ACLU Comment on House Immigration Reform Proposal

WHAT: One day after the Columbia University commencement ceremony where Mahmoud Khalil was supposed to be walking with his peers, Mr. Khalil will instead be attending his immigration court hearing in Jena, LA. Virtual access is not guaranteed, but there are approximately 20 seats in the courtroom. Mr. Khalil’s legal team has requested the court grant either virtual or in-person access to interested press and public who wish to view these proceedings. The immigration court judge has not ruled on the motion. Following the hearing, his lawyers will be available for questions. WHEN: Thursday, May 22 (Exact timing yet to be announced) WHERE: Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center (830 Pine Hill Road, Jena, Louisiana) BACKGROUND: On March 8, the Trump administration and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) illegally arrested and detained Mr. Khalil in direct retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian human rights at Columbia University. Shortly after, DHS transferred him 1400 miles away to a Louisiana detention facility — ripping him away from his wife and legal counsel. While stuck in detention, he was forced to miss the birth of his first child. It later came out that they did not have a warrant. At his last immigration hearing in April, in what appeared to be a pre-written decision, a judge ruled that Mr. Khalil was removable under U.S. immigration law — despite a lack of evidence. In May, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s decision that Khalil’s case should be heard in New Jersey, where he was located when his habeas petition was filed. A decision on bail is outstanding.

Emergency lawsuit filed in federal court to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act for people within that court’s judicial district.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today issued a victory for the plaintiffs in Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, striking down key parts of a Biden administration rule severely restricting asylum. In a major win for asylum rights, the Court found that the rule’s limitation on asylum eligibility violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Court also ruled that the rule’s departure from longstanding policy requiring immigration officers to ask people if they fear persecution before deporting them is “arbitrary and capricious,” and would harm to people seeking asylum. The Biden-era rule, which was first announced in June 2024, barred people from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, unless they were able to obtain a scarce appointment via the government’s CBP One smartphone app, a process that was terminated on President Trump’s first day in office. Days after the rule was first announced, the American Civil Liberties Union, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Jenner & Block LLP, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) filed a federal lawsuit challenging the rule on behalf of Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center (Las Americas) and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES). Today’s ruling sets an important precedent for future efforts to restrict people’s right to seek asylum. In response to the Court’s ruling, immigrants’ rights groups issued the following comment: “Today's decision is a critical step in peeling back the illegal asylum restrictions at the border,” said Lee Gelernt, Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Unfortunately, as a country we have forgotten the historic commitment we made after World War II to never turn our back on people fleeing persecution.” “For multiple years, courts have rejected policies that block access to asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, and we are grateful that today’s ruling follows that trend,” said Keren Zwick, Litigation Director at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “We also appreciate the recognition that asylum seekers require more than four hours to consult with the outside world before a life-altering interview and that immigrants cannot be expected to spontaneously shout out a fear without being given a chance to do so. We hope these aspects make it clear that procedural fairness is required in the U.S. legal system.” “Today's decision recognizes the Biden-era border rule was yet another unlawful attempt to deprive people fleeing persecution of eligibility for asylum,” said Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “As evidenced by our plaintiffs' experiences, the rule emboldened border officers to ignore explicit expressions of fear and to intimidate or mislead asylum seekers into giving up their claims for protection. Many people seeking safety were summarily deported to danger, and family members were separated despite having identical claims. This decision affirms that no president can rewrite our asylum laws by executive fiat." “This decision confirms what advocates have been saying for years: asylum seekers have a legal right to a meaningful opportunity to seek protection in this country. Four hours to find and then speak with an attorney, while in federal custody, is not the way to achieve a legitimate process,” said Jennifer Babaie, Director of Advocacy and Legal Services at Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center in El Paso, Texas, Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua and New Mexico. “At Las Americas, we will not stop fighting until we do right by the countless individuals blocked from seeking safety at our borders.” “For the last year, the U.S. government has given border officials the freedom to ignore anyone’s viable claims of fear and to send them back to the legitimate harms from which they fled, endangering countless lives in the process. Today’s federal court ruling reaffirms what we’ve said time and again — that the bipartisan war on asylum has obstructed equitable access to fundamental human and legal rights in ways both arbitrary and capricious,” said Javier Hidalgo, Legal Director at RAICES. “This is a major step in righting some of the many wrongs inflicted upon people and families seeking safety in accordance with federal and international law.”

BURLINGTON, Vt. – A federal court today ordered the release of Rümeysa Öztürk, a former Fulbright scholar and current Tufts University Ph.D. student researching child development. This comes more than six weeks after the Trump administration arrested and detained her because of an op-ed she co-authored in The Tufts Daily. With this ruling, she will be able to return to her Massachusetts community and continue her studies while the case proceeds. “I am relieved and ecstatic that Rümeysa has been ordered released. Unfortunately, it is 45 days too late. She has been imprisoned all these days for simply writing an op-ed that called for human rights and dignity for the people in Palestine. When did speaking up against oppression become a crime? When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?” said Mahsa Khanbabai of Khanbabai Immigration Law. “I am thankful that the courts have been ruling in favor of detained political prisoners like Rümeysa. The public plays an important role in upholding our constitutional rights. Please continue to speak up for democracy and civil rights in every space including our elected offices, our universities, and our halls of justice.” Ms. Öztürk, who has not been accused of any crime, was taken by plainclothes ICE agents in Somerville, Massachusetts on March 25. For nearly 24 hours, Ms. Öztürk’s attorney was unable to locate her as ICE quickly and quietly moved her to three separate locations in three different states — including Vermont — before sending her to Louisiana. “From the moment a swarm of ICE agents abducted Ms. Öztürk in broad daylight, the government has spared no effort to evade accountability and deny her due process. Today, the court delivered reprieve and justice — for Ms. Öztürk, who should not have spent even one minute incarcerated, let alone the six weeks she has endured in deplorable conditions at an ICE detention center in Louisiana,” said Mudassar Toppa, staff attorney at CLEAR, a legal non-profit and clinic at CUNY School of Law. “Make no mistake, the government tried to punish Ms. Öztürk for lending her pen to advocacy for Palestinian human rights and the court's decision today is not only a victory for Ms. Öztürk, but everyone who wishes to advocate for Palestinian human rights without fear of retaliation. We look forward to continuing the legal fight to vindicate all of her constitutional rights.” Ms. Öztürk has detailed her harrowing night being shuttled across New England with little food after a day of fasting for Ramadan. She describes being shackled by her feet and stomach and then driven to different sites for meetings with unidentified men, some in uniform and some not. One group so unsettled her, Ms. Öztürk wrote, that she “was sure they were going to kill me.” At another stop, she repeatedly asked an officer if she was in physical danger. “For 45 days, Rümeysa has been detained in Louisiana — over 1300 miles from her friends, her community, and her lawyers. During that time, she has suffered regular and escalating asthma attacks. And at the same time, the government has failed to produce any justification for her detention,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “We are so relieved that Rümeysa will soon be back in Massachusetts, and won’t stop fighting until she is free for good.” Ms. Öztürk has suffered six weeks of crowded confinement in Louisiana with hardly any access to fresh air and in conditions that doctors say risk exacerbating her asthma attacks. Whereas her attacks used to last between 5 - 15 minutes, they now can last up to 45 minutes. Recent court filings also describe difficulty receiving appropriate care in detention, including delays to receive medical care and dismissive comments from medical staff. Since the government arrested Ms. Öztürk, her community at Tufts and around the country have rallied around her. Hundreds of friends, colleagues, and professors, including the president of Tufts University, have sent letters of support to the court detailing Ms. Öztürk’s dedication to her work and her community. “Rümeysa can now return to her beloved Tufts community, resume her studies, and begin teaching again. We could not be more delighted,” said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with ACLU. “Today’s ruling underscores a vital First Amendment principle: No one should be imprisoned by the government for expressing their beliefs.” “After today’s ruling, Rümeysa can return to her community at Tufts and sleep safely in her own bed. Tomorrow, she can wake up and begin the process of healing from this experience while she finishes her Ph.D. in child development.” said Monica Allard, staff attorney with the ACLU of Vermont. “Spending over six weeks in detention for writing an op-ed is a constitutional horror story. Her release is a victory for everyone committed to justice, free speech, and basic human rights.” “The government sent masked, plainclothes agents to kidnap Rümeysa off the street and lock her up for writing an op-ed. She has been a political prisoner for six weeks,” said Sonya Levitova, associate at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. “Now that she’s free and can resume her studies and rejoin her community at Tufts, we look forward to seeing the government in court to vindicate Rümeysa’s rights in full.” Ms. Öztürk is represented by Mahsa Khanbabai, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. For documents and other case information, see here.