ACLU Statement on the Introduction of Families Belong Together Act

ALEXANDRIA, Va. – In a major victory for Georgetown scholar Dr. Badar Khan Suri and a huge blow to the Trump administration, today a federal court ruled that Dr. Suri’s habeas case alleging violations of his constitutional rights may remain in Virginia. Federal immigration agents illegally arrested Dr. Khan Suri on March 17, 2025 in retaliation for his constitutionally-protected speech in support of Palestinian rights and his family’s ties to Gaza, and then secretly transported him to Louisiana and then Texas in an effort to prevent him from accessing the courts. Since then, the Trump administration has detained Dr. Khan Suri in an ICE facility 1,500 miles away from his family, despite the fact that he is a lawful visa holder married to a U.S. citizen. His unlawful arrest and detention are an extreme and unprecedented attack on the First Amendment and part of the Trump administration’s escalation of attacks against students and Palestinian rights advocates. “In just four days, ICE transferred Dr. Khan Suri among five different ICE facilities across three states – while keeping his counsel in the dark about his whereabouts – and he’s not the only one,” said ACLU-VA Legal Director Eden Heilman. “The Trump administration tried to do the same thing to Mr. Khalil, Ms. Ozturk, and Mr. Mahdawi in order to find a court it believed would be friendlier to its unlawful detention of people advocating for Palestinian rights. We are pleased the court saw through the Trump administration’s attempts to manipulate the law, and we won’t stop fighting until Dr. Khan Suri is reunited with his family.” Dr. Khan Suri’s federal court challenge to the constitutionality of his arrest and detention will now proceed in Virginia, where his wife and three young children live. The federal court in Virginia will hear Dr. Khan Suri’s motions to compel his return to Virginia and to be released on bond at a hearing on May 14, 2025. Separately, in Dr. Khan Suri’s immigration case, the immigration court in Texas has scheduled a follow-up hearing for June 3, 2025. “In this important ruling, the court has rightfully rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to spirit Dr. Khan Suri away from Virginia to manufacture jurisdiction in whatever court it pleases,” said Astha Sharma Pokharel, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “We will now continue fighting for Dr. Khan Suri’s freedom — his freedom to be with his family in Virginia, to continue his studies and work at Georgetown, and to stand in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.” In today’s ruling, the court found that the government’s “abnormal and rapid movement [of Dr. Khan Suri] across state lines” demanded an exception to the normal jurisdictional rules for the filing of habeas petitions by a person in government custody in order not to reward the government’s attempt at forum shopping. A federal judge ruled against the Trump administration last month when it found that the court can review former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil’s First Amendment claims challenging his arrest and detention. Another federal judge ruled against the Trump administration last week when it ordered the release of Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi on bond. And yet another federal judge ruled against the Trump administration when it ordered Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk to be transferred back to Vermont from Louisiana. Dr. Khan Suri is challenging his arrest and detention under the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act, and is represented in his federal lawsuit by the ACLU of Virginia, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the HMA Law Firm, and the Immigrants and Non-Citizens Rights Clinic at the CUNY School of Law. For more information, please see the case page.

Ruling follows similar one in New York earlier today DENVER — A Colorado federal court has issued a preliminary injunction blocking removals under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for people within that court’s judicial district. The ruling follows a similar one from a New York federal court earlier today. The Colorado case is D.B.U. v. Trump. The court ruled the presidential proclamation exceeds the scope of the Alien Enemies Act because there is no “invasion,” “predatory incursion,” or “foreign nation or government” as required under the act. The Colorado ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Colorado, and the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network. The following is reaction to today’s ruling: “The court properly recognized that the president cannot simply ignore the constraints Congress placed on the use of this extraordinary wartime authority,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, lead counsel in the case. “The court has again affirmed what we have always known to be true: deporting and disappearing people without notice or due process is cruel, unconscionable, and unlawful,” said Tim Macdonald, ACLU of Colorado legal director. “The federal government cannot misuse the Alien Enemies Act, a two-centuries old law that was passed in 1798 to provide narrow wartime powers and has only been used three times in our country’s history. We will keep fighting to ensure no one else is subjected to this nightmare instigated by the Trump administration. No one, including the federal government, is above the law.” “The federal government has disappeared people. People who lived in our Colorado community are gone, imprisoned in El Salvador. Instead of watching and waiting, our clients took action on behalf of themselves and countless others similarly situated in the Aurora ICE detention facility. Their bravery, the diligent work of our co-counsel at the ACLU, and the team of steadfast advocates at RMIAN worked together to gain protection against this heartless and lawless government action,” said Laura Lunn, director of advocacy and litigation at the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network. The ruling is online here.

PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit Court of Appeals today denied the government permission to appeal the issue of where Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil’s habeas case should play out. Back in April, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that it is the proper venue for Mr. Khalil’s habeas petition, as he was detained there when the petition was filed. The government argued that the venue should lie in Louisiana — because that is where the government shipped Mr. Khalil and is unlawfully detaining him — and sought to appeal the district court’s ruling. In today’s order, the Third Circuit denied that request. As a result, the case will continue to proceed in the District of New Jersey. The circuit court judges who issued the denial included Judges Stephanos Bibas, a Donald Trump appointee, Thomas Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee, and Arianna Freeman, who was appointed by Joe Biden. “It is the fundamental job of the judiciary to stand up to this kind of government manipulation of our basic rights. We hope the court’s order sends a strong message to other courts around the country facing government attempts to shop for favorable jurisdictions by moving people detained on unconstitutional immigration charges around and making it difficult or impossible for their lawyers to know where to seek their immediate release,” said Brett Max Kaufman, a senior counsel with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. ​​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 rights at Columbia University. Shortly after, DHS transferred him 1,400 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. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the American Civil Liberties Union, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the ACLU of New Jersey.

NEW YORK — A federal court in New York has granted a preliminary injunction blocking removals under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for people within that court’s judicial district. The case is G.F.F. v. Trump. The court today ruled that the presidential proclamation exceeds the scope of the Alien Enemies Act because there is no “war,” “invasion,” or “predatory incursion” as required by the statute. It also held that the government’s protocols for providing notice to people about AEA designations are insufficient and violate due process. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union, in partnership with The Legal Aid Society, whose clients are plaintiffs in the litigation. The following is reaction to today’s ruling: “The court joined several others in correctly recognizing the president cannot simply declare that there’s been an invasion and then invoke a wartime authority during peacetime to send individuals to a Gulag-type prison in El Salvador without even giving them due process,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, lead counsel who argued the case. “The court said it loud and clear: Trump cannot rewrite, ignore, or supersede our laws to justify his lawless deportation agenda. Today’s ruling rightly affirms our class members’ constitutional rights to due process and rebukes Trump’s reckless invocation of a 1700s-era wartime law to deport people to a horrific, hellhole prison in El Salvador,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “Today's decision is a powerful affirmation of our clients’ fundamental right to due process,” said Sayoni Maitra, supervising attorney in the Federal Immigration Law Unit at The Legal Aid Society. “The court rightly affirmed that the government cannot use an archaic wartime statute, in the absence of war, to sidestep due process and summarily deport asylum seekers who are lawfully seeking protection. We will continue to fight for a system that respects constitutional rights, human dignity, and justice for all.” The ruling is online here.