After the Supreme Court ruled today that it would hear arguments on the Muslim ban that a number of lower courts have ruled against, the president “clear victory.”
Hardly.
In fact, the court handed the government a sweeping, but not complete, defeat. It rejected the government’s blanket ban and recognized what all the lower courts in two separate cases saw: The ban would be devastating to families, organizations, and communities across the United States. The court also allowed the government to implement only a narrow version of the ban, explaining that anyone with a “bona fide relationship” to people or organizations in the United States cannot be barred. To view that decision as “clear victory” is wishful thinking.
As a refresher, the court was considering two cases challenging the revised Muslim ban, which had been after it was swiftly struck down in court: IRAP v. Trump and In both cases, federal district courts concluded that the order was an unconstitutional attempt to implement the Muslim ban President Trump had repeatedly promised on the campaign trail, and both courts issued orders blocking key provisions of the ban. Those orders were upheld by two courts of appeals. In a case argued by the ACLU, the Fourth Circuit in Virginia rejected the ban on people from six overwhelmingly Muslim countries, concluding the president’s order “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” The Ninth Circuit blocked that same provision and two others barring refugees, that the president’s order violated federal statutes.
The government wanted to allow the ban to go into effect immediately and completely, arguing that the appellate decisions were wrong. At most, the government contended, the lower court orders halting the ban should only apply to two individuals (one plaintiff in IRAP and one in Hawaii).
The Supreme Court said no. It did not limit the lower court orders to those two individuals alone. It did not limit the orders to the other plaintiffs in the cases. Instead, it told the government that it may not apply the ban to anyone “who can credibly claim a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”
What does that mean? Well, for starters, anyone with close family in the United States is exempt from the ban. The court explained that having a spouse in the United States would be enough to allow entry, and so would having a son-in-law. Coming to live with a family member is sufficient, and so is coming to visit family on a tourist visa. A large proportion of those who would otherwise be barred by the Muslim ban do have family in this country, and remain protected under the Supreme Court’s order.
Anyone with a relationship with a U.S. entity (like a school, employer, or nonprofit organization) is also exempted from the ban. The court was clear this has to be a “bona fide” relationship — meaning it cannot be manufactured just to get around the ban. But, again, a large segment of those who would otherwise be banned will fall into this category: students coming to study at a university, employees coming for a job, and clients and members of U.S. organizations.
So who is banned? It appears relatively few can be legitimately prohibited under the Supreme Court’s decision: individuals who are abroad and have no connections to family or organizations in the United States. To be clear, the Supreme Court did not say the ban is legal as applied to those individuals. It only allowed the government to implement this limited version of the ban while it considers whether the rest can be upheld at all.
Which brings us to the other action the court took today. It agreed to hear both IRAP and Hawaii in October. That is not particularly surprising. These cases raise exceptionally important legal questions, making them precisely the kinds of cases the Supreme Court is likely to review. We are confident that when the court reviews this unconstitutional order this fall, it will strike it down once and for all, and vindicate both our fundamental commitment to religious neutrality and the responsibility of the courts to serve as an independent check on the exercise of presidential power.
So where is the president’s “clear victory”? Nowhere to be found.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals ICE Actively Considering Proposals to Expand Immigration Detention NationwideACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals ICE Actively Considering Proposals to Expand Immigration Detention Nationwide
NEW YORK – New documents obtained by the ACLU reveal that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is actively considering proposals to expand its immigration detention capacity in at least six states across the country, including in California, Kansas, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington state. The records, obtained as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the ACLU in September 2024, disclose that private prison corporations, as well as other corporate entities that provide services to build temporary facilities, monitor compliance, and staff facilities submitted proposals for expanded immigration detention in response to ICE’s contract requests. The discovery comes just weeks after the ACLU received its first tranche of FOIA documents revealing that ICE is considering expanding detention in three different facilities in New Jersey. “You cannot have mass deportations without a significant expansion of ICE detention capacity in states across the country and that’s exactly what the incoming Trump administration is preparing to do,” said Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “Rather than permanently shutting down abusive detention facilities, the Biden administration is paving the way for President-elect Donald Trump to make good on his cruel and inhumane mass deportation proposals.” The FOIA documents reveal that GEO Group, Inc., CoreCivic, and the Management & Training Corporation (MTC) submitted contract proposals to Requests for Information (RFI) to expand detention capacity and facilities, several of which have a lengthy history of abusive conditions. The proposals for expanded immigration detention facilities include: Midwest Regional Reception Center in Leavenworth, KS – formerly known as Leavenworth Detention Center – which has a track record of abusive conditions, which led the federal government to end its contract with the facility in 2021. South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, TX – a facility where children as young as 19 months have died as a result poor medical care. Nevada Southern Detention Center in Pahrump, NV – which has been subject to a federal invesitgation for medical negligence, racial discrimination, and verbal abuse of detained people. Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, NM — which has been the site of numerous deaths in recent years, with incidents of neglect, abuse, and lack of medical care. Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, NM – which Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General cited in 2022 due to poor conditions. California City Correctional Center in California City, CA – which was previously used as a California Department of Corrections prison until March 2024. ICE also withheld a number of documents in its FOIA disclosure, obscuring the names of the specific facilities. However, the documents produced indicate that the following detention facilities are likely under consideration by ICE: Lea County Correctional Facility in Hobbs, NM (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the El Paso Field Office) Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, WA (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the Seattle Field Office) Golden State Annex in McFarland, CA (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the San Francisco Field Office) Mesa Verde Detention Center in Bakersfield, CA (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for the San Francisco Field Office) MTC facility in South Texas, which may include the Willacy County Jail in Raymondville, TX (Proposal by MTC for the Harlingen Field Office) GEO Group, Inc. facility in IL, IN, WI, MI, KT, or KS (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. for Chicago Field Office) GEO Group, Inc. facility in South Texas, which may include the Brooks County Detention Center, Falfurrias, TX; Coastal Bend Detention Center, Robstown, TX; or the East Hidalgo Detention Center in LaVilla, TX (Proposal by GEO Group, Inc. For the Harlingen Field Office) Other corporate entities, including Kastel Enterprises, LLC., and Active Deployment Systems, which provide services to build temporary facilities, and Sabot Consulting, which provides compliance monitoring and detention staffing services, also submitted responses to ICE’s request. As the ACLU has previously documented, the federal government’s immigration detention system overwhelmingly relies on private prison corporations. Private prison corporations, like the GEO Group, CoreCivic, LaSalle Corrections, and the Management & Training Corporation have pocketed billions from ICE detention contracts over the past two decades. The FOIA records are available here: /documents/multi-state-detention-facility-support-foia-documents-request-for-information -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Immigrants' Rights
Trump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, ExplainedTrump’s Remarks on Birthright Citizenship, Explained
The president-elect has said he intends to end birthright citizenship. We break down why that’s clearly unconstitutional. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Immigrants' Rights
ACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals New Information Regarding ICE’s Plans to Expand Immigration Detention in New JerseyACLU FOIA Litigation Reveals New Information Regarding ICE’s Plans to Expand Immigration Detention in New Jersey
NEW YORK – New documents obtained by the ACLU reveal that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is actively considering proposals to expand its immigration detention capacity across the state of New Jersey. The records, obtained as a result of a FOIA lawsuit filed by the ACLU in September 2024, disclose that ICE capacity could increase by approximately 600 beds in at least two facilities in New Jersey. The discovery comes as President-elect Donald Trump continues to double down on his campaign promise to implement the largest mass deportation and detention program in the nation’s history. For months, the ACLU of New Jersey and advocates have raised concerns with the Biden administration’s plans to expand detention in New Jersey, as well as in potentially sixteen other states identified by ICE. “Instead of closing abusive detention facilities once and for all, the Biden administration is simply paving the way for the incoming Trump administration to conduct mass detention and deportation of immigrant communities nationwide,” said Eunice Cho, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “The Biden administration must instead work to close these facilities now.” These facilities under consideration include the Elizabeth Detention Center, located in Elizabeth, New Jersey and owned and operated by CoreCivic, Inc., and the Albert M. “Bo” Robinson Center (ARC) in Trenton, New Jersey, which was formerly owned by the GEO Group, Inc. Both facilities have significant records of poor conditions. Investigations of conditions at ARC exposed abusive conditions including “robbery, sexual assault, [and] menacing of the weak.” Meanwhile, the Elizabeth Detention Center has also come under fire for consistent medical neglect, cramped and unsanitary living quarters, and abusive treatment from guards. The ACLU obtained these documents as a result of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation, which sought in part records responsive to a contract solicitation for additional ICE detention space in the Newark, New Jersey area. The solicitation, originally issued on June 26, 2024, sought “comprehensive detention services for adult male and female noncitizens” to “provide for general population, intake, segregated housing, and medical beds at a contractor-owned/contractor-operated detention facility or facilities.” The documents provided by ICE provide a limited glimpse of the detention proposals, as the production appears to include only the environmental impact statement portions of the proposals submitted by CoreCivic, Inc. and GEO Group, Inc. to ICE. It is unclear from the documents whether there are additional New Jersey facilities that responded to ICE’s solicitation, or how much it would cost taxpayers. For example, the GEO Group, Inc. claimed in litigation earlier this year that it has readied the Delaney Hall Facility, located in Newark, New Jersey, to conform with ICE operating requirements. “New Jersey has already taken steps to oppose immigrant detention by phasing out ICE contracts and closing county-run ICE jails. But as federal plans to expand detention in New Jersey continue, the need for protections grows by the day. That’s why it’s imperative that the Biden administration immediately halt any efforts to expand this abusive detention machine,” said ACLU-NJ campaign strategist Ami Kachalia. “We also urge the New Jersey Legislature to quickly pass the Immigrant Trust Act so that New Jersey is not complicit in separating families or depriving our residents of due process.” State officials and members of New Jersey’s congressional delegation have opposed the expansion of ICE detention in the state. Earlier this year, eight Representatives and Senator Cory Booker raised concern regarding the development of additional private ICE detention facilities in the state. Prior to that, the New Jersey state legislature passed AB 5207 in 2021, which prohibited state and local entities and private detention facilities from entering, renewing, or expanding immigration detention contracts. Both CoreCivic, Inc., and GEO Group, Inc. filed suit to stop enforcement of the law, which has been enjoined pending appeal. The ACLU of New Jersey filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of 28 community organizations in support of New Jersey's anti-detention law. The FOIA records are available here: /documents/foia-documents-re-nj-ice-detention-rfi