ACLU Sues Over Abuse Of Photographers By Border Patrol Agents
The ACLU of San Diego filed a today against the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) for violating the constitutional rights of two photographers, and for maintaining an official policy prohibiting the use of cameras and video recorders at or near U.S. crossing points, which violates the Constitution.
I spoke with David Loy of the ACLU of San Diego, who told me about his two clients in this case and what they experienced:
One of our clients is Ray Askins, an environmental activist who lives in Mexicali, Mexico—he’s an American citizen, also has a house in California. He was on the U.S. side of the border, in Calexico, standing on city street—and Calexico is a small city, the streets go literally right up to the port of entry. He was standing on the shoulder of a city street in the United States, about 50 to 100 yards from the exit to the port of entry building, taking pictures of it. He wanted to illustrate a powerpoint he was preparing to present at a conference on environmental issues; there’s substantial concern among environmentalists over pollution at the border, particularly emissions from vehicles backed up at ports of entry.
At this point a number of CBP agents emerged from the port of entry, detained him, grabbed him, threatened to smash his camera, brought him inside, handcuffed him, roughed him up, frisked him, deleted his photos, and otherwise blatantly abused his constitutional and human rights. For no valid reason that we can possibly see.
And he—as an activist, he has been in contact with border officials, and when he emailed director of Calexico Port of Entry, the director responded that the area in question is under the jurisdiction of CBP, that CBP security policies prohibit visitors at CBP-controlled facilities from using cameras without the prior approval of senior officials.
This is breathtaking—he was not inside the building, he was on a city street outside the building. They openly admit that they have a policy prohibiting him from taking pictures, and they asserted that that policy extends beyond the interior of the building itself. We dispute the validity of that policy even as it applies to the interior of that building in all circumstances. But they even asserted that it covers any photography of that building from anywhere outside the building itself.
The other plaintiff in the case is Christian Ramirez, the human rights director of Alliance San Diego, a social justice nonprofit. He’s a longtime human rights activist who works documenting human rights abuses at the border. Loy described Ramirez’s experience:
In June 2010 he crossed to Tijuana, and he was returning with his wife. After passing through the border without incident, he was crossing a pedestrian bridge over Interstate 5 on the U.S. side. As he crossed the bridge, he noticed an outbound border checkpoint—CBP has been running for the past couple of years outbound checkpoints, allegedly to stem the flow of guns and cash to Mexico. He was concerned because as he observed the checkpoint, he saw that male officers were frisking women. And so he took out his phone—he wanted to take pictures to document what he was concerned might be human rights abuses. There have been substantial concerns about human rights abuses at the border—several ACLU affiliates recently filed a complaint with DHS on abuses along the southern border.
And the same thing happened: he was on the U.S. side, he was on a public sidewalk—an area totally open to the public—and two men approached him who appeared to be private security officers, employed by CBP. They demanded his ID documents, he declined to give them, said he’d already passed through the border inspection. They ordered him to stop taking pictures, he declined. They kept going down the bridge. And then at the bottom of the bridge they were surrounded by five to seven CBP officers. They demanded to know why he’d taken any pictures, they demanded his phone, and took his phone, took his passport, scrolled through his photos, deleted photos he’d just taken. There was an officer who got very aggressive with him, saying “just give me a reason to take you down.” All for doing nothing more than the peaceful act of photographing public law enforcement conduct.
The courts have been quite clear and consistent on the fact that photography is a First Amendment right, but apparently word has not reached the Customs and Border Protection agency. And as Loy points out, that right is nowhere more strongly established than in circumstances such as those encountered by his clients:
Apart from the inherent First Amendment right to take pictures of things happening in public, there’s a particularly strong First Amendment interest in holding government accountable. And particularly, holding border agencies accountable—because there’s a record of abuse there. Among the border law enforcement agencies there’s a culture of coercion, a culture of opacity, a culture of resistance to transparency and accountability. It’s a systemic problem with law enforcement in general, but it’s especially acute along the border. CBP has grown exponentially in the last 10 years, and they routinely act as if they’re above the law. They routinely resist accountability and transparency, routinely order people to stop taking pictures. I’ve even heard stories of them ordering people to stop watching them through binoculars. It’s an outrage that any law enforcement agency, but especially a federal agency, is so resistant to having their public actions documented.
The ACLU’s complaint (online ) includes much more detailed tellings of his two client’s experiences. It alleges violations of the clients’ First Amendment rights to free speech, and Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure and against excessive use of force.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
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.