SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
July, 17 2009, 12:54pm EDT
Contact:
Maria Archuleta, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Linda Paris, (202) 675-2312; media@dcaclu.org
DHS Continues State and Local Immigration Enforcement Program Without Meaningful Changes
New MOA Governing Federal 287(g) Initiative Does Not Address Program's Serious Flaws
WASHINGTON
After a congressional request and multiple Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) requests, including one from the American Civil Liberties Union,
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a new standardized
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that it will use in its expanded 287(g)
program granting state and local law enforcement agencies federal
immigration enforcement authority. The 287(g) program has led to
serious civil rights abuses and public safety concerns, and according
to an analysis by the ACLU, the changes in the new MOA do nothing to
solve these problems.
"The new standardized MOA makes no
serious attempt at discouraging illegal racial profiling or reducing
the conflict between sound community policing principles and the
expansion of this program," said Omar Jadwat, staff attorney with the
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The Department of Homeland Security
has claimed that the new MOA contains many significant improvements,
but now that we actually have the document, it is clear that many of
the claimed changes are really not changes at all, that the remaining
changes have little or no positive operative effect, and that the new
MOA actually takes several disturbing steps backward, particularly in
the area of transparency."
Section 287(g) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act provides for the delegation of immigration
enforcement authority in certain circumstances to specific state or
local agencies. Previously, MOAs between U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) and local law enforcement varied by jurisdiction, but
the new standardized MOA would govern all 287(g) partnerships.
In a comparison of the new
standardized MOA to the MOA that ICE signed with Maricopa County,
Arizona in February 2007, the ACLU found that the new MOA would do
little or nothing to correct the egregious racial profiling and civil
rights abuses that have occurred there, and in some respects, the new
MOA is actually worse than the original from the Bush administration.
The new MOA includes a list of
"priority levels" of different categories of suspected violators, but
even assuming those priorities are sound, the MOA does not include any
measures to ensure that its priorities translate into practice, such as
requiring that arrest statistics reflect the priority levels, requiring
agencies to implement an effective prioritization system or preventing
the use of local resources to go after low-priority offenders.
A number of DHS's claimed
improvements simply cannot be verified by comparing the old and new
MOAs. For example, DHS claimed that the new MOA would reduce concerns
that individuals are arrested for minor or pretextual violations by
requiring that the arresting authority pursue any criminal charges that
justified the original arrest. But the new MOA only "expect[s]," rather
than "requires," the pursuit of charges. The old MOA contained the same
"expectation."
Some aspects of new MOA are clearly
a step in the wrong direction. The new MOA reduces the amount of
experience that a local law enforcement officer needs to become
MOA-designated; expands the list of powers granted to task force
personnel; attempts to remove 287(g) documents from public scrutiny by
subjecting even state or local records to ICE control and claiming that
documents related to the 287(g) are no longer public records; reduces
the already-low data collection and tracking requirements under the old
agreement; and authorizes the exclusion of civilian personnel from some
program reviews.
"Contrary to DHS's announcement, the
new 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement is not substantially different from
the Bush administration MOA, including the much abused agreement
currently in place in Maricopa County, Arizona," said Joanne Lin, ACLU
Legislative Counsel. "This new 287(g) MOA is not government reform.
Cosmetic changes to a written agreement will not solve the fundamental
problems associated with local police enforcement of federal civil
immigration laws. Under the Bush administration 287(g) program, local
law enforcement committed illegal profiling and civil rights violations
under the cloak of federal immigration authority. Under the newly
released 287(g) MOA, local law enforcement are free to continue the
same abuse of power. It is time for the Department of Homeland Security
and Congress to end, not mend, the 287(g) program."
The new standardized MOA, Maricopa County's MOA and the ACLU side-by-side comparison of the two can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/local/40350lgl20090716.html
The ACLU's FOIA request can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/40308lgl20090714.html
ACLU's submitted testimony on 287 (g) program can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants/gen/39062leg20090304.html
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
'Planet Wreckers': 4 Rich Nations Plotting Nearly 70% of New Oil and Gas Over Next Decade
"This is not just hypocrisy," said one climate campaigner. "It is a death sentence for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis."
Jun 16, 2025
Four wealthy nations—the United States, Canada, Norway, and Australia—account for the majority of planned oil and gas expansion over the next decade, according to new data published by Oil Change International on Monday, the first day of the Bonn Climate Change Conference in Germany.
Oil Change's analysis, titled Planet Wreckers, notes that if those four Global North nations stopped their planned new oil and gas extraction, 32 billion tons of carbon pollution would stay in the ground instead of being burned and released into the atmosphere, where they fuel planetary heating. That's the equivalent of three times the annual global emissions created by burning coal.
"A handful of the world's richest nations remain intent on leading us into disaster. This is not just hypocrisy. It is a death sentence for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis," Oil Change International global policy lead Romain Ioualalen said in a statement Monday.
"It is sickening that countries with the highest incomes and outsized historical responsibility for causing the climate crisis are planning massive oil and gas expansion with no regard for the lives and livelihoods at stake," Ioualalen added.
(Image: Oil Change International)
Nations that took part in the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP28, in Dubai committed to an equitable transition from fossil fuels. However, as Ioualalen noted, "this commitment is largely being ignored by some of the world's richest countries."
"Equity is not a buzzword. It is a foundational requirement to accelerate the transition," he asserted. "Until the richest countries commit to ending fossil fuel production and use and deliver adequate climate finance on fair terms, global calls for fossil fuel phaseout will ring hollow to developing countries that are struggling to meet development, energy access, and climate resilience needs."
The prospects of the U.S. making any meaningful near-term contribution to such a transition are dim given the Trump administration's "drill, baby, drill" energy policy.
The new report, and this year's Bonn conference, come between last year's COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan and the upcoming COP30 in Belém, Brazil. Oil Change noted that Brazil ranks among the 10 largest projected expanders of oil and gas over the next decade, with plans to surpass Saudi Arabia.
"Countries have an opportunity to course correct by working together," Ioualalen stressed. "COP30 must deliver a collective roadmap for equitable phaseout dates for fossil fuel production and use, to actually deliver on commitments all countries made at COP28."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Gold Phone and Mobile Service Blasted as Latest 'Trump Family Profiteering'
"Good luck getting a federal agency to hold the company accountable if service fails or things go off the rails," said one critic.
Jun 16, 2025
The Trump Organization on Monday announced the creation of a new cellular phone service named after U.S. President Donald Trump and teased the upcoming release of a gold, $499 smartphone—news that elicited swift rebuke from two watchdog groups.
"The limit to Trump family profiteering does not exist," wrote the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in response to Eric Trump discussing the update on Fox Business Network on Monday.
The new wireless service, called "Trump Mobile," advertises a $47.45 a month plan, and will operate as a licensing agreement.
"Trump Mobile, its products and services are not designed, developed, manufactured, distributed, or sold by the Trump Organization or any of their respective affiliates or principals," according to a Monday statement from the Trump Organization, which is headed by the president's sons, Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. "T1 Mobile LLC uses the 'Trump' name and trademark pursuant to the terms of a limited license agreement which may be terminated or revoked according to its terms."
According to that same statement, Trump Mobile will offer 5G service in partnership with existing major cellular carriers. It will also offer unlimited talk and text and other benefits, and subscribers to the plan will receive "telehealth services, including virtual medical care, mental health support, and easy ordering and delivery for prescription medications."
In addition to the new wireless service, a gold-colored "T1" smartphone will be available starting September, according to the Trump Mobile website.
"It seems utterly unfathomable that you could build a phone with this set of specs, at this price, to be delivered in September," remarked David Pierce, editor-at-large at The Verge.
The new wireless phone service is one of several products featuring the Trump name, including the $TRUMP meme coin.
Trump reported over $600 million in income stemming from a variety of ventures, including cryptocurrency, in a public financial disclosure report that appeared to cover the period of 2024 and which was released on Friday, according to Reuters. The report showed that Trump made millions in royalty payments for products that feature his name and likeness, according to NBC News. $TRUMP was released in January and not included in the filing, per NBC.
"The foray into phones raises new questions about conflicts of interest, with the president's family business entering a sector heavily regulated by federal agencies while Trump wields executive power over them," The Guardianreported on Monday. "It creates a particularly difficult situation for the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, who must now oversee regulatory matters affecting a network bearing his boss's name."
Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, wrote on Monday that "Americans should slam down the phone in response to the latest marketing ploy from the Trump family business. Everything about this plan should tell Americans to disconnect right away."
Weissman cast doubt on the plan for a number of reasons, including that the physical phone would be designed and built in the United States. While speaking on "The Benny Show," Eric Trump said Monday that "eventually all the phones can be built in the United States."
Separately, Weissman added, "Good luck getting a federal agency to hold the company accountable if service fails or things go off the rails."
"We'll need many more details to fully assess what's going on—including the worrisome claim of offering a pharmacy and telehealth benefit—but it's already clear this is a plan that should be canceled, immediately," Weissman concluded.
Keep ReadingShow Less
American Bar Association Sues to End Trump 'Law Firm Intimidation Policy'
"There has never been a more urgent time for the ABA to defend its members, our profession and the rule of law itself," said the group's president.
Jun 16, 2025
The American Bar Association sued U.S. President Donald Trump's administration in a Washington, D.C. federal court on Monday over what the ABA called his "law firm intimidation policy."
"Since taking office earlier this year, President Trump has used the vast powers of the executive branch to coerce lawyers and law firms to abandon clients, causes, and policy positions the president does not like," states the ABA complaint, which names various entities and leaders in the administration as defendants.
The document lays out how the administration has carried out this policy using "executive orders designed to severely damage particular law firms and intimidate other firms and lawyers," as well as "'deals' or 'settlements' between the administration and certain law firms in order to avoid such orders or have them rescinded."
Trump's administration has also relied on "other related executive orders, letters, and memoranda," and "public statements by the president and his administration publicizing the objectives of the law firm intimidation policy," the complaint details. "The president's attacks on law firms through the faw firm orders are thus not isolated events, but one component of a broader, deliberate policy designed to intimidate and coerce law firms and lawyers to refrain from challenging the president or his administration in court, or from even speaking publicly in support of policies or causes that the president does not like."
The filing stresses that "without skilled lawyers to bring and argue cases—and to do so by advancing the interests of their clients without fear of reprisal from the government—the judiciary cannot function as a meaningful check on executive overreach."
Some firms are already fighting back against Trump's attacks, which the ABA called "unprecedented and uniquely dangerous to the rule of law." As Bloombergdetailed Monday:
Three firms hit with executive orders—Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—later obtained permanent injunctions against the executive orders, with judges striking them down as unconstitutional. Susman has obtained a temporary injunction and is awaiting a ruling on a request for a final decision.
Nine other firms have pledged a total of nearly $1 billion in free legal services as part of deals to avoid similar orders. They committed to working on causes championed by Trump, including combating antisemitism, assisting veterans, and ensuring fairness" in the justice system.
After powerhouse firm Paul Weiss struck a deal with Trump, eight others—A&O Shearman, Cadwalader, Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, Milbank, Simpson Thacher, Skadden Arps, and Wilkie Farr—followed suit. The firms have faced intense criticism for the agreements.
Meanwhile, as the ABA filing points out, "public reporting demonstrates that the chill on the legal profession—and particularly on 'Big Law' firms—has not been relieved by these favorable rulings. 504 law firms filed an amicus brief in support of Perkins' motion for summary judgment. As was widely reported, though, none of the top 25 U.S. law firms by revenue signed the brief, and fewer than 10 of the top 100 firms (the AmLaw 100) signed."
"By the time Susman filed its motion for summary judgment, four different judges had enjoined executive orders targeting law firms as likely unconstitutional," the complaint adds. "Yet still, fewer than 10 of the AmLaw 100 firms signed the brief in support of Susman, and none of the top 25 firms did."
The complaint also highlights other impacts, including that "many attorneys are no longer willing to take on representations that would require suing the federal government," and "others have dropped ongoing representations; ended their participation in
contemplated cases; or declined representations—even of clients with whom they had longstanding prior attorney-client relationships—not because the merits of the case were weak or the attorney had some substantive objection to taking the case, but because the representation was deemed too likely to result in severe retaliation from the president."
"Public interest attorneys who rely on their partnership with and representation by law firms—particularly in time- and resource-intensive pro bono cases—have not brought cases that they otherwise would have because their choice of counsel has been compromised," the filing says. "Still others have abstained from expression related to their prior representations that they would otherwise have engaged in, or even removed existing writings related to past representations from the public sphere."
"And those attorneys who do intend to proceed with work disfavored by the president now do so under the objective threat of potentially devastating retaliation pursuant to the policy, with all the severe harm, expense, and distraction that accompany such threat," the document warns. "All such harms are already happening; are ongoing; and will continue in the absence of relief from the court."
While the White House hasn't yet commented on ABA v. Executive Office of the President et al., William R. Bay, president of the association, said in a Monday statement that "this is the time to stand up, speak out and seek relief from our courts... There has never been a more urgent time for the ABA to defend its members, our profession, and the rule of law itself."
This is not the legal group's only case against the administration. Bloomberg noted that "the ABA earlier this year laid off one-third of its workforce after the Trump administration cut $69 million of its grant funding. The organization is waging another suit against the Justice Department as it tries to cut another $3.2 million in federal grants."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular