process such a claim, veteran courts are not able to provide the full suite of remedies available under civil rights law. Only a federal district court can provide such relief. Thus, the government’s argument would leave the veterans in a jurisdictional no-man’s land where they couldn’t present their civil rights claim in any court.

This is the same issue in NOW-NYC. There, the veteran plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to challenge a federal law that restricts eligibility for IVF benefits. They argue that the law violates the Constitution and the Affordable Care Act. But VA regulations do not permit the agency to resolve such a case. Nor do they allow veteran courts to issue the type of relief that the veteran plaintiffs seek.

Setting aside the practical issues with the government’s argument, it is also legally wrong. The VJRA was never intended to categorically prevent veterans from accessing federal district courts in cases where they are neither challenging nor seeking review of individualized benefits decisions. The VJRA was designed to prevent veterans from relitigating their benefits decisions and provide veterans a formal judicial review process.

Put simply, neither the VJRA’s text nor purpose supports denying the veteran plaintiffs in Powers and NOW-NYC their right to bring these claims in federal district court.

How We're Supporting Veterans

Given the government’s dangerous interpretation of the VJRA, we filed friend-of-the-court briefs in Powers v. McDonough and NOW-NYC v. Department of Defense, urging the courts to recognize that the VJRA does not prohibit federal district courts from hearing the veteran plaintiffs’ civil rights claims. We hope the courts will reject the government’s position and read the VJRA for what it was intended to be: a law designed to protect veterans—not hurt them.

Published May 26, 2025 at 06:30PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/18la3SP

ACLU: Five Years After George Floyd, the Fight for Police Accountability Isn't Over

Five Years After George Floyd, the Fight for Police Accountability Isn't Over

Five years ago, the world watched the murder of George Floyd for over nine excruciating minutes. In the weeks and months that followed, millions of people flooded the streets to condemn police violence. For some, George Floyd’s murder was a disturbing reminder of police brutality and racism. For others, it was an awakening to the horrors of discriminatory policing. In many cities, people protested Floyd’s death, further entangling them with police misconduct.

In New York City, dozens of protesters levelled excessive force claims against the New York City Police Department (NYPD). Protestors lawfully marched through the Bronx—calling for an end to police violence as neighbors leaned from nearby windows and cheered—when NYPD officers in riot gear encircled them, trapped them, and then assaulted them with batons and fists. As police pressed hundreds of people together, one woman screamed that she couldn’t breathe. Officers looked away. Her plea meant nothing to them just as the same plea from George Floyd meant nothing to Officer Derrick Chauvin.

This violence reflected a deeper failure across the country: police department policies, practices, and culture encourage police to disregard civil rights protections. Despite progress made over the last few years, today the Trump administration is encouraging police brutality and dismantling oversight of police departments known to violate the Constitution. But we are not backing down. The ACLU and our partners across the country are coming together to advance transparency about police brutality and push forward reforms that prevent abuse.

Immediately following George Floyd’s murder, people in communities across the country organized, made their voices heard, and demanded investigations into the systemic abuse they and their neighbors faced every day. Taking office less than a year after Floyd’s murder, then-President Joe Biden worked to support police reform across the country. Under his administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted thorough investigations into urban and rural police departments, including overlooked and under-resourced places. The DOJ investigated 12 law enforcement agencies for abuse of power. They completed 11 before Trump took office in January 2025 and, in every place they investigated, they found police had a practice of violating constitutional rights that was so common it had effectively become policy.

In seven states—Massachusetts, New York, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arizona, and Minnesota—the DOJ found a combination of routine use of excessive force and the disproportionate targeting of Black people. Based on reviewing extensive records, interviewing scores of officers, and joining officers in the field, the DOJ found that misconduct was not a result of a few “bad apples,” but a consequence of department policies, practices, and culture.

The reports are devasting account of human suffering. In Louisville, a 14-year-old child was badly injured after police set a dog on him and allowed the dog to gnaw his arm. In Memphis, police punched and kicked people who were handcuffed or otherwise already restrained. In New York, police strip-searched nearly every person they arrested. = In all seven places, investigators found evidence that police were targeting people based on race.

Shedding light on these horrors was supposed to foster accountability and be a step towards ending police brutality. Historically, the federal government facilitates a binding agreement with police departments found to have violated the Constitution that requires them to address the well-documented problems within the department. But instead of following through to deliver accountability, safety, and justice, the Trump administration is turning its back on these horrors.

In an executive order issued in April, President Trump directed the DOJ to create guidance for law enforcement agencies “to aggressively police communities,” directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to increase police militarization, and directed the attorney general to criminally-prosecute local actors who supposedly interfere with policing—where interference is code for requiring compliance with the Constitution. Last week, the DOJ withdrew consent decrees designed to cure rampant constitutional violations in Minneapolis and Louisville, and retracted findings in Arizona, New Jersey, Tennessee, New York, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.

These actions do not just make it harder to achieve the change we once envisioned, they send a message that the government is willing to look away from harm being inflicted on our communities – even when the harm is plain as day.

The reality, however, is that communities have never waited on the federal government to do the work. While the DOJ has played a crucial role in addressing police abuse, police reform has often been advanced by local coalitions that demand change in their own backyards. The commitment to ending police brutality remains strong because people understand that safety must include safety from police violence.

In the Seven States Safety Campaign, the ACLU and community groups across the country are filling the police-accountability void by monitoring police violence and continuing the push for reform. Last week, we sent demands for police records under state freedom of information laws to police agencies in each of the seven states where the DOJ found excessive force and racial targeting. The demands primarily ask for documents that officers create when they use force or conduct a stop, which should shed light on any continued officer excessive force and racial profiling. Some demands ask for policies and data on police activity; others ask for records related to officer-committed sexual violence. Together, responses would allow the ACLU and community partners to understand where problems persist and what reforms are needed.

While law enforcement officials might try to resist transparency, the demands fit comfortably within what they’re required to provide under state law. They must respond in good faith to unite us in our efforts to prevent tragedies and protect civil rights. If they don’t, we’ll see them in court.

As we reflect on George Floyd’s tragic murder, and the police brutality against protesters in its aftermath, we must remember that this untenable violence can be avoided. The Trump administration’s abandonment of reform despite damning evidence of police brutality is a manifestation of an ongoing, urgent national problem with police brutality, especially toward Black and brown people. State and local officials have the power to implement reforms that prevent police abuse and ensure that police comply with the Constitution. They must act, because protecting civil rights is not optional if we want to live in a just and safe society.

Published May 25, 2025 at 06:30PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/4mYWFGE

ACLU: Five Years After George Floyd, the Fight for Police Accountability Isn't Over

Five Years After George Floyd, the Fight for Police Accountability Isn't Over

Five years ago, the world watched the murder of George Floyd for over nine excruciating minutes. In the weeks and months that followed, millions of people flooded the streets to condemn police violence. For some, George Floyd’s murder was a disturbing reminder of police brutality and racism. For others, it was an awakening to the horrors of discriminatory policing. In many cities, people protested Floyd’s death, further entangling them with police misconduct.

In New York City, dozens of protesters levelled excessive force claims against the New York City Police Department (NYPD). Protestors lawfully marched through the Bronx—calling for an end to police violence as neighbors leaned from nearby windows and cheered—when NYPD officers in riot gear encircled them, trapped them, and then assaulted them with batons and fists. As police pressed hundreds of people together, one woman screamed that she couldn’t breathe. Officers looked away. Her plea meant nothing to them just as the same plea from George Floyd meant nothing to Officer Derrick Chauvin.

This violence reflected a deeper failure across the country: police department policies, practices, and culture encourage police to disregard civil rights protections. Despite progress made over the last few years, today the Trump administration is encouraging police brutality and dismantling oversight of police departments known to violate the Constitution. But we are not backing down. The ACLU and our partners across the country are coming together to advance transparency about police brutality and push forward reforms that prevent abuse.

Immediately following George Floyd’s murder, people in communities across the country organized, made their voices heard, and demanded investigations into the systemic abuse they and their neighbors faced every day. Taking office less than a year after Floyd’s murder, then-President Joe Biden worked to support police reform across the country. Under his administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted thorough investigations into urban and rural police departments, including overlooked and under-resourced places. The DOJ investigated 12 law enforcement agencies for abuse of power. They completed 11 before Trump took office in January 2025 and, in every place they investigated, they found police had a practice of violating constitutional rights that was so common it had effectively become policy.

In seven states—Massachusetts, New York, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arizona, and Minnesota—the DOJ found a combination of routine use of excessive force and the disproportionate targeting of Black people. Based on reviewing extensive records, interviewing scores of officers, and joining officers in the field, the DOJ found that misconduct was not a result of a few “bad apples,” but a consequence of department policies, practices, and culture.

The reports are devasting account of human suffering. In Louisville, a 14-year-old child was badly injured after police set a dog on him and allowed the dog to gnaw his arm. In Memphis, police punched and kicked people who were handcuffed or otherwise already restrained. In New York, police strip-searched nearly every person they arrested. = In all seven places, investigators found evidence that police were targeting people based on race.

Shedding light on these horrors was supposed to foster accountability and be a step towards ending police brutality. Historically, the federal government facilitates a binding agreement with police departments found to have violated the Constitution that requires them to address the well-documented problems within the department. But instead of following through to deliver accountability, safety, and justice, the Trump administration is turning its back on these horrors.

In an executive order issued in April, President Trump directed the DOJ to create guidance for law enforcement agencies “to aggressively police communities,” directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to increase police militarization, and directed the attorney general to criminally-prosecute local actors who supposedly interfere with policing—where interference is code for requiring compliance with the Constitution. Last week, the DOJ withdrew consent decrees designed to cure rampant constitutional violations in Minneapolis and Louisville, and retracted findings in Arizona, New Jersey, Tennessee, New York, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.

These actions do not just make it harder to achieve the change we once envisioned, they send a message that the government is willing to look away from harm being inflicted on our communities – even when the harm is plain as day.

The reality, however, is that communities have never waited on the federal government to do the work. While the DOJ has played a crucial role in addressing police abuse, police reform has often been advanced by local coalitions that demand change in their own backyards. The commitment to ending police brutality remains strong because people understand that safety must include safety from police violence.

In the Seven States Safety Campaign, the ACLU and community groups across the country are filling the police-accountability void by monitoring police violence and continuing the push for reform. Last week, we sent demands for police records under state freedom of information laws to police agencies in each of the seven states where the DOJ found excessive force and racial targeting. The demands primarily ask for documents that officers create when they use force or conduct a stop, which should shed light on any continued officer excessive force and racial profiling. Some demands ask for policies and data on police activity; others ask for records related to officer-committed sexual violence. Together, responses would allow the ACLU and community partners to understand where problems persist and what reforms are needed.

While law enforcement officials might try to resist transparency, the demands fit comfortably within what they’re required to provide under state law. They must respond in good faith to unite us in our efforts to prevent tragedies and protect civil rights. If they don’t, we’ll see them in court.

As we reflect on George Floyd’s tragic murder, and the police brutality against protesters in its aftermath, we must remember that this untenable violence can be avoided. The Trump administration’s abandonment of reform despite damning evidence of police brutality is a manifestation of an ongoing, urgent national problem with police brutality, especially toward Black and brown people. State and local officials have the power to implement reforms that prevent police abuse and ensure that police comply with the Constitution. They must act, because protecting civil rights is not optional if we want to live in a just and safe society.

Published May 25, 2025 at 02:00PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/rM0A7Ui

ACLU: For Undocumented Immigrants, Being ‘Good’ Is Not Good Enough

For Undocumented Immigrants, Being ‘Good’ Is Not Good Enough

*Name has been changed to protect identities

Just days after Donald Trump’s first inauguration, Sarah* and Matt* rushed to City Hall to get married, not because of romance or tradition, but because they were terrified. A recently-signed executive order that came to be known as the “Muslim Ban” signaled to them that the administration would wage war on immigrants. In fact, that war had already begun.

“I never thought about marriage as a necessity,” Sarah explains. “But once Trump was elected, my knee-jerk reaction was to protect [Matt.] I thought marriage might give me some power. At least I could ask where he was if he got detained.”

Sarah, a U.S. citizen, and Matt, who is undocumented, met in the early 2000s. Their friendship grew over shared experiences and conversations, especially during a stretch when Sarah left the country to visit relatives and realized that, before coming to America, Matt had lived in a similar area as her relatives. Their connection, forged long before Matt’s immigration status became a threat, turned into a committed partnership.

After Trump took office, the stakes changed.

Being married to a U.S. citizen does not protect an undocumented person from being deported or detained. Even attempting to pursue legal status involves navigating a punishing and expensive bureaucracy.

“You have to qualify for a [hardship] waiver and then you have to leave the country for an interview. [Nothing is] guaranteed. It’s all a gamble—and a very costly one,” Sarah says. “We didn’t realize how high the bar was, or how many roadblocks were ahead.”

Matt has lived in the U.S. for more than 20 years. He pays taxes with an IRS-issued Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). “Since day one,” he says, “I’ve done what’s right. But none of that matters. With Trump [there’s now a] target on my back. It’s no longer about whether I’m ‘good’—it’s about when [the immigration agents] come for me.”

Reality for Sarah and Matt is a constant, grinding anxiety. The threat isn’t just deportation, but unlawful detention. “Our worst fear is being separated,” Sarah says. “The detention system is designed to exploit people. Bodies are now a commodity.”

After they were married, Sarah and Matt applied for what’s known as a hardship waiver, which allows an individual who is otherwise inadmissible to the U.S. to pursue legal citizenship if they can prove that their removal would cause extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen family member. To qualify, they were forced to submit extensive documentation, go through biometric screenings and provide Sarah’s medical records. Giving the U.S. government this much information on them without the guarantee their waiver may be granted has only deepened their vulnerability.

“You give them everything—bank accounts, personal history—and in the end, all it does is make you easier to find if they decide to take you,” Sarah says.

Their plans—going back to school, building a future—are suspended. Every ounce of energy goes into staying safe, navigating bureaucracy, and advocating for others in similar situations.

“There’s no plan,” Matt says. “We just take it day by day. If I leave the house, I wonder if I’ll come back.”

Even basic employment is now difficult. Without a work permit, Matt can’t get a stable job, even though he’s worked multiple jobs for years to support his family.

“People don’t understand,” Sarah says. “There is no visa for a dishwasher. There’s no path for the people doing the essential work that keeps this country running.”

Sarah tried to secure “parole in place” status for Matt—a policy that allowed undocumented spouses of citizens to apply for work permits without risk of raids. It was swiftly shut down after political opposition.

“It makes me resentful when people claim immigrants are here to steal jobs,” Matt says. “I didn’t come here to take anything. I came here because it was my last choice. Either I migrate somewhere or I end up dead or jailed in my home country.”

Sarah adds that, in her experience not just with Matt, but with others in their community, it’s become clear that the “system is designed to exploit. You’re good enough to pay taxes and into social security, but not good enough to be protected or have rights. That’s the trap.”

"You’re good enough to pay taxes and into social security, but not good enough to be protected or have rights. That’s the trap.”

Sarah and Matt’s story is a reminder that the immigration system in the U.S. is more punitive than probative. Matt has consistently attempted to find legal paths to citizenship and has been consistently denied. Sarah has consistently advocated for her partner but, in a political climate where immigration is a wedge issue, she fears that scapegoating, racism and discrimination now defines U.S. policy.

“All we want now is peace,” Sarah says. “We just don’t want to be terrorized by our government. They’re stealing our time, our quality of life. It’s hideous."

Published May 23, 2025 at 09:47PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/ElpSUWT

ACLU: For Undocumented Immigrants, Being ‘Good’ Is Not Good Enough

For Undocumented Immigrants, Being ‘Good’ Is Not Good Enough

*Name has been changed to protect identities

Just days after Donald Trump’s first inauguration, Sarah* and Matt* rushed to City Hall to get married, not because of romance or tradition, but because they were terrified. A recently-signed executive order that came to be known as the “Muslim Ban” signaled to them that the administration would wage war on immigrants. In fact, that war had already begun.

“I never thought about marriage as a necessity,” Sarah explains. “But once Trump was elected, my knee-jerk reaction was to protect [Matt.] I thought marriage might give me some power. At least I could ask where he was if he got detained.”

Sarah, a U.S. citizen, and Matt, who is undocumented, met in the early 2000s. Their friendship grew over shared experiences and conversations, especially during a stretch when Sarah left the country to visit relatives and realized that, before coming to America, Matt had lived in a similar area as her relatives. Their connection, forged long before Matt’s immigration status became a threat, turned into a committed partnership.

After Trump took office, the stakes changed.

Being married to a U.S. citizen does not protect an undocumented person from being deported or detained. Even attempting to pursue legal status involves navigating a punishing and expensive bureaucracy.

“You have to qualify for a [hardship] waiver and then you have to leave the country for an interview. [Nothing is] guaranteed. It’s all a gamble—and a very costly one,” Sarah says. “We didn’t realize how high the bar was, or how many roadblocks were ahead.”

Matt has lived in the U.S. for more than 20 years. He pays taxes with an IRS-issued Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN). “Since day one,” he says, “I’ve done what’s right. But none of that matters. With Trump [there’s now a] target on my back. It’s no longer about whether I’m ‘good’—it’s about when [the immigration agents] come for me.”

Reality for Sarah and Matt is a constant, grinding anxiety. The threat isn’t just deportation, but unlawful detention. “Our worst fear is being separated,” Sarah says. “The detention system is designed to exploit people. Bodies are now a commodity.”

After they were married, Sarah and Matt applied for what’s known as a hardship waiver, which allows an individual who is otherwise inadmissible to the U.S. to pursue legal citizenship if they can prove that their removal would cause extreme hardship to a U.S. citizen family member. To qualify, they were forced to submit extensive documentation, go through biometric screenings and provide Sarah’s medical records. Giving the U.S. government this much information on them without the guarantee their waiver may be granted has only deepened their vulnerability.

“You give them everything—bank accounts, personal history—and in the end, all it does is make you easier to find if they decide to take you,” Sarah says.

Their plans—going back to school, building a future—are suspended. Every ounce of energy goes into staying safe, navigating bureaucracy, and advocating for others in similar situations.

“There’s no plan,” Matt says. “We just take it day by day. If I leave the house, I wonder if I’ll come back.”

Even basic employment is now difficult. Without a work permit, Matt can’t get a stable job, even though he’s worked multiple jobs for years to support his family.

“People don’t understand,” Sarah says. “There is no visa for a dishwasher. There’s no path for the people doing the essential work that keeps this country running.”

Sarah tried to secure “parole in place” status for Matt—a policy that allowed undocumented spouses of citizens to apply for work permits without risk of raids. It was swiftly shut down after political opposition.

“It makes me resentful when people claim immigrants are here to steal jobs,” Matt says. “I didn’t come here to take anything. I came here because it was my last choice. Either I migrate somewhere or I end up dead or jailed in my home country.”

Sarah adds that, in her experience not just with Matt, but with others in their community, it’s become clear that the “system is designed to exploit. You’re good enough to pay taxes and into social security, but not good enough to be protected or have rights. That’s the trap.”

"You’re good enough to pay taxes and into social security, but not good enough to be protected or have rights. That’s the trap.”

Sarah and Matt’s story is a reminder that the immigration system in the U.S. is more punitive than probative. Matt has consistently attempted to find legal paths to citizenship and has been consistently denied. Sarah has consistently advocated for her partner but, in a political climate where immigration is a wedge issue, she fears that scapegoating, racism and discrimination now defines U.S. policy.

“All we want now is peace,” Sarah says. “We just don’t want to be terrorized by our government. They’re stealing our time, our quality of life. It’s hideous."

Published May 23, 2025 at 05:17PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/9roaU2I

ACLU: ‘Devastated’ and ‘Hopeless.’ Researchers Speak Out on Funding Cuts

‘Devastated’ and ‘Hopeless.’ Researchers Speak Out on Funding Cuts

In February, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research — began an ideological purge of its grants. Without warning, hundreds of research projects — many of which had been underway for years, representing thousands of hours of work and billions of dollars in investment — were abruptly cancelled without a scientifically valid explanation. The NIH cited only vague connections to “gender identity” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), or other now-forbidden topics such as vaccine hesitancy and COVID, as justification, claiming these projects no longer aligned with “agency priorities.”

These funding cuts raise serious ethical concerns for study participants and risk many life-saving findings going unpublished. The NIH has undermined research on life-threatening diseases that affect us all like cancer, HIV, and Alzheimer’s — and dangerously implies that some patients are more worthy of care than others. These actions stifle scientific progress and put lives at risk.

Importantly, under long-standing law and practice, NIH does not have the authority to arbitrarily terminate grants. Its funding decisions must be guided by congressional mandates, regulatory requirements, and scientific expertise, not vague and undefined criteria.

The ACLU won’t let political ideology dictate public health. So we sued.

On behalf of researchers, the American Public Health Association (APHA), the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), and Ibis Reproductive Health, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging this sweeping cancellation of grants. Joining us are our ACLU of Massachusetts affiliate, and our partners at Protect Democracy and the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Behind each cancelled grant was a team of scientists who had spent months — often years — crafting applications that ran over 200 pages, marshaling data and community partnerships to explain why the scientific gap they aimed to fill was urgent and nationally significant. Beyond funding, securing a grant was a vote of confidence in the scientific merit and public health importance of their work.

As part of our lawsuit, we collected statements from affected scientists as they lay off staff, prematurely end interventions, and dismantle years of work. Below, they describe the real consequences — on science, communities, and the future of public health — when research is erased for political reasons.

Peter Lurie

In my decades of research on HIV prevention and drug regulation, I have seen science meaningfully advance public health. Before NIH abruptly terminated our grant, I was advising a project with the potential to significantly expand access to urgently needed HIV prevention.

The NIH-funded OFFSCRIPT grant was the first study to evaluate the impact of making PrEP, a medication that significantly reduces the risk of HIV transmission, available over the counter. Although PrEP is highly effective, it remains underutilized. This research aimed to close that gap by studying how to expand access, particularly for high-risk communities. At the time of our grant’s cancellation, we were midway through work on three primary study aims. All have been halted and, now, knowledge that could have stopped the transmission of HIV is out of reach.

The termination letter was vague and did not give guidance on how to responsibly close out the study or manage participants already enrolled. Instead, NIH cited that because our grant was “based on gender identity,” it no longer aligned with “agency priorities.” This was both inaccurate and confusing. Our work on the OFFSCRIPT grant was not based on gender identity. Rather, it examined strategies to expand access to PrEP for all patients, with a focus on populations disproportionately affected by HIV and most likely to benefit from prevention measures, including cisgender men who have sex with men, transgender women, and cisgender women. NIH’s own Strategic Plan for 2021-2025 includes a bold prediction that its research will “significantly reduce the number of new HIV infections” through new implementation strategies for PrEP. OFFSCRIPT was directly aligned with that goal.

HIV prevention is a topic of great personal and professional importance to me. Now, that research has been suspended at a great loss to public health.

Nicole Maphis

My research is dedicated to my grandmother, who was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Watching her condition worsen shaped my commitment to understanding Alzheimer’s and dementia more deeply. While I was in the process of applying for a training grant, NIH stripped away its funding and cost me two years of career-defining experience.

Of the nearly 7 million Americans living with Alzheimer’s, fewer than 5 percent have a known genetic cause. That means that the vast majority develop the disease without a clear familial link. I study whether excessive alcohol consumption during critical periods of life can increase this risk, which is an emerging area of research. Scientists have begun to identify this connection, but much remains unknown. My research aims to explain how alcohol exposure may prime the brain for Alzheimer’s and to ultimately identify ways to reduce or prevent that harm.

To pursue this work, I applied for NIH’s MOSAIC K99/R00 award, which supports early-career scientists from underrepresented backgrounds. I am a woman, a first-generation college graduate, and I come from a low-income family. I devote significant time to STEM outreach, including teaching neuroscience workshops to 7th-grade girls. I applied for MOSAIC because I thrive in mentorship-based programs, and the structure would have positioned me for a faculty career.

Over the course of 70 weeks, I poured hundreds of hours into my application — time I could have used writing for publications or developing other proposals. When my first submission was not discussed, I revised it carefully based on reviewer feedback and submitted it again. I had no reason to think my application was at risk, until I noticed the MOSAIC program announcement had closed two years early and the website was quietly taken down. When I contacted NIH, I was eventually told that my application had been placed on hold while the agency “reviewed its research priorities.”

After many emails, calls, and even secondhand updates on social media, I learned that my proposal had been removed from the discussion list the morning of review. I would also not receive any feedback on it. On March 21, a reviewer who participated in that meeting told me that my application was “highly regarded and likely to have received funding” if NIH had not changed course.

Now that NIH is refusing to consider my application, I feel like my career trajectory has been limited. NIH has shelved research that would have deepened public understanding of how alcohol may contribute to Alzheimer’s disease and offered new paths for intervention. That work is on hold, and so is my career.

Brittany Charlton

I was raised in a family of proud union nurses. Service, fairness, and standing up for those in need are beliefs that I hold deeply. I was called to public health through academic work, advocacy, and frontline care in LGBTQ communities. I am an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Last year, I founded the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence. Over the past 15 years, I have received continuous NIH funding and secured more than 15 grants. But I have never seen grants rescinded so abruptly or with so little care for the researchers and participants involved.

In March, NIH terminated my entire portfolio of grants, resulting in nearly $6 million in lost funding to address LGBTQ health inequities. This is no minor adjustment. Rather, it is the abrupt defunding of one of the most federally-supported research programs on LGBTQ health in the world. With its terminations, the NIH sent a chilling message that research serving marginalized communities is no longer safe or sustainable.

My work was intended to improve the mental health of LGBTQ young adults, address adverse pregnancy outcomes of lesbian and bisexual women, and study how LGBTQ couples form families. Despite their documented impact, NIH terminated my grants because they ignored “biological realities” and were based on “gender identity.” As a result, critical findings — such as data showing that lesbian women are nearly three times as likely to experience stillbirth as heterosexual women — may never be published. As this research sits unfinished, more patients will suffer harm and systemic inequities will remain unaddressed.

At the time of these terminations, my team was actively conducting sensitive, in-depth interviews with young people. Participants were sharing intensely personal stories about the toll of anti-LGBTQ policies such as “Don’t Say Gay” laws. The next day, we abruptly cancelled multiple interviews. This sudden disruption jeopardizes the emotional well-being of already vulnerable young people and makes it clear that their contributions were not treated with the gravity they deserved. These are serious ethical concerns. Even if funding were restored today, I am not sure these participants would — or should — trust us again.

The loss of my entire grant portfolio has incapacitated the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence. I can no longer compensate the team members who support these studies and have already made the devastating decision to let go of a senior member. I fear I will have to let go of the entire team.

Worse still, some of the brightest scientists in public health and medicine are now walking away from this field. Fearing that their scholarship is no longer safe or valued, some are taking medical leave for mental health reasons, while others downplay their focus on health equity in their CVs. Beyond the loss of individual careers, these terminations are the quiet dismantling of a generation of future leaders in medicine and public health. With them goes the hope for a more equitable future.

Katie Edwards

I saw firsthand the devastation that sexual violence causes. At a young age, I wanted to do something to prevent it and have dedicated my entire career to identifying solutions that can prevent sexual and related forms of violence among the most vulnerable youth in our nation.Now, instead of focusing on our life-saving work, I often spend 15 hours a day trying to manage the fallout from NIH’s unprecedented cancellations of my grants.

LGBTQ+ youth experience disproportionately higher rates of violence and adversity than their counterparts — rates that increase at the intersection of race, gender and sexuality. Early in my career, I realized how little research existed to understand these disparities and that violence prevention strategies specifically for LGBTQ+ youth and Indigenous youth were essentially nonexistent. My work has since focused on filling this gap: our lab was the first to show reduced violence and alcohol use among LGBTQ+ youth and sexual violence among Indigenous youth. Beyond preventing violence, this work is helping youth to feel proud of who they are and to be hopeful about their futures.

In March, NIH abruptly terminated six grants for which I was a principal investigator or co-investigator. Across those awards, it cited that each project “no longer effectuates agency priorities,” without any individualized feedback, advance notice, or acknowledgement of our published progress. I do not understand how rigorous, peer-reviewed research intended to protect vulnerable youth conflicts with agency priorities that seem to have shifted overnight with no official policy that I was made aware of. Most concerning is the message that this sends to vulnerable youth: you are not a priority and you do not matter. All of this will cost lives.

One terminated grant aimed to predict which factors lead to sexual assault among sexual-minority men and trans-masculine people and to support their recovery. We made significant progress on this study since its approval in 2022. NIH even renewed it three times. Our goal was to offer evidence-based guidance to reduce disparities and the staggering costs of sexual violence in the U.S. Now that funding is gone, we cannot develop recommendations, and the communities served by this research will no longer benefit. This was the largest study ever on sexual assault among sexual minority men and it is devestating that so much hard work, thoughtfulness, and heart went into a project that now collapsing.

Building on work done by a previously funded NIH project, another terminated grant tested a caregiver program to help families build bonds and support LGBTQ+ youth. We were mid-intervention with our first cohort when our funding was pulled. To abide by our ethical obligations, we were forced to prematurely begin interventions for the control group and can no longer test our hypotheses using a rigorous randomized control methodology. We also had to pause recruitment, which means that dozens of families who would have likely benefited from the intervention cannot access the intervention. This sends a message to families that they do not matter to the current administration.

Altogether, the six terminations represent millions in lost funding — a devastating loss to my research team, the communities we serve, and our study participants. I am racing to find replacement funding. While I have already submitted more than 25 proposals to nonprofit and donor organizations, to date we have raised about $10,000. While we are deeply grateful for these funds, they cannot make up for the millions of dollars lost and I am not hopeful that despite how hard we try to raise other funds, we will come close to what we lost in NIH funding.

On a personal level, I have never been more devastated in my entire life. The emotional and physical toll this has taken on me feels insurmountable and is impacting my family too. I am doing everything I can not to give up and to stay strong for the youth and communities I serve and my 50+ staff. They are the reason I do this work and the reason I must continue to fight for justice in public health research.

Published May 16, 2025 at 10:51PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/PewYKH3