American Family Sues U.S. for Abusive Detention at Canadian Border
ACLU Lawsuit Charges Treatment of Parents and Four Children Violated Their Constitutional Rights
MINNEAPOLIS — The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Minnesota, and the law firm Robins Kaplan filed a lawsuit today on behalf of a family of U.S. citizens — including four children — who were detained for over 10 hours at the U.S.-Canada border while coming home from a trip to visit relatives.
During the harrowing experience, border officers surrounded the family with guns drawn. Later on, during the long detention, the father, Abdisalam Wilwal, passed out and required medical attention. Wilwal and his family were detained because he is on the government’s terrorism watchlist, but he does not know why and says there is no good reason.
The lawsuit seeks a ruling that the government violated the family’s constitutional rights, as well as an injunction to prevent their rights from being violated again. The lawsuit also challenges the lack of a meaningful process for Wilwal to contest his placement on the watchlist.
“The border is not a rights-free zone, and what this family went through was clearly unconstitutional,” said ACLU attorney Hugh Handeyside. “The government needs to put policies in place to ensure that the kind of abuse the Wilwals and their children suffered doesn’t happen again.”
Wilwal and his wife, Sagal Abdigani, live in a Minneapolis suburb with their four children, who were 5, 6, 8, and 14 when they were detained in March 2015. Wilwal and Abdigani are originally from Somalia, which they fled due to the civil war there in the 1990s. They met in the U.S. after each immigrated here in 2000 and eventually became U.S. citizens and married.
On the day of the incident, the family was driving home early in the morning from a trip to see Abdigani’s sister in Saskatchewan. A few minutes after they stopped their minivan at the border station at Portal, North Dakota, U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers came out with their guns pointed at the van. Border officers handcuffed Wilwal in front of his family, who were extremely upset and frightened. The children were screaming and crying.
The CBP officers took Wilwal into the border station, with one officer accusing him of being involved with terrorism and asking if he was Muslim. Wilwal replied that he is a Muslim — and also an American citizen. The officers left Wilwal in a room for hours with nothing to eat or drink and with his hands cuffed behind his back. He eventually felt light-headed and passed out on the floor, prompting the officers to call paramedics. The officers then gave him a small glass of water but no food, and they cuffed his hands in the front instead of the back.
Several hours later, two agents from the Department of Homeland Security arrived. Wilwal asked for an attorney and was told that if he wanted to leave, he had to answer their questions. The agents questioned Wilwal for about 45 minutes about various topics, including his religious practices, travel, family, and job. They finally set him free with no explanation, nearly 11 hours after first detaining him.
Meanwhile, Abdigani and the four children were detained elsewhere in the border station. She asked if she could take the children home and come back for her husband later, or if a friend or relative on either side of the border could come to get the children. The officers refused, saying, “You’re all the same. You’re all detainees, including the children.”
Throughout the ordeal, the children were extremely upset. As it dragged on, at one point the 8-year-old girl said to her mother, “Maybe they’ll kill us after sunset.”
Abdigani’s phone had been confiscated, but her 14-year-old son realized that he still had his phone because he hadn’t been asked to hand it over. He gave it to his mother, who called 911 and told the dispatcher that she and her family were being held against their will at the border station and feared for their safety. A CBP officer grabbed the phone and talked to the dispatcher, and the police never came.
Two CBP officers then took the 14-year-old into another room where they patted him down. They then told him to remove his clothes for a strip search, which he refused to do. A DHS document obtained by the ACLU that summarizes the incident shows that the agents also searched the contents of the boy’s phone. It also shows that the father, Wilwal, was detained because of a “record hit,” indicating that he was on a watchlist.
“My kids still have nightmares about this awful experience,” Abdigani said. “We were all so scared, I was honestly worried that we would all be killed. We can’t go visit my family in Canada because we’re afraid something like this will happen again.”
As soon as they got back to Minneapolis, Wilwal and Abdigani went to their local FBI and DHS offices to report what had happened. They were later told that it likely occurred because Wilwal was on a government terrorism watchlist. They both filled out a that the government provides for people who think they are wrongly on the watchlist, but they never heard back.
“I came to this country seeking safety and freedom, and I’m proud to be an American,” said Wilwal. “But our own government just shouldn’t be treating my family and me or anyone else this way. It’s wrong.”
According to , the government uses vague criteria and a very low threshold to place people on the terrorism watchlist. The government’s watchlisting rules state that “Concrete facts are not necessary” to meet the standard and that uncorroborated information of questionable or even doubtful reliability can suffice. As of June 2016, the watchlist included about .
“The watchlisting system is a due process disaster,” said Handeyside. “It is wrong and unfair for the government to place people on a secret blacklist and then harass them on that basis, all without giving them any meaningful way to clear their names and get off the list. The system results in major violations of people’s rights.”
Today’s complaint is here:
/legal-document/wilwal-v-kelly-complaint
More on government watchlists is here:
/blog/speak-freely/governments-own-rules-show-why-watchlists-make-bad-policy
A blog post by one of the plaintiffs, Sagal Abdigani, is here:
/sagal-blog
Immigrants' Rights
National Security
Wilwal v. Nielsen – Lawsuit Challenging Abusive Border Detention of American Family
Immigrants' Rights
National Security
Wilwal v. Nielsen – Lawsuit Challenging Abusive Border Detention of American Family
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
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.