ACLU: ‘My Child is Now a Political Debate’: Immigrant Families Battle Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Threats

‘My Child is Now a Political Debate’: Immigrant Families Battle Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Threats

*Some names have been changed to protect identities.

When Jane* learned that the Supreme Court greenlit President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, she immediately panicked. The order was slated to take effect July 27. Jane’s first child was due just 10 days later.

Jane was filled with desperation and confusion. She wanted her son to be protected and to have the constitutional rights guaranteed to someone born in the U.S. She just wanted to do whatever was best for him. Fueled by fear, she went so far as to ask her doctor if she could be induced early so that her son would be born before July 27.

“Of course, they were like, ‘No, it’s not medically advised,’” Jane says. “I felt incredibly guilty for even bringing it up.”

Parents like Jane have been faced with fear and uncertainty since Trump signed the executive order on his first day in office. The ACLU and partners sued in January, taking swift action to block Trump’s cruel and lawless attempt to deny babies their constitutional rights. A complex legal battle followed. The Trump administration took several other challenges by states and other groups to the Supreme Court, asking it to limit lower courts’ ability to block his unlawful executive order using universal injunctions. The Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor, but families like Jane’s stood with the ACLU and our partners in immediately filing a second lawsuit, this time a class action, Barbara v. Donald J. Trump. The court then certified tens of thousands of U.S.-born babies as a class and blocked the executive order from impacting this class while the case proceeded.

While this was a victory for families like Jane’s, the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict constitutional rights turned what should have been the happiest moments into a time of stress and uncertainty.

"It’s not easy being an immigrant because there’s just so many hoops you have to jump through,” says Jane, who will soon obtain lawful permanent residence. “One of my biggest joys of giving birth here was knowing my son would never have to go through any of the issues that we’ve been through as immigrants.”

"One of my biggest joys of giving birth here was knowing my son would never have to go through any of the issues that we’ve been through as immigrants.”

Jane now has hope. She’s found it in the fact that her son’s passport, which is only issued to citizens, recently arrived in the mail. Her son even stayed still for his photo.

For others, months of fear around birthright citizenship has instead sowed feelings of doubt and hopelessness. When Thomas* and his wife arrived in the U.S. six years ago, he saw America as a land of hope, possibility and community. Thomas was thrilled to reunite with his wife’s father, a U.S. citizen who had lived in the country for close to two decades, and build their family.

Now, Thomas is preparing to leave the U.S. with his newborn son.

“It’s sad — I feel like I don’t really have a choice,” he says. “I would like my baby to grow up in the country where he was born, experiencing the good the U.S. has to offer. But right now, I can barely see those good things anymore.”

“I would like my baby to grow up in the country where he was born, experiencing the good the U.S. has to offer. But right now, I can barely see those good things anymore.”

Thomas’s son was born in the shadow of Trump’s executive order. Thomas has feared for his son since before he was born, worried that Trump would find a way to override the 14th Amendment and further terrorize his family.

“The Constitution says my son has the same rights as every American born here. It shouldn’t matter who his parents are,” he says. “He deserves the same life as other American kids.”

Thomas fears being “disappeared” by ICE and separated from his family. Simple routines — going to work, buying groceries — now carry risk. “Since police have been working with ICE, I don’t feel safe when I see a police car,” he says. “I feel like I’m in a place that’s not safe, and that’s the opposite of how I felt when I first came here.”

The decision to leave has not been easy. Thomas and his family spent years learning the culture, rules, and laws in the U.S. Just when they started to feel like they belonged, everything changed. Thomas has been ridiculed for speaking a foreign language in public and told to “go back to Mexico,” a place he’s never even been.

“The way people look at us, the way they talk to us — it’s changed. And now we have a president saying that kind of behavior is okay?” Thomas says, dismayed. “We’re planning to move back to our home country to make sure our son is safe,” he says. “Leaving is hard, but we have to do what’s best for our baby.”

Andrew*, another father facing the same uncertainty, insists he and his wife will stay and fight for their daughter’s constitutional rights.

“I remember I read the 14th Amendment and thought: if you’re born here, you’re a citizen,” Andrew says. “When the executive order came out, I thought it was just a political move.”

When Andrew first came to the U.S., Trump’s narrative was aimed at immigrants without legal status. Andrew didn’t worry for his family because he and his wife are here lawfully, albeit on a temporary status. But when the executive order targeted families with status as well, and the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a procedural win, he realized that lawful status may not be enough to protect them. His daughter was still in danger.

“What if my daughter is considered American until she’s six and then her rights are revoked?” he wonders. “How will I tell her that her citizenship has been denied? Citizenship is not my right, but it is her right.”

Like his daughter, Andrew’s siblings also have birthright citizenship. They have been free to leave the U.S. when they wanted and to seek out various employment opportunities, without ever having to think about contingency plans. The contrast between his experience and his siblings’ has shown him what’s at stake if his daughter loses status. For Andrew, this fight is not only legal, but deeply personal.

“It makes me sad that this harms babies because they don’t have a voice yet, they don’t have legal resources,” he says. But Andrew is determined, and he wants his daughter to know that her rights are worth defending. “As a parent I am always going to protect my child.”

“My child is now a political debate,” Andrew says. “In 10 years, if she loses citizenship, she will know that despite the consequences, a lot of people fought for her.”

“My child is now a political debate,” Andrew says. “In 10 years, if she loses citizenship, she will know that despite the consequences, a lot of people fought for her.”

Right now, the class action win ensures that all children are protected from the order, and there is no reason for families to fear whether they need to move, give birth in another state, or take other drastic steps to secure their children’s citizenship. But the fight is not over. The government has asked the Supreme Court to hear the birthright citizenship issue in the coming months. The court will have to decide whether to hear the appeals — and if it does, more written legal briefs and oral arguments will follow, likely next year.

At the ACLU, we know that no one should ever be subject to a total erasure of their rights and, beyond the law, birthright citizenship is and has always been central to who we are as a nation. For Jane, Andrew, and Thomas, this fight may be long, but they hope to see it won, for their children’s sake.

“I don’t want my son to have to worry about any of those things,” Jane says. “Eventually, it’ll be a story. And yes, he’ll know his family story”

If you think your child is subject to the executive order and you have any questions, please visit the class website here.

Published September 30, 2025 at 09:29PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/lKVBwAR

ACLU: ‘My Child is Now a Political Debate’: Immigrant Families Battle Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Threats

‘My Child is Now a Political Debate’: Immigrant Families Battle Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Threats

*Some names have been changed to protect identities.

When Jane* learned that the Supreme Court greenlit President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship, she immediately panicked. The order was slated to take effect July 27. Jane’s first child was due just 10 days later.

Jane was filled with desperation and confusion. She wanted her son to be protected and to have the constitutional rights guaranteed to someone born in the U.S. She just wanted to do whatever was best for him. Fueled by fear, she went so far as to ask her doctor if she could be induced early so that her son would be born before July 27.

“Of course, they were like, ‘No, it’s not medically advised,’” Jane says. “I felt incredibly guilty for even bringing it up.”

Parents like Jane have been faced with fear and uncertainty since Trump signed the executive order on his first day in office. The ACLU and partners sued in January, taking swift action to block Trump’s cruel and lawless attempt to deny babies their constitutional rights. A complex legal battle followed. The Trump administration took several other challenges by states and other groups to the Supreme Court, asking it to limit lower courts’ ability to block his unlawful executive order using universal injunctions. The Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor, but families like Jane’s stood with the ACLU and our partners in immediately filing a second lawsuit, this time a class action, Barbara v. Donald J. Trump. The court then certified tens of thousands of U.S.-born babies as a class and blocked the executive order from impacting this class while the case proceeded.

While this was a victory for families like Jane’s, the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict constitutional rights turned what should have been the happiest moments into a time of stress and uncertainty.

"It’s not easy being an immigrant because there’s just so many hoops you have to jump through,” says Jane, who will soon obtain lawful permanent residence. “One of my biggest joys of giving birth here was knowing my son would never have to go through any of the issues that we’ve been through as immigrants.”

"One of my biggest joys of giving birth here was knowing my son would never have to go through any of the issues that we’ve been through as immigrants.”

Jane now has hope. She’s found it in the fact that her son’s passport, which is only issued to citizens, recently arrived in the mail. Her son even stayed still for his photo.

For others, months of fear around birthright citizenship has instead sowed feelings of doubt and hopelessness. When Thomas* and his wife arrived in the U.S. six years ago, he saw America as a land of hope, possibility and community. Thomas was thrilled to reunite with his wife’s father, a U.S. citizen who had lived in the country for close to two decades, and build their family.

Now, Thomas is preparing to leave the U.S. with his newborn son.

“It’s sad — I feel like I don’t really have a choice,” he says. “I would like my baby to grow up in the country where he was born, experiencing the good the U.S. has to offer. But right now, I can barely see those good things anymore.”

“I would like my baby to grow up in the country where he was born, experiencing the good the U.S. has to offer. But right now, I can barely see those good things anymore.”

Thomas’s son was born in the shadow of Trump’s executive order. Thomas has feared for his son since before he was born, worried that Trump would find a way to override the 14th Amendment and further terrorize his family.

“The Constitution says my son has the same rights as every American born here. It shouldn’t matter who his parents are,” he says. “He deserves the same life as other American kids.”

Thomas fears being “disappeared” by ICE and separated from his family. Simple routines — going to work, buying groceries — now carry risk. “Since police have been working with ICE, I don’t feel safe when I see a police car,” he says. “I feel like I’m in a place that’s not safe, and that’s the opposite of how I felt when I first came here.”

The decision to leave has not been easy. Thomas and his family spent years learning the culture, rules, and laws in the U.S. Just when they started to feel like they belonged, everything changed. Thomas has been ridiculed for speaking a foreign language in public and told to “go back to Mexico,” a place he’s never even been.

“The way people look at us, the way they talk to us — it’s changed. And now we have a president saying that kind of behavior is okay?” Thomas says, dismayed. “We’re planning to move back to our home country to make sure our son is safe,” he says. “Leaving is hard, but we have to do what’s best for our baby.”

Andrew*, another father facing the same uncertainty, insists he and his wife will stay and fight for their daughter’s constitutional rights.

“I remember I read the 14th Amendment and thought: if you’re born here, you’re a citizen,” Andrew says. “When the executive order came out, I thought it was just a political move.”

When Andrew first came to the U.S., Trump’s narrative was aimed at immigrants without legal status. Andrew didn’t worry for his family because he and his wife are here lawfully, albeit on a temporary status. But when the executive order targeted families with status as well, and the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a procedural win, he realized that lawful status may not be enough to protect them. His daughter was still in danger.

“What if my daughter is considered American until she’s six and then her rights are revoked?” he wonders. “How will I tell her that her citizenship has been denied? Citizenship is not my right, but it is her right.”

Like his daughter, Andrew’s siblings also have birthright citizenship. They have been free to leave the U.S. when they wanted and to seek out various employment opportunities, without ever having to think about contingency plans. The contrast between his experience and his siblings’ has shown him what’s at stake if his daughter loses status. For Andrew, this fight is not only legal, but deeply personal.

“It makes me sad that this harms babies because they don’t have a voice yet, they don’t have legal resources,” he says. But Andrew is determined, and he wants his daughter to know that her rights are worth defending. “As a parent I am always going to protect my child.”

“My child is now a political debate,” Andrew says. “In 10 years, if she loses citizenship, she will know that despite the consequences, a lot of people fought for her.”

“My child is now a political debate,” Andrew says. “In 10 years, if she loses citizenship, she will know that despite the consequences, a lot of people fought for her.”

Right now, the class action win ensures that all children are protected from the order, and there is no reason for families to fear whether they need to move, give birth in another state, or take other drastic steps to secure their children’s citizenship. But the fight is not over. The government has asked the Supreme Court to hear the birthright citizenship issue in the coming months. The court will have to decide whether to hear the appeals — and if it does, more written legal briefs and oral arguments will follow, likely next year.

At the ACLU, we know that no one should ever be subject to a total erasure of their rights and, beyond the law, birthright citizenship is and has always been central to who we are as a nation. For Jane, Andrew, and Thomas, this fight may be long, but they hope to see it won, for their children’s sake.

“I don’t want my son to have to worry about any of those things,” Jane says. “Eventually, it’ll be a story. And yes, he’ll know his family story”

If you think your child is subject to the executive order and you have any questions, please visit the class website here.

Published September 30, 2025 at 04:59PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/5i7xQKX

ACLU: What’s at Stake as the Supreme Court Takes Up Transgender Sports Bans

What’s at Stake as the Supreme Court Takes Up Transgender Sports Bans

Over the last five years, politicians across the country have targeted transgender people and our families. They’ve banned our health care, censored our speech, and made schools less safe for transgender students. One of the most consistent focus areas for many of these politicians has been the rights of transgender student athletes, specifically the right of transgender girls, to play with other girls. While the overall number of transgender athletes is extremely small–most states have fewer than a handful of transgender students playing sports among 10s of thousands of student athletes– politicians have introduced hundreds of bills over the last few years targeting their ability to play.

Now, the Supreme Court will hear our challenge against a state law that categorically bans transgender students from girl’s teams. Politicians hope to use the case to legitimize a broad range of discrimination against transgender people (and all LGBTQ people), excluding us not just from sports teams but from civil rights protections and pushing us further out of public life altogether.

Before the Court: BPJ v. West Virginia

Becky Pepper-Jackson of West Virginia is just like any other 15-year-old.She loves spending time with her friends, playing with her brothers, and is active in her school’s band and track & field team, throwing discus and shotput. But under a ban passed by the West Virginia state legislature, Pepper-Jackson would be prohibited from playing on the girls’ team. “She likes to do the best in everything, be it algebra or running or shot put or discus,” her mother told NBC News. “She tries to excel in everything that she does, just like any other kid.”

While Pepper-Jackson is the only openly transgender athlete in the state of West Virginia, she has become the focus of relentless attacks by politicians in the state, including the state’s governor. With the help of Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP, the ACLU and the ACLU of West Virginia filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pepper-Jackson and her mother challenging the ban on the grounds it violates her rights under Title IX – the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in public schools – and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

How Many Transgender Athletes Are There?

There is no comprehensive count of transgender student athletes in K-12, collegiate, or professional sports in the United States, but what we do know is that they represent a tiny fraction of athletes overall. The president of the NCAA even recently told Congress, “less than 10” (and not all of them transgender women) of the more than 500,000 college athletes in the country are openly transgender.

Nonetheless, they have become the focus of a relentless media campaign designed to make their participation seem like a threat to girls who are not transgender. The goal of this campaign is not only dividing us against one another, it’s to secure a sweeping legal precedent that endangers transgender people (and other people, including gay, lesbian and bisexual people, and all women) across our lives, not just in sports.

What’s at Stake at The Supreme Court

The court is likely to rule on whether the state bans targeting transgender students violate either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. What we don’t know–and won’t know until that ruling is handed down–is whether that ruling will be narrowly tailored to the context of athletics or implicate a broad range of rights for transgender people.

Credit: Scout Tufankjian

Many of the political attacks on transgender people have focused on areas of the law where we already experience discrimination–access to public bathrooms or the sex designation that goes on documents like driver’s licenses and passports, for example. Depending on the precise language of the court’s ruling, it could likewise implicate our fight for equality in those contexts and potentially many more, like our access to health care and our safety while incarcerated.

This is why, even though the number of transgender students in athletics is small, their right to play has become a central focus of politicians who want to push transgender people out of public life altogether. Their hope is that a Supreme Court ruling against the rights of girls like Pepper-Jackson will allow them to discriminate against transgender people in many more contexts and, eventually, deny us our freedom to be ourselves entirely.

“Fairness” in Sex-Based Competition

First, it’s important to recognize that a girl like Pepper-Jackson is not trying to “cheat” her way into women’s sports or take away opportunities from other girls. Who she is on the playing field is who is with her friends, her family, and in her community, and transgender youth and their families want the same thing for their future that we all do–safe schools, strong communities, and equal opportunities to succeed.

Second, transgender girls are not “biological males” as many politicians accuse them of being. In fact, the states in both these cases have tried to exclude any scientific evidence about the impacts of gender-affirming medical care that girls like Pepper-Jackson relies on because, ultimately, they do not care about things like hormone levels or muscle mass; they want to exploit concern for women athletes and widely-held assumptions about sex and gender to define transgender people’s identities and rights for us while falsely claiming the “science” is on their side.

Lastly, as any competitive athlete can tell you, all athletes carry advantages and disadvantages depending on the sport, their background, their experience, their genetics, and their physical ability. Excluding transgender girls on the basis of advantages they may or may not have, while ignoring the wide varieties of body types and physical ability among all women, is both discriminatory to transgender girls and relies on very old stereotypes of women as inherently petite and weak (something that anyone who watches women’s sports can tell you is very far from the truth).

Protecting Women’s Sports by Fighting Real Inequities

Bans such as West Virginia’s are opposed by Billie Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, Sue Bird, Brianna Turner, Dawn Staley, the Women’s Sports Foundation, the National Women’s Basketball Players Association, and many more allies to girls like Pepper-Jackson. In contrast, the bans are being defended by the same conservative activists that overturned Roe v. Wade and oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples–not because they care about women’s sports but because transgender people’s very existence violates their own ideology.

Athletics is a critical part of the lives of millions of youth in the United States. It helps them learn teamwork and dedication while helping them become an active and thriving member of their broader community. This is especially true for kids who are isolated, bullied, and ostracized by their peers–playing sports is often a way for adolescents to overcome the sense they’re just too “different” from others to make friends and succeed.

But more than fifty years after Title IX, women athletes continue to face real and widespread barriers–from racial disparities in athletic opportunities to unequal pay for professionals and harassment and abuse–but the participation of transgender girls like Pepper-Jacksons simply is not one of them. We can win the future all women and girls deserve by playing on the same team for fairness, safety, and equal opportunities and rejecting efforts by politicians to divide us.

Published September 29, 2025 at 09:37PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/PDJQ7sT

ACLU: What’s at Stake as the Supreme Court Takes Up Transgender Sports Bans

What’s at Stake as the Supreme Court Takes Up Transgender Sports Bans

Over the last five years, politicians across the country have targeted transgender people and our families. They’ve banned our health care, censored our speech, and made schools less safe for transgender students. One of the most consistent focus areas for many of these politicians has been the rights of transgender student athletes, specifically the right of transgender girls, to play with other girls. While the overall number of transgender athletes is extremely small–most states have fewer than a handful of transgender students playing sports among 10s of thousands of student athletes– politicians have introduced hundreds of bills over the last few years targeting their ability to play.

Now, the Supreme Court will hear our challenge against a state law that categorically bans transgender students from girl’s teams. Politicians hope to use the case to legitimize a broad range of discrimination against transgender people (and all LGBTQ people), excluding us not just from sports teams but from civil rights protections and pushing us further out of public life altogether.

Before the Court: BPJ v. West Virginia

Becky Pepper-Jackson of West Virginia is just like any other 15-year-old.She loves spending time with her friends, playing with her brothers, and is active in her school’s band and track & field team, throwing discus and shotput. But under a ban passed by the West Virginia state legislature, Pepper-Jackson would be prohibited from playing on the girls’ team. “She likes to do the best in everything, be it algebra or running or shot put or discus,” her mother told NBC News. “She tries to excel in everything that she does, just like any other kid.”

While Pepper-Jackson is the only openly transgender athlete in the state of West Virginia, she has become the focus of relentless attacks by politicians in the state, including the state’s governor. With the help of Lambda Legal and Cooley LLP, the ACLU and the ACLU of West Virginia filed a lawsuit on behalf of Pepper-Jackson and her mother challenging the ban on the grounds it violates her rights under Title IX – the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in public schools – and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

How Many Transgender Athletes Are There?

There is no comprehensive count of transgender student athletes in K-12, collegiate, or professional sports in the United States, but what we do know is that they represent a tiny fraction of athletes overall. The president of the NCAA even recently told Congress, “less than 10” (and not all of them transgender women) of the more than 500,000 college athletes in the country are openly transgender.

Nonetheless, they have become the focus of a relentless media campaign designed to make their participation seem like a threat to girls who are not transgender. The goal of this campaign is not only dividing us against one another, it’s to secure a sweeping legal precedent that endangers transgender people (and other people, including gay, lesbian and bisexual people, and all women) across our lives, not just in sports.

What’s at Stake at The Supreme Court

The court is likely to rule on whether the state bans targeting transgender students violate either Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause. What we don’t know–and won’t know until that ruling is handed down–is whether that ruling will be narrowly tailored to the context of athletics or implicate a broad range of rights for transgender people.

Credit: Scout Tufankjian

Many of the political attacks on transgender people have focused on areas of the law where we already experience discrimination–access to public bathrooms or the sex designation that goes on documents like driver’s licenses and passports, for example. Depending on the precise language of the court’s ruling, it could likewise implicate our fight for equality in those contexts and potentially many more, like our access to health care and our safety while incarcerated.

This is why, even though the number of transgender students in athletics is small, their right to play has become a central focus of politicians who want to push transgender people out of public life altogether. Their hope is that a Supreme Court ruling against the rights of girls like Pepper-Jackson will allow them to discriminate against transgender people in many more contexts and, eventually, deny us our freedom to be ourselves entirely.

“Fairness” in Sex-Based Competition

First, it’s important to recognize that a girl like Pepper-Jackson is not trying to “cheat” her way into women’s sports or take away opportunities from other girls. Who she is on the playing field is who is with her friends, her family, and in her community, and transgender youth and their families want the same thing for their future that we all do–safe schools, strong communities, and equal opportunities to succeed.

Second, transgender girls are not “biological males” as many politicians accuse them of being. In fact, the states in both these cases have tried to exclude any scientific evidence about the impacts of gender-affirming medical care that girls like Pepper-Jackson relies on because, ultimately, they do not care about things like hormone levels or muscle mass; they want to exploit concern for women athletes and widely-held assumptions about sex and gender to define transgender people’s identities and rights for us while falsely claiming the “science” is on their side.

Lastly, as any competitive athlete can tell you, all athletes carry advantages and disadvantages depending on the sport, their background, their experience, their genetics, and their physical ability. Excluding transgender girls on the basis of advantages they may or may not have, while ignoring the wide varieties of body types and physical ability among all women, is both discriminatory to transgender girls and relies on very old stereotypes of women as inherently petite and weak (something that anyone who watches women’s sports can tell you is very far from the truth).

Protecting Women’s Sports by Fighting Real Inequities

Bans such as West Virginia’s are opposed by Billie Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, Sue Bird, Brianna Turner, Dawn Staley, the Women’s Sports Foundation, the National Women’s Basketball Players Association, and many more allies to girls like Pepper-Jackson. In contrast, the bans are being defended by the same conservative activists that overturned Roe v. Wade and oppose marriage equality for same-sex couples–not because they care about women’s sports but because transgender people’s very existence violates their own ideology.

Athletics is a critical part of the lives of millions of youth in the United States. It helps them learn teamwork and dedication while helping them become an active and thriving member of their broader community. This is especially true for kids who are isolated, bullied, and ostracized by their peers–playing sports is often a way for adolescents to overcome the sense they’re just too “different” from others to make friends and succeed.

But more than fifty years after Title IX, women athletes continue to face real and widespread barriers–from racial disparities in athletic opportunities to unequal pay for professionals and harassment and abuse–but the participation of transgender girls like Pepper-Jacksons simply is not one of them. We can win the future all women and girls deserve by playing on the same team for fairness, safety, and equal opportunities and rejecting efforts by politicians to divide us.

Published September 29, 2025 at 05:07PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/BtZKWA2

ACLU: Carta de del periodista detenido Mario Guevara

Carta de del periodista detenido Mario Guevara

El periodista Mario Guevara permanece en detención migratoria luego de que la Junta de Apelaciones de Inmigración se negara a ponerlo en libertad, pese a la orden de un juez de inmigración mediante la cual le concedió una fianza [para su libertad]. En cambio, la Junta ordenó que Guevara fuera deportado a El Salvador, país del cual huyó hace más de dos décadas. ACLU y ACLU de Georgia han acudido urgentemente a un tribunal federal para solicitar su liberación y para que intervenga antes de que Guevara sea deportado.

A pesar de haberse identificado claramente como prensa, Guevara fue arrestado por agentes locales de orden público en junio mientras reportaba sobre una protesta contra la administración Trump cerca de Atlanta. El Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE por sus siglas en inglés) luego lo puso bajo su custodia. Los fiscales retiraron rápidamente los cargos después de confirmar que él había estado cumpliendo con las directrices de los agentes del orden público. Sin embargo, oficiales de inmigración se negaron a liberarlo, alegando que la transmisión en vivo de actividad policial lo convierte en una amenaza.

ACLU presentó una petición de hábeas corpus urgente, argumentando que la detención de Guevara es una represalia inconstitucional contra actividades periodísticas protegidas bajo la Primera Enmienda y está solicitando urgentemente que sea liberado para que pueda regresar a su familia y continuar su periodismo. Hoy, defensores y aliados advierten que deportar a Guevara sería una injusticia devastadora. Ha vivido en Estados Unidos durante más de dos décadas, es un periodista recibió un premio Emmy, es elegible para ser un residente legal permanente (obtener su Green Card) a través de su hijo que es ciudadano estadounidense y, en primer lugar, nunca debió haber sido encarcelado. Mantenerlo detenido, y amenazarlo con su deportación, no solo lo perjudica a él y a su familia, sino también a la libertad de prensa y la democracia misma.

A continuación, lea una carta que Guevara escribió de su puño y letra en la detención de inmigración.

---

“Hoy lunes cumplo 100 días tras las rejas, más de tres meses encerrado como delincuente. Estoy consciente de mi situación legal, sé que estoy a punto de ser expulsado de este país, al que tanto he amado y respetado durante más de dos décadas.

La vida no siempre es justa con uno. Si me deportan, me voy con la frente en alto, pues estoy convencido que será por ejercer mi labor periodística y no por cometer crímenes.

Eso sí, me voy con el corazón destrozado y mi dignidad pisoteada, pues he sido humillado tanto por autoridades federales como locales y creo que no lo merezco. Además porque dividirán a mi familia, que es lo que más amo en la vida, aunque todos mis seres amados saben que todo ha sido por mi pasión al trabajo.

El juramento a la bandera de Estados Unidos dice en una parte: “Con libertad y justicia para todos”. Eso ahora mismo es una falacia. Deberían agregarle “con excepción de los inmigrantes”.

Credit: Mario Guevara

Dios permita que un día no muy lejano, el amor y la misericordia logre superar el odio racial que está dividiendo a esta bella nación y que el pueblo estadounidense entienda que el hecho de llamarse cristiano incluye el respeto y el apoyo a los extranjeros. Al menos eso es lo que dice mi Biblia.

A mi familia le pido perdón por haberles causado tanto dolor con mis imprudencias laborales. También a la justicia de EE.UU. porque violé algunas de sus reglas de tránsito, pero nunca fue con malas intenciones, ni de mal corazón.

A mi comunidad latina le agradezco por haberme apoyado siempre y a los clientes de MGNews por haber confiado mí y mi equipo, GRACIAS.

Dios nunca se equivoca y siempre tiene el control, así que confío en que adonde vaya, seguiré sirviendo a mi gente. Bendiciones”.

*El condado de Gwinnett presentó cargos menores por infracciones de tránsito relacionados con su trabajo como periodista, después de que fuera detenido por ICE. El condado de Gwinnett luego desestimó todos los cargos.

Published September 25, 2025 at 01:01AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/DxzlcWQ

ACLU: A New Labor Rule Could Push Caregivers to the Breaking Point

A New Labor Rule Could Push Caregivers to the Breaking Point

The Department of Labor is trying to roll back progress for women in the workforce. Among the department’s new policies is a proposed rule that would strip millions of home-care workers of federal minimum wage and overtime protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This month, the ACLU and National Domestic Workers Alliance submitted comments to the department strongly opposing this proposed change.

In 1938, when Congress passed the FLSA and established fair wage standards for the American workforce, it excluded domestic and agricultural workers – occupations with some of the largest concentrations of Black workers – from the law’s protections. These exclusions created and maintained classes of workers earning sub-minimum wage, perpetuating the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow discrimination. The domestic worker exclusion also further entrenched the view that work performed by women in the home is inherently less valuable and less deserving of compensation than other forms of labor.

In 2013, the Department of Labor explicitly recognized that home-care workers deserved to be compensated like everyone else. It issued a rule explaining that only a narrow category of casual caregiving work could fall under the FLSA’s exemption. Under the 2013 rule, professional caregivers were guaranteed federal minimum wage and overtime.

Today, the Trump administration’s new policies and rules that attempt to reinstate the exemption for domestic labor are rooted in outdated stereotypes about caregiving work, which is still performed overwhelmingly by women, in particular, women of color and immigrants.

At the ACLU, we know that this discriminatory proposed rule is unlawful. It ignores the realities of the home-care business and the economic precarity that most of these workers face. The proposed rule also ignores Congress’s attempts, since 1938, to dramatically limit the FLSA’s domestic worker exemption and extend the law’s protections. If this proposed rule is allowed to take effect, millions of home care workers will suffer. This means that many of the essential workers who care for our loved ones every day will face significant economic hardship. Many will have to choose between staying in their jobs and seeking better-paying work, so that they are able to take care of themselves and provide for their own families.

---

Denise Lugo, a member of the National Domestic Worker alliance, explains the harm of the proposed rule on home-care workers like her, and on the entire care economy.

I have spent over 30 years working as a care worker, supporting aging adults and people with disabilities in North Carolina. I have changed bedpans and administered medications. I have skipped my own doctor visits to make sure someone else could keep theirs. I have done this job quietly and faithfully, without a pension, paid sick days, or health care.

Even now, in my 60s, I am still working. I have to.

This is what care work looks like – Black women like me who show up every day to do the work that keeps this country running. The 2013 Department of Labor rule recognized what we have always known: care work is real work. Now, that same Department of Labor wants to undo it.

Today, the majority of home care workers are still Black, Brown, and immigrant women – overworked, underpaid, and often invisible in policy conversations. We live at or below the poverty line despite providing life-saving care. The median annual income for a home-care worker is less than $22,000. Nearly 60 percent of us –including myself– rely on public assistance just to get by, even with the 2013 minimum wage and overtime rule in place.

I know this personally. I was denied Medicaid for years, despite working full-time in healthcare. I made too much to qualify, but not enough to afford private insurance. I skipped doctor’s appointments, rationed blood pressure medication, and relied on the local health department when I got sick. That changed when North Carolina expanded Medicaid. I finally got coverage, and the medications I need to manage my diabetes, thyroid, heart, and kidney health. That care keeps me alive. It keeps me working.

But recently, Congress passed the “Big Beautiful Budget Act,” slashing nearly a trillion from Medicaid. Home care workers like me are already seeing the impact. Now, the Department of Labor is proposing this rule change that would further gut the fragile system we’ve been holding together for decades. This rule change is a dangerous rollback of hard-won rights. It would leave millions of workers like me without wage protections and push an already vulnerable workforce deeper into poverty. The justification for this decision relies on outdated and discriminatory logic that continues to deny care workers our humanity, our professionalism, and our rights.

This is not sustainable. In 2023 every state reported direct care worker shortages.. More than 700,000 people are on Medicaid waitlists for home care. The AARP’s “Caregiving in the U.S.” 2025 report confirms what I see every day: families are desperate for care, and workers are burning out.

If I walk away from this job, the families I serve will be left scrambling. They won’t be able to go to work. Their loved ones won’t get the support they need. I have seen what happens when care falls through. It is terrifying.

This rule change would only accelerate that collapse. It tells workers like me that our labor is not valued. That we can be erased from labor law, and erased from public concern.

We cannot let that happen.

I’ll keep doing this work as long as I’m able. But I cannot survive off dignity alone. I need a living wage. I need health care. I need to be seen.

Denise Lugo is a Certified Nurse Assistant and home care worker based in Fayetteville, North Carolina. She is a member of the National Domestic Workers Alliance and We Dream in Black.

Published September 24, 2025 at 05:06PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/yJHp8FK

ACLU: Memphis Police Are Blocking Transparency, Defying Reform

Memphis Police Are Blocking Transparency, Defying Reform

As a lifelong Memphian and the leader of an organization working every day to build a safer, more just city, I know real safety starts with protecting and investing in our children. But the children of Memphis are not safe if the police in Memphis are not transparent, trustworthy, and accountable to the community. That’s why my organization is demanding information from the Memphis Police Department (MPD) about continued use of force and racial targeting that was exposed in an investigation from the Department of Justice. And that’s why we’re pushing forward with this demand even as the Trump Administration—which abandoned Memphis when we were asking for federal help to address police abuse—now threatens our community with regressive and abusive police tactics and counter-productive militarization.

Despite publicly committing to change, MPD is refusing to turn over public records it is legally required to provide and hiding the truth from the very community it claims to protect. We will not let MPD evade the transparency that real reform demands.

One thing is certain: regardless of the path politicians choose, our community will not be deterred in protecting the people of Memphis from abusive policing.

Well before federal investigations brought national attention to Memphis, we joined advocates across Tennessee to sound the alarm about violence and abuse at the hands of the Memphis Police Department (MPD). Following the preventable and unnecessary killing of Tyré Nichols in 2023, our community united in collective grief and resolve to demand that the Department of Justice launch a “pattern or practice” investigation into the MPD.

The subsequent Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation and report validated what our community had been saying all along: MPD engages in a pattern of unconstitutional conduct that puts people—especially Black and Brown residents —in harm's way. The report revealed deeply disturbing patterns of misconduct and brutality, including police unleashing K9 units on people who were sleeping or otherwise compliant, training directives instructing officers to “hurt them first and hurt them bad,” and routine use of pepper spray until people could barely breathe. The investigation also found abusive tactics used against children—who are most in need of our protection.

These horrific facts represent only a fraction of the DOJ’s damning and comprehensive findings. What emerges from the report is not a story of isolated bad actors, but rather evidence of department-wide failures of training, leadership, supervision, and culture.

While the DOJ’s report put wind in our sails, it was never the end goal. Rather, it was a roadmap for the transformative change our community demands. Our vision has always been a Memphis where every person – regardless of race, income, or neighborhood – can feel safe walking to school, driving to work, or simply existing without fear of police violence. The Trump administration has since closed the investigation and criticized the findings and is now fueling abusive policing tactics that we know endanger lives and lead to civil rights violations.

Try as they might, the Trump administration’s attempt to turn police on the communities they are supposed to serve only strengthens our commitment to work towards a safer Memphis. That's why, in May, we joined the ACLU to submit a public records request to MPD seeking documents and information that would help us understand use of force and racial targeting that’s happening on the streets right now and what reforms are needed. Access to this information is essential to ensure that our leaders’ promises of change translate into meaningful improvements in people’s experiences with the police.

But instead of embracing transparency and joining us in the fight for safer communities, city officials and MPD outright denied our request for information. Their refusal violates state law—which favors transparency in public institutions and requires MPD to provide the information we requested. This denial is an unacceptable attempt to shield the department from public scrutiny and to suppress the truth. In an open letter delivered on September 18, 2025 to the MPD and Mayor Paul Young, we made it clear that they must provide the answers and information we are legally entitled to and stop operating in secrecy.

While Mayor Young has publicly committed to change and has created a task force aimed at reforming MPD, promises are not enough. If our leaders are serious about building trust with communities and transforming policing culture in Memphis, they must begin by engaging the public in good faith and sharing the information that we are legally and morally entitled to.

Memphis belongs to all of us, and we deserve far more than apologies or empty promises after tragedy. We deserve action and a government committed to transparency rather than one that operates in the shadows. Real safety starts with truth, accountability, and leaders who are willing to sit at the table and collaborate with the communities they serve.

MPD and Mayor Young now confront a choice. They can continue to delay and deny us the truth, or they can meet this moment with courage and honesty and join us in the work of building a safer, more just city. One thing is certain: regardless of the path politicians choose, our community will not be deterred in protecting the people of Memphis from abusive policing. We will continue to demand justice, insist on truth, and work towards a safer Memphis for all.

Published September 23, 2025 at 09:37PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/78LOYoR

ACLU: Memphis Police Are Blocking Transparency, Defying Reform

Memphis Police Are Blocking Transparency, Defying Reform

As a lifelong Memphian and the leader of an organization working every day to build a safer, more just city, I know real safety starts with protecting and investing in our children. But the children of Memphis are not safe if the police in Memphis are not transparent, trustworthy, and accountable to the community. That’s why my organization is demanding information from the Memphis Police Department (MPD) about continued use of force and racial targeting that was exposed in an investigation from the Department of Justice. And that’s why we’re pushing forward with this demand even as the Trump Administration—which abandoned Memphis when we were asking for federal help to address police abuse—now threatens our community with regressive and abusive police tactics and counter-productive militarization.

Despite publicly committing to change, MPD is refusing to turn over public records it is legally required to provide and hiding the truth from the very community it claims to protect. We will not let MPD evade the transparency that real reform demands.

One thing is certain: regardless of the path politicians choose, our community will not be deterred in protecting the people of Memphis from abusive policing.

Well before federal investigations brought national attention to Memphis, we joined advocates across Tennessee to sound the alarm about violence and abuse at the hands of the Memphis Police Department (MPD). Following the preventable and unnecessary killing of Tyré Nichols in 2023, our community united in collective grief and resolve to demand that the Department of Justice launch a “pattern or practice” investigation into the MPD.

The subsequent Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation and report validated what our community had been saying all along: MPD engages in a pattern of unconstitutional conduct that puts people—especially Black and Brown residents —in harm's way. The report revealed deeply disturbing patterns of misconduct and brutality, including police unleashing K9 units on people who were sleeping or otherwise compliant, training directives instructing officers to “hurt them first and hurt them bad,” and routine use of pepper spray until people could barely breathe. The investigation also found abusive tactics used against children—who are most in need of our protection.

These horrific facts represent only a fraction of the DOJ’s damning and comprehensive findings. What emerges from the report is not a story of isolated bad actors, but rather evidence of department-wide failures of training, leadership, supervision, and culture.

While the DOJ’s report put wind in our sails, it was never the end goal. Rather, it was a roadmap for the transformative change our community demands. Our vision has always been a Memphis where every person – regardless of race, income, or neighborhood – can feel safe walking to school, driving to work, or simply existing without fear of police violence. The Trump administration has since closed the investigation and criticized the findings and is now fueling abusive policing tactics that we know endanger lives and lead to civil rights violations.

Try as they might, the Trump administration’s attempt to turn police on the communities they are supposed to serve only strengthens our commitment to work towards a safer Memphis. That's why, in May, we joined the ACLU to submit a public records request to MPD seeking documents and information that would help us understand use of force and racial targeting that’s happening on the streets right now and what reforms are needed. Access to this information is essential to ensure that our leaders’ promises of change translate into meaningful improvements in people’s experiences with the police.

But instead of embracing transparency and joining us in the fight for safer communities, city officials and MPD outright denied our request for information. Their refusal violates state law—which favors transparency in public institutions and requires MPD to provide the information we requested. This denial is an unacceptable attempt to shield the department from public scrutiny and to suppress the truth. In an open letter delivered on September 18, 2025 to the MPD and Mayor Paul Young, we made it clear that they must provide the answers and information we are legally entitled to and stop operating in secrecy.

While Mayor Young has publicly committed to change and has created a task force aimed at reforming MPD, promises are not enough. If our leaders are serious about building trust with communities and transforming policing culture in Memphis, they must begin by engaging the public in good faith and sharing the information that we are legally and morally entitled to.

Memphis belongs to all of us, and we deserve far more than apologies or empty promises after tragedy. We deserve action and a government committed to transparency rather than one that operates in the shadows. Real safety starts with truth, accountability, and leaders who are willing to sit at the table and collaborate with the communities they serve.

MPD and Mayor Young now confront a choice. They can continue to delay and deny us the truth, or they can meet this moment with courage and honesty and join us in the work of building a safer, more just city. One thing is certain: regardless of the path politicians choose, our community will not be deterred in protecting the people of Memphis from abusive policing. We will continue to demand justice, insist on truth, and work towards a safer Memphis for all.

Published September 24, 2025 at 02:07AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/uFHZsn8

ACLU: Comunidades fronterizas enfrentan nuevos riesgos bajo áreas de defensa nacional de Trump

Comunidades fronterizas enfrentan nuevos riesgos bajo áreas de defensa nacional de Trump

En abril, la administración Trump comenzó a declarar partes de la región fronteriza entre Estados Unidos y México como “áreas de defensa nacional” (NDAs, por sus siglas en inglés), como si fueran bases militares de acceso restringido.

Estas declaraciones de NDA tienen como objetivo otorgarle al Departamento de Defensa (DoD, por sus siglas en inglés) nuevos poderes aplicables a lo largo de la frontera. Para comunidades de inmigrantes, ahora hay hasta más en juego: cruzar un NDA no solo implica cargos federales por invasión a la propiedad privada sino también cargos de inmigración. Ciudadanos estadounidenses también pueden enfrentarse a ser procesados si atraviesan áreas mal identificadas cuando viajen, caminen, cacen o trabajen cerca de la frontera.

La creación de NDAs es parte de un patrón más amplio en la estrategia antiinmigrante del presidente Donald Trump y sus esfuerzos por impulsar un despliegue sin precedentes de poder militar en todo el país. Comunidades quedan prácticamente aisladas de acceso a terrenos públicos, mientras que los estados se ven obligados a lidiar con una mayor aplicación de la ley y menos transparencia.

A continuación, explicamos qué son las nuevas "áreas de defensa nacional", cómo afectan nuestros derechos y cómo les hacen daño a nuestras comunidades.

¿Qué son las nuevas “áreas de defensa nacional” (NDAs)?

A principios de este año, el presidente Trump emitió un memorando transfiriendo el control de ciertos terrenos públicos federales a lo largo de la frontera sur al Departamento de Defensa. El secretario de defensa ahora puede designar estos terrenos como NDA, y ya lo ha hecho en Arizona, Nuevo México y Texas.

Por lo general, al describir las nuevas áreas, funcionarios federales han intentado minimizar su tamaño centrándose en la inclusión de una estrecha zona de amortiguamiento fronterizo de 60 pies, conocida como la 'Reserva Roosevelt', que se extiende paralela a algunas secciones de la frontera terrestre entre Estados Unidos y México. Sin embargo, en algunas áreas los NDAs se extienden mucho más al norte, abarcando carreteras, terrenos desérticos y áreas utilizadas por comunidades locales.

Por ejemplo, solo el NDA de Nuevo México abarca más de 400 millas cuadradas, según un análisis de Source New Mexico. El NDA de Texas se extiende por 63 millas, desde El Paso hasta Fort Hancock. Otros NDA incluyen zonas del Valle del Río Grande de Texas y el condado de Yuma, Arizona. Cada una de ellas se caracteriza por ser "instalaciones" militares que se extienden desde, y a menudo hasta mucho más de, una base militar específica.

Los NDA no incluyen tierras administradas por, o propiedad de tribus reconocidas a nivel federal. Tampoco incluyen tierras no federales, como parques estatales. Sin embargo, si una persona visita un parque estatal o vive en tierras tribales o de propiedad privada, y accidentalmente cruza a un NDA, corre el riesgo de ser detenida, interrogada, registrada y acusada injustamente de ingresar intencionalmente al área restringida.

¿Qué poder ejerce el gobierno federal en las áreas de defensa nacional?

La Oficina de Aduanas y Protección Fronteriza (CBP, por sus siglas en inglés) y sus agentes de la Patrulla Fronteriza ya vigilan la región y cuentan desde hace tiempo con facultades para interrogar y arrestar a personas que ingresen ilegalmente a Estados Unidos. Dentro de los NDAs, el gobierno también afirma tener autoridad para que tropas estadounidenses interroguen, registren y detengan temporalmente a presuntos invasores de propiedad privada [NDAs]. Esto corre el riesgo de difuminar la línea entre la aplicación de la ley civil y la autoridad militar.

¿Cuáles son los riesgos legales de entrar a un área de defensa nacional sin autorización?

Bajo ley federal, entrar a una de estas áreas sin autorización puede resultar en cargos por invadir (trespassing) propiedad militar, los cuales incluyen:

• 18 USC § 1382 – Entrar en propiedad militar sin autorización. Sancionable con hasta seis meses de cárcel y una multa de $5,000.00.
• 50 USC § 797 – Violación deliberada de regulación de seguridad para la propiedad militar. Sancionable con hasta un año de cárcel y una multa $100,000.00.

En los últimos meses, personas detenidas dentro de NDAs ya han sido acusadas en virtud de estas leyes.

¿Cómo se relacionan las nuevas áreas de defensa nacional con violaciones de inmigración que el gobierno podría presentar contra no-ciudadanos?

Eso depende de su estatus de ciudadanía:

Si usted es ciudadano de Estados Unidos:

• No puede acusado de entrada ilegal (o re-ingreso) a Estados Unidos bajo el título 8 secciones 1325 o 1326 del Código de Estados Unidos (USC), pero sí puede ser acusado bajo cargos de invasión a propiedad privada (trespassing).
• Corre el riesgo de enfrentar cargos por invadir propiedad privada si cruza a un NDA, por ejemplo, al salir de una carretera, al caminar o cazar en terrenos desiertos.

Si usted no es ciudadano de Estados Unidos:

• Usted corre el riesgo de enfrentar los mismos cargos potenciales de invasión a propiedad privada (tresspassing) además de posibles cargos de inmigración, tales como:
  • 8 USC § 1325 – Entrada ilegal
  • 8 USC § 1326 – Reingreso ilegal después de la deportación

Eso significa que si un no-ciudadano es arrestado dentro de un NDA y se sospecha que ingresó sin autorización a Estados Unidos, enfrenta el riesgo de tres cargos separados: entrada no autorizada a una propiedad militar, violación intencional de una regulación de seguridad y entrada o reingreso ilegal.

Si se le acusa bajo 18 USC § 1382 o bajo 50 USC § 797 por entrar a un área de defensa nacional, tiene derecho a un abogado y la oportunidad de impugnar los cargos en un tribunal. Tiene derecho a hacer que el gobierno pruebe su caso en su contra. Cualquier persona que enfrente estos cargos debe hablar con un abogado lo antes posible para obtener asesoramiento legal.

¿Están claramente marcados los NDAs para evitar que las personas eviten cruzar accidentalmente a ellos?

No.

El gobierno dice que ha colocado letreros de advertencia, pero los letreros son pequeños, solo en inglés y español, pocos y distantes entre sí. Según mociones judiciales, los letreros se colocan dentro de los NDAs, alejados de la línea fronteriza entre Estados Unidos y México, lo que significa que las personas al entrar a los NDAs desde México ya han cruzado al área restringida antes de tener la oportunidad de leer los letreros. Según informado, las señales miran hacia el sur, lo que significa que es poco probable que las personas que ingresen el NDA desde el norte vean alguna señal antes de cruzar el NDA.

Crédito: Patrick Lohmann (SourceNM.com), Data: Oficina de Administración de Tierras y Departamento de Defensa (Guerra)

Un portavoz del senador de Nuevo México, Martin Heinrich, señaló que los NDAs tienen "enormes implicaciones para cualquiera que conduzca por la autopista 9 y se orille a estirar las piernas resultando en la invasión inadvertida de una base militar” [traducción propia]

Si se encuentra cerca de la frontera sur, tenga cuidado y trate de evitar cruzar accidentalmente un NDA. Consultar mapas visuales puede ser útil, pero el Departamento de Defensa no ha publicado mapas de cada NDA y los mapas disponibles no son lo suficientemente detallados como para ofrecer demarcaciones específicas para las personas en las inmediaciones generales.

¿Puedo tomar fotos o grabar un video de un NDA o de una interacción con un oficial dentro de un NDA?

Sí, pero con precaución.

Tomar fotografías y videos de lugares, personas y objetos que están a simple vista desde espacios públicos es un derecho constitucional, y eso incluye el exterior de edificios federales, así como a agentes de policía, tropas y otros funcionarios gubernamentales en el ejercicio de sus funciones.

Sin embargo, conforme al título 18, sección 795 del Código de Estados Unidos, 18 USC § 795, el Congreso ha tipificado como delito fotografiar, trazar, cartografiar o dibujar “ciertas instalaciones o equipos militares o navales vitales”, sancionando con multa o hasta un año de cárcel, o ambas. El Departamento de Defensa (DoD) ha colocado letreros cerca de las áreas de defensa nacional citando este delito, lo que implica que esta ley se aplica a estas nuevas áreas.

ACLU sostiene que cuando usted se encuentra legalmente en un espacio público— incluyendo uno adyacente a, pero fuera de, los límites de un NDA o de una instalación militar— tiene derecho a fotografiar y grabar en video todo lo que esté a simple vista.

¿Sigo teniendo derechos constitucionales en un área de defensa nacional?

Sí. Las áreas de defensa nacional (NDA) no lo privan de sus derechos constitucionales.

Cuarta Enmienda – Protección contra registros e incautaciones irrazonables

• Los oficiales deben contar con hechos específicos que sugieran que usted infringió la ley para detenerlo o registrarlo.
• La raza, el origen étnico o el idioma por sí solos no son motivos válidos para detenerlo.
• Usted no tiene que consentir a un registro. Si se lo piden, puede decir: “No doy mi consentimiento”.
• Si lo detienen, pregunte por qué; los oficiales deben darle una razón.

Quinta Enmienda – Derecho al debido proceso

• Usted no tiene que responder a preguntas sobre su ciudadanía o estatus migratorio.
• Los ciudadanos no están obligados a portar prueba de ciudadanía. Los residentes permanentes (titulares de green card) y los titulares de visas deben llevar sus documentos migratorios y mostrarlos si se les solicita.
• Si desea permanecer en silencio, diga claramente: “Estoy ejerciendo mi derecho a permanecer en silencio”.
• Toda persona en Estados Unidos tiene derecho a impugnar los cargos en su contra, al debido proceso y a buscar asesoría de un abogado.

Sexta Enmienda – Derecho a un abogado

• Si se le acusa de un delito, tiene derecho a un abogado, independientemente de su ciudadanía y de su capacidad de pago.
• Si lo paran, lo detienen o lo arrestan, puede decirle al oficial que exige hablar con un abogado.

Dicho todo lo anterior tenga presente que:

• Sin importar su ciudadanía, nunca debe proporcionar documentos falsos a un oficial.
• En la zona fronteriza, los funcionarios federales tienen mayor margen para abordar autobuses y establecer puntos de control permanentes o temporales que en el interior de Estados Unidos.
• La ley federal permite a la Patrulla Fronteriza realizar ciertas actividades de aplicación de la ley, como ingresar a un vehículo, sin orden judicial, “dentro de una distancia razonable” de la frontera. El gobierno define esa distancia como 100 millas. Las áreas de defensa nacional de la frontera sur se encuentran dentro de esta “zona de 100 millas”.

Puede acceder a más información aquí: inglés

Published September 23, 2025 at 07:39PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/f4DNZET

ACLU: Border Communities Face New Risks Under Trump’s National Defense Areas

Border Communities Face New Risks Under Trump’s National Defense Areas

In April, the Trump administration began declaring parts of the U.S.-Mexico border region as “National Defense Areas” (NDAs), as if they were restricted-access military bases.

These NDA declarations aim to give the Department of Defense (DOD) new enforcement powers along the border. For immigrant communities, the stakes are especially high: crossing into an NDA now means risking federal trespassing charges in addition to immigration charges. U.S. citizens, too, may face prosecution if they enter poorly marked areas while traveling, hiking, hunting, or working near the border.

The creation of NDAs is part of a broader pattern in President Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant strategy and his efforts to push toward an unprecedented deployment of military power throughout the country. Communities are effectively cut off from access to public lands, while states are forced to grapple with heightened enforcement and diminished transparency.

Below we break down what the new “National Defense Areas” are, how they impact our rights, and how they harm our communities.

Where are the new “National Defense Areas”?

Earlier this year, President Trump issued a memorandum transferring control of certain federal public lands along the southern border to the DOD. The secretary of defense can now designate these lands as NDAs, and has already done so in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

When describing the new areas, federal officials have typically sought to minimize their size by focusing on the inclusion of a narrow, 60-foot border buffer zone, known as the “Roosevelt Reservation,” which runs parallel to some sections of the U.S.-Mexico land border. However, in some areas the NDAs extend much farther north, encompassing highways, desert lands, and areas used by local communities.

For example the New Mexico NDA alone encompasses over 400 square miles, according to an analysis by Source New Mexico. The Texas NDA stretches for 63 miles, from El Paso to Fort Hancock. Other NDAs include those in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley and in Yuma County, Arizona. Each of them are characterized as military “installations” extending from — and often very far beyond — a specific military base.

The NDAs do not include land managed or owned by federally recognized tribes. Nor do they include non-federal land, such as state parks. However, if a person visits a state park or lives on tribal or privately owned land, and they accidentally cross into an NDA, they risk being stopped, questioned, searched, and wrongly accused of intentionally entering into the restricted area.

What power does the Federal Government assert in the National Defense Areas?

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its Border Patrol agents already surveil the region and have long-standing powers to question and arrest people who enter into the United States unlawfully. Inside NDAs, the government also asserts authority for U.S. troops to question, search and temporarily detain alleged trespassers. This risks blurring the line between civilian law enforcement and military authority.

What are the legal risks of entering a National Defense Area without permission?

Under federal law, entering one of these areas without permission can result in criminal charges for trespassing on military property, including:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1382 – entering military property without authorization. Punishable by up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine
• 50 U.S.C. § 797 – willfully violating a security regulation for military property. Punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

In recent months, people apprehended inside NDAs have already been charged under these laws.

How do the new National Defense Areas relate to immigration violations that the government might bring against noncitizens?

This depends on your citizenship status.

If you are a U.S. citizen:

• You cannot be charged with unlawful entry (or re-entry) to the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1325 or 1326, but you can still face federal trespass charges;
• You risk facing trespass charges if you cross into an NDA, for example when pulling off a highway, or hiking or hunting in desert lands.

If you are not a U.S. citizen:

• You face the same potential trespass charges, plus potential immigration charges, such as:
  • 8 U.S.C. § 1325 – unlawful entry.
  • 8 U.S.C. § 1326 – unlawful re-entry after deportation.

That means if a non-citizen is arrested within an NDA and is suspected of unauthorized entry into the U.S., they face the risk of three separate charges – unauthorized entry into a military property, willful violation of a security regulation, and unlawful entry or reentry.

If you are charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 or 50 U.S.C. § 797 for entering a National Defense Area, you have the right to a lawyer and the opportunity to challenge the charges in court. You are entitled to make the government prove its case against you. Anyone facing these charges should speak with an attorney as soon as possible for legal advice.

Are the NDAs clearly marked in order to prevent people from accidentally crossing into them?

No.

The government says it has posted warning signs, but the signs are small, only in English and Spanish, and few and far between. According to court filings, the signs are placed inside the NDAs, set back from the U.S.-Mexico border line, which means that people entering the NDA from Mexico have already crossed into the restricted area before having any opportunity to read the signs. The signs reportedly face south, which means that people entering the NDA from the north are unlikely to see any signs before crossing into the NDA.

Credit: Patrick Lohmann (SourceNM.com), Data: Bureau of Land Management and Defense (War) Department

A spokesperson for New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich noted that the NDAs have “huge implications for anyone unwittingly driving along Highway 9 who might pull over to stretch their legs and unwittingly trespass on a military base.”

If you are near the southern border, exercise caution and try to avoid accidentally crossing into an NDA. Consulting visual maps may be helpful, but DOD has not published maps of each NDA and the available maps are insufficiently detailed to offer specific demarcations for people in the general vicinity.

Can I take photos or make a video of an NDA or an interaction with an official within an NDA?

Yes, but with caution.

Taking photographs and videos of places, people, and objects that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes the exterior of federal buildings, and police, troops, and other government officials carrying out their duties.

However, under 18 USC § 795, Congress has made it a crime to photograph, sketch, map or draw “certain vital military or naval installations or equipment,” punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to a year, or both. The DOD has posted signs near NDAs, citing this crime, implying that this law applies to these new areas.

The ACLU’s position is that when you are lawfully in a public space — including a public space adjacent to but outside the boundaries of a NDA or military installation — you have the right to photograph and take video of anything that is in plain view.

Do I still have constitutional rights in a National Defense Area?

Yes. NDAs do not strip you of your constitutional rights.

Fourth Amendment – Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizure

• Officers must have specific facts suggesting you broke the law to stop or search you.
• Race, ethnicity, or language alone are not valid reasons to detain you.
• You do not have to consent to a search. If asked, you can say “I do not consent.”
• If you are detained, ask why; officials should provide a reason.

Fifth Amendment – Right to due process

• You do not have to answer questions about citizenship or immigration status.
• Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Green card holders and visa holders must carry their immigration documents and show them if asked.
• If you wish to remain silent, say clearly: “I am exercising my right to remain silent.”
• Everyone in the U.S. has the right to contest charges against them, the right to due process and the right to seek advice from an attorney.

Sixth Amendment – Right to an attorney

• If you are charged with a crime, you have the right to an attorney – regardless of your citizenship status and ability to afford one.
• If you are stopped, detained, or arrested, you can tell the officer that you demand to speak with a lawyer.

With all that said, you should keep a few points in mind:

• No matter what your citizenship is, you should never provide false documents to an official.
• In the border area federal officials have greater latitude to board buses and to set up permanent or temporary checkpoints than they do farther into the interior of the US.
• Federal law permits Border Patrol to conduct certain enforcement activities, such as entering a vehicle, without a warrant “within a reasonable distance” from the border. The government defines this distance to be 100 miles. The southern border NDAs fall within this “100 Mile Zone.”

Published September 24, 2025 at 12:07AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/AnHRIzo

ACLU: Border Communities Face New Risks Under Trump’s National Defense Areas

Border Communities Face New Risks Under Trump’s National Defense Areas

In April, the Trump administration began declaring parts of the U.S.-Mexico border region as “National Defense Areas” (NDAs), as if they were restricted-access military bases.

These NDA declarations aim to give the Department of Defense (DOD) new enforcement powers along the border. For immigrant communities, the stakes are especially high: crossing into an NDA now means risking federal trespassing charges in addition to immigration charges. U.S. citizens, too, may face prosecution if they enter poorly marked areas while traveling, hiking, hunting, or working near the border.

The creation of NDAs is part of a broader pattern in President Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant strategy and his efforts to push toward an unprecedented deployment of military power throughout the country. Communities are effectively cut off from access to public lands, while states are forced to grapple with heightened enforcement and diminished transparency.

Below we break down what the new “National Defense Areas” are, how they impact our rights, and how they harm our communities.

Where are the new “National Defense Areas”?

Earlier this year, President Trump issued a memorandum transferring control of certain federal public lands along the southern border to the DOD. The secretary of defense can now designate these lands as NDAs, and has already done so in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

When describing the new areas, federal officials have typically sought to minimize their size by focusing on the inclusion of a narrow, 60-foot border buffer zone, known as the “Roosevelt Reservation,” which runs parallel to some sections of the U.S.-Mexico land border. However, in some areas the NDAs extend much farther north, encompassing highways, desert lands, and areas used by local communities.

For example the New Mexico NDA alone encompasses over 400 square miles, according to an analysis by Source New Mexico. The Texas NDA stretches for 63 miles, from El Paso to Fort Hancock. Other NDAs include those in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley and in Yuma County, Arizona. Each of them are characterized as military “installations” extending from — and often very far beyond — a specific military base.

The NDAs do not include land managed or owned by federally recognized tribes. Nor do they include non-federal land, such as state parks. However, if a person visits a state park or lives on tribal or privately owned land, and they accidentally cross into an NDA, they risk being stopped, questioned, searched, and wrongly accused of intentionally entering into the restricted area.

What power does the Federal Government assert in the National Defense Areas?

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and its Border Patrol agents already surveil the region and have long-standing powers to question and arrest people who enter into the United States unlawfully. Inside NDAs, the government also asserts authority for U.S. troops to question, search and temporarily detain alleged trespassers. This risks blurring the line between civilian law enforcement and military authority.

What are the legal risks of entering a National Defense Area without permission?

Under federal law, entering one of these areas without permission can result in criminal charges for trespassing on military property, including:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1382 – entering military property without authorization. Punishable by up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine
• 50 U.S.C. § 797 – willfully violating a security regulation for military property. Punishable by up to one year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

In recent months, people apprehended inside NDAs have already been charged under these laws.

How do the new National Defense Areas relate to immigration violations that the government might bring against noncitizens?

This depends on your citizenship status.

If you are a U.S. citizen:

• You cannot be charged with unlawful entry (or re-entry) to the United States under 8 U.S.C. 1325 or 1326, but you can still face federal trespass charges;
• You risk facing trespass charges if you cross into an NDA, for example when pulling off a highway, or hiking or hunting in desert lands.

If you are not a U.S. citizen:

• You face the same potential trespass charges, plus potential immigration charges, such as:
  • 8 U.S.C. § 1325 – unlawful entry.
  • 8 U.S.C. § 1326 – unlawful re-entry after deportation.

That means if a non-citizen is arrested within an NDA and is suspected of unauthorized entry into the U.S., they face the risk of three separate charges – unauthorized entry into a military property, willful violation of a security regulation, and unlawful entry or reentry.

If you are charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 or 50 U.S.C. § 797 for entering a National Defense Area, you have the right to a lawyer and the opportunity to challenge the charges in court. You are entitled to make the government prove its case against you. Anyone facing these charges should speak with an attorney as soon as possible for legal advice.

Are the NDAs clearly marked in order to prevent people from accidentally crossing into them?

No.

The government says it has posted warning signs, but the signs are small, only in English and Spanish, and few and far between. According to court filings, the signs are placed inside the NDAs, set back from the U.S.-Mexico border line, which means that people entering the NDA from Mexico have already crossed into the restricted area before having any opportunity to read the signs. The signs reportedly face south, which means that people entering the NDA from the north are unlikely to see any signs before crossing into the NDA.

Credit: Patrick Lohmann (SourceNM.com), Data: Bureau of Land Management and Defense (War) Department

A spokesperson for New Mexico Senator Martin Heinrich noted that the NDAs have “huge implications for anyone unwittingly driving along Highway 9 who might pull over to stretch their legs and unwittingly trespass on a military base.”

If you are near the southern border, exercise caution and try to avoid accidentally crossing into an NDA. Consulting visual maps may be helpful, but DOD has not published maps of each NDA and the available maps are insufficiently detailed to offer specific demarcations for people in the general vicinity.

Can I take photos or make a video of an NDA or an interaction with an official within an NDA?

Yes, but with caution.

Taking photographs and videos of places, people, and objects that are plainly visible in public spaces is a constitutional right—and that includes the exterior of federal buildings, and police, troops, and other government officials carrying out their duties.

However, under 18 USC § 795, Congress has made it a crime to photograph, sketch, map or draw “certain vital military or naval installations or equipment,” punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to a year, or both. The DOD has posted signs near NDAs, citing this crime, implying that this law applies to these new areas.

The ACLU’s position is that when you are lawfully in a public space — including a public space adjacent to but outside the boundaries of a NDA or military installation — you have the right to photograph and take video of anything that is in plain view.

Do I still have constitutional rights in a National Defense Area?

Yes. NDAs do not strip you of your constitutional rights.

Fourth Amendment – Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizure

• Officers must have specific facts suggesting you broke the law to stop or search you.
• Race, ethnicity, or language alone are not valid reasons to detain you.
• You do not have to consent to a search. If asked, you can say “I do not consent.”
• If you are detained, ask why; officials should provide a reason.

Fifth Amendment – Right to due process

• You do not have to answer questions about citizenship or immigration status.
• Citizens are not required to carry proof of citizenship. Green card holders and visa holders must carry their immigration documents and show them if asked.
• If you wish to remain silent, say clearly: “I am exercising my right to remain silent.”
• Everyone in the U.S. has the right to contest charges against them, the right to due process and the right to seek advice from an attorney.

Sixth Amendment – Right to an attorney

• If you are charged with a crime, you have the right to an attorney – regardless of your citizenship status and ability to afford one.
• If you are stopped, detained, or arrested, you can tell the officer that you demand to speak with a lawyer.

With all that said, you should keep a few points in mind:

• No matter what your citizenship is, you should never provide false documents to an official.
• In the border area federal officials have greater latitude to board buses and to set up permanent or temporary checkpoints than they do farther into the interior of the US.
• Federal law permits Border Patrol to conduct certain enforcement activities, such as entering a vehicle, without a warrant “within a reasonable distance” from the border. The government defines this distance to be 100 miles. The southern border NDAs fall within this “100 Mile Zone.”

Published September 23, 2025 at 07:37PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/0ROTcVW

ACLU: Protecting Free Speech in the Face of Government Retaliation

Protecting Free Speech in the Face of Government Retaliation

The Trump administration is enthusiastically abusing its power to intimidate anyone who criticizes its policies, and to silence those who won't fall in line. Now, using a long-standing government tactic, the administration is leveraging a tragedy to justify its censorship campaign.

The government is villainizing and threatening to punish anyone who dares to express anything but unequivocal support for its political views. In the last week, lawmakers have bullied schools into taking disciplinary action against teachers who have criticized Charlie Kirk’s political views. Police officers are being put on leave for similar reasons. Federal agencies are disciplining public servants for expressing views contrary to those supported by the administration. Journalists and the media companies they work for have also felt a McCarthy-like pressure from the government, with popular late-night hosts losing their jobs after engaging with the ideas of a free speech provocateur whose tagline was “Prove me wrong.”

This forceful crackdown is part of a troubling pattern we've seen emerge during the Trump administration. In the last week, alone, administration officials — including Vice President JD Vance, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, and Attorney General Pam Bondi — have encouraged the public to call the employers of anyone expressing views disfavored by the government; vowed to use every resource the Department of Justice and Homeland Security have to identify, disrupt, and destroy groups the administration perceives to be an enemy; and claimed that “there's free speech and then there's hate speech” while threatening to “absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

For more than 105 years, the ACLU has defended the First Amendment as a cornerstone of our democracy, protecting every person’s right to speak out by ensuring the government does not use times of crisis — or labels like hate speech — as an excuse to censor views it doesn’t like. For that reason, the ACLU has unwaveringly defended the speech rights of everyone, from communists, Nazis, and Ku Klux Klan members to people accused of terrorism, climate change protesters, and gun rights organizations, to pornography companies, flag burners, and civil rights leaders.

This might seem radical to some, but as “In Defense of American Liberties,” a book about the history of the ACLU, once explained, “Critics who accuse the ACLU of taking the Bill of Rights to extremes are, in effect, voicing a more fundamental complaint about the Constitution, the courts, and some of the deepest impulses in American society.”

Our dogged, nonpartisan history of protecting civil liberties for all is what allows us to speak with authority in this tense moment and raise the alarm about the censorship campaign the Trump administration is trying to wage against the public.

At a moment when the government is using every tool at its disposal to push ideological conformity, here are five reminders about your First Amendment rights:

1. The First Amendment protects the rights to free speech, belief, and association. The government may not retaliate against people or groups because they are criticizing someone’s political views — especially when the government is trying to silence views it doesn’t like.
2. Censorship doesn’t change minds, but open conversation and debate do. To protect public debate, the First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing speech even when it is controversial or offensive. The Supreme Court put it best in Texas v. Johnson (1989): “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Without that level of protection, any “debate” would be stale and stilted, taking away the opportunity for people to discuss ideas, persuade others, or make up their own minds.
3. American law does not recognize “hate speech” as a legal category. While the First Amendment does not protect incitement — speech that is intended and likely to cause imminent violence, as established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, litigated by the ACLU — or true threats, an expression of a serious intent to commit a violent act against another person, speech considered to be hateful is not enough to qualify. Indeed, whether speech is hateful is typically a matter of opinion. As Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II said in Cohen v. California (1971), “one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric.” Posting an offensive joke or condemning someone else’s views in harsh terms is generally protected by the First Amendment, regardless of how much someone else doesn’t want to hear it.
4. The government cannot and should not respond to violence by infringing on First Amendment rights. Politically motivated killings not only take a loved one from their family and community, but also endanger the free and democratic exchange of ideas. Government actors should not further entrench that danger by using their power to suggest that certain ideas or criticism cannot be uttered in our society.
5. Government officials calling for people who expressed their political views to lose their jobs or face other punishment is unconstitutional. As the Supreme Court ruled just last year in NRA v. Vullo — a case where a Democratic government official was pressuring businesses to not work with the NRA — government officials can't use their power to pressure third parties into silencing or punishing speech they dislike. Full stop. Employers, media companies, and even state and local officials facing such pressure should remember that the First Amendment protects them from having to give in.

As history has shown, government actors seize on moments of tragedy and fear to impose ideological conformity. Such censorship is profoundly harmful to a free society — but it can be stopped if we stand together.

Published September 19, 2025 at 03:48AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/3AIlmUv