

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Elizabeth Beresford, ACLU national, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Ken Falk, ACLU of Indiana, (317) 635-4059 x104; kfalk@aclu-in.org
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; delatorre@nilc.org
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the law firm of Lewis & Kappes, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit today challenging a discriminatory Indiana law inspired by Arizona's notorious SB 1070. The lawsuit charges the law authorizes police to make warrantless arrests of individuals based on assumed immigration status and criminalizes the mere use or acceptance of the commonly used consular ID card. The groups charge that the law will lead to racial profiling and trample upon the rights of all Indiana residents.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and the law firm of Lewis & Kappes, P.C. filed a class action lawsuit today challenging a discriminatory Indiana law inspired by Arizona's notorious SB 1070. The lawsuit charges the law authorizes police to make warrantless arrests of individuals based on assumed immigration status and criminalizes the mere use or acceptance of the commonly used consular ID card. The groups charge that the law will lead to racial profiling and trample upon the rights of all Indiana residents.
"Indiana has created a law that not only tramples on the constitutional rights of Hoosiers, but also improperly involves Indiana in areas that are clearly of federal, not state, concerns," said Ken Falk, legal director of the ACLU of Indiana.
Some state lawmakers oppose the extreme law, saying it will increase law enforcement costs and deter both employers and employees from coming to the state. Indiana University has also expressed concerns that the law will discourage enrollment and academic participation, noting that the institution hosts thousands of foreign national students, faculty members and visitors each school year.
"Indiana has unwisely chosen to follow down Arizona's unconstitutional path," said Andre Segura, staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "This law marginalizes entire communities by criminalizing commonly accepted forms of identification. The law also undermines our most cherished constitutional safeguards by putting Indiana residents at risk of unlawful warrantless arrests without any suspicion of wrongdoing, much less criminal activity."
Immigration bills inspired by Arizona's SB 1070 have been introduced across the country this legislative season, but Indiana is only the third state to pass the controversial legislation this year. The state becomes one of only four, along with Arizona, Utah and Georgia, to enact draconian state-based immigration laws. The ACLU, NILC and a coalition of civil rights groups filed lawsuits in Arizona and Utah. The most troubling provisions of SB 1070 have been blocked by a federal appellate court, and the Utah law has been blocked by the U.S. district court for the District of Utah, pending further review of the Utah district court.
The lawsuit charges that the Indiana law is unconstitutional in that it unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and authorizes unreasonable seizures and arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
"By cutting off the use of secure foreign photo identification, the law has effectively denied foreign visitors, scholars and immigrants in general the ability to engage in important commercial activity," said Linton Joaquin, general counsel of the National Immigration Law Center. "These secure forms of official identification, which can be used by a visiting professor to open a bank account or by a foreign national to provide proof of identification in a wide variety of settings, are vital to both immigrants and society. This provision, like the rest of the law, is misguided and will undoubtedly have unintended social and economic consequences."
The lawsuit was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of three individual plaintiffs who would be subject to harassment or arrest under the law.
Attorneys on the case include Falk, Jan P. Mensz and Gavin M. Rose of ACLU of Indiana; Segura, Lee Gelernt, Omar C. Jadwat, Cecillia D. Wang and Katherine Desormeau of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin and Shiu-Ming Cheer of NILC; and Angela D. Adams of Lewis & Keappes, P.C.
Additional information about the delegates is available online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/urtiz-et-al-v-city-indianapolis
The complaint can be found at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/urtiz-et-al-v-city-indianapolis-complaint
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) 549-2666The Department of Homeland Security is using a repurposed $55 billion Navy contract to convert warehouses into makeshift jails and plan sprawling tent cities in remote areas.
In the wake of immigration agents' killings of three US citizens within a matter of weeks, the Department of Homeland Security is quietly moving forward with a plan to expand its capacity for mass detention by using a military contract to create what Pablo Manríquez, the author of the immigration news site Migrant Insider calls "a nationwide 'ghost network' of concentration camps."
On Sunday, Manríquez reported that "a massive Navy contract vehicle, once valued at $10 billion, has ballooned to a staggering $55 billion ceiling to expedite President Donald Trump’s 'mass deportation' agenda."
It is the expansion of a contract first reported on in October by CNN, which found that DHS was "funneling $10 billion through the Navy to help facilitate the construction of a sprawling network of migrant detention centers across the US in an arrangement aimed at getting the centers built faster, according to sources and federal contracting documents."
The report describes the money as being allocated for "new detention centers," which "are likely to be primarily soft-sided tents and may or may not be built on existing Navy installations, according to the sources familiar with the initiative. DHS has often leaned on soft-sided facilities to manage influxes of migrants."
According to a source familiar with the project, "the goal is for the facilities to house as many as 10,000 people each, and are expected to be built in Louisiana, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Utah, and Kansas."
Now Manríquez reports that the project has just gotten much bigger after a Navy grant was repurposed weeks ago. It was authorized through the Worldwide Expeditionary Multiple Award Contract (WEXMAC), a flexible purchasing system that the government uses to quickly move military equipment to dangerous and remote parts of the world.
The contract states that the money is being repurposed for "TITUS," an abbreviation for "Territorial Integrity of the United States." While it's not unusual for Navy contracts to be used for expenditures aimed at protecting the nation, Manríquez warned that such a staggering movement of funds for domestic detention points to something ominous.
“This $45 billion increase, published just weeks ago, converts the US into a ‘geographic region’ for expeditionary military-style detention,” he wrote. "It signals a massive, long-term escalation in the government’s capacity to pay for detention and deportation logistics. In the world of federal contracting, it is the difference between a temporary surge and a permanent infrastructure."
He says the use of the military funding mechanism is meant to disburse funds quickly, without the typical bidding war among contractors, which would typically create a period of public scrutiny. Using the Navy contract means that new projects can be created with “task orders,” which can be turned around almost immediately, when “specific dates and locations are identified” by DHS.
"It means the infrastructure is currently a 'ghost' network that can be materialized anywhere in the US the moment a site is picked," Manríquez wrote.
Amid its push to deport 1 million people each year, the White House has said it needs to dramatically increase the scale of its detention apparatus to add more beds for those who are arrested. But Manríquez said documents suggest "this isn't just about bed space; it’s about the rapid deployment of self-contained cities."
In addition to tent cities capable of housing thousands, contract line items include facilities meant for sustained living—including closed tents likely for medical treatment and industrial-sized grills for food preparation.
They also include expenditures on "Force Protection" equipment, like earth-filled defensive barriers, 8-foot-high CONEX box walls, and “Weather Resistant” guard shacks.
Eric Feigl-Ding, an epidemiologist and health economist, said the contract's provision of materials meant to deal with medical needs and death was "extra chilling." According to the report, "services extend to 'Medical Waste Management,' with specific protocols for biohazard incinerators."

The new reporting from Migrant Insider comes on the heels of a report last week from Bloomberg that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has used some of the $45 billion to purchase warehouses in nearly two dozen remote communities, each meant to house thousands of detainees, which it said "could be the largest expansion of such detention capacity in US history."
The plans have been met with backlash from locals, even in the largely Republican-leaning areas where they are being constructed:
This month, demonstrators protested warehouse conversions in New Hampshire, Utah, Texas and Georgia after the Washington Post published an earlier version of the conversion plan.
In mid-January, a planned tour for contractors of a potential warehouse site in San Antonio was canceled after protesters showed up the same day, according to a person familiar with the scheduled visit.
In Salt Lake City, the Ritchie Group, a local family business that owns the warehouse ICE identified as a future “mega center” jail, said it had “no plans to sell or lease the property in question to the federal government” after protesters showed up at their offices to pressure them.
On January 20, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined hundreds of protesters outside a warehouse in Hagerstown, Maryland, that was set to be converted into a facility that will hold 1,500 people.
The senator called the construction of it and other detention facilities "one of the most obscene, one of the most inhumane, one of the most illegal operations being carried out by this Trump administration."
Reports of a new influx of funding from the Navy come as Democrats in Congress face pressure to block tens of billions in new funding for DHS and ICE during budget negotiations.
"If Congress does nothing, DHS will continue to thrive," Manríquez said. "With three more years pre-funded, plus a US Navy as a benefactor, Secretary Kristi Noem—or any potential successor—has the legal and financial runway to keep the business of creating ICE concentration camps overnight in American communities running long after any news cycle fades."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari ripped the Justice Department's "indefensible and horrifying disregard for the victims," and stressed that "rich and powerful men continue to evade accountability for their heinous crimes."
Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari on Sunday called for the impeachment of US Attorney General Pam Bondi after the Department of Justice published dozens of unredacted nude photos of young women or teenagers as part of its legally required release of files related to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The DOJ released the final batch of documents on Friday, well beyond the December 19 deadline established by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Although President Donald Trump signed the law, his ties to the late billionaire and heavy redactions of previously released records have fueled concerns about the process.
While reviewing the more than 3 million pages published last week, New York Times journalists found "nearly 40 unredacted images" of "nude bodies and the faces of the people portrayed," the newspaper reported. "The people in the photos appeared to be young, although it was unclear whether they were minors. Some of the images seemed to show Mr. Epstein's private island, including a beach. Others were taken in bedrooms and other private spaces."
The paper continued:
The Times notified the Justice Department on Saturday of nude images that journalists had encountered and flagged more of them on Sunday. A spokeswoman said that the department was "working around the clock to address any victim concerns, additional redactions of personally identifiable information, as well as any files that require further redactions under the act, to include images of a sexual nature."
"Once proper redactions have been made, any responsive documents will repopulate online," the spokeswoman said.
Officials have largely removed or redacted the images that the Times flagged for them. The images appeared to show at least seven different people, although the Times did not seek to identify them.
Flagging the report on social media late Sunday, Ansari (D-Ariz.) declared that "this is an indefensible and horrifying disregard for the victims by Trump's US Department of Justice. They are still withholding the full Epstein Files, and rich and powerful men continue to evade accountability for their heinous crimes. Attorney General Pam Bondi should be impeached."
Even before the nude photos were discovered, progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) similarly called for Bondi's impeachment on Friday, pointing to not only her DOJ's handling of the Epstein files, but also its efforts to force Minnesota to turn over voter data and the arrest of journalists, including former CNN anchor Don Lemon.
Since Friday, survivors of Epstein's abuse have also slammed the DOJ, with 18 of them saying in a joint statement that the latest release "is being sold as transparency, but what it actually does is expose survivors. Once again, survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed, while the men who abused us remain hidden and protected. That is outrageous."
“As survivors, we should never be the ones named, scrutinized, and retraumatized while Epstein's enablers continue to benefit from secrecy. This is a betrayal of the very people this process is supposed to serve," they continued. "This is not over. We will not stop until the truth is fully revealed and every perpetrator is finally held accountable."
CNN reported Monday that lawyers Brittany Henderson and Brad Edwards requested "immediate judicial intervention" by US Judges Richard Berman and Paul Engelmayer to address at least "thousands of redaction failures on behalf of nearly 100 individual survivors whose lives have been turned upside down by DOJ's latest release."
"There is no conceivable degree of institutional incompetence sufficient to explain the scale, consistency, and persistence of the failures that occurred—particularly where the sole task ordered by the court and repeatedly emphasized by DOJ was simple: Redact known victim names before publication," the attorneys wrote.
While the DOJ didn't reply to the outlet's request for comment, Henderson said in a statement to CNN that "with every second that passes, additional harm is being caused to these women. They are scared, they are devastated, and they are begging for our government to protect them from further harm."
The attorney representing the whistleblower called it "confounding" that it took Gabbard’s office eight months to send a disclosure to Congress.
A whistleblower last year filed a complaint against US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard whose contents are so sensitive that the complaint itself has reportedly been locked in a safe.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that the complaint was filed in May, and it set off "a continuing, behind-the-scenes struggle about how to assess and handle it, with the whistleblower’s lawyer accusing Gabbard of stonewalling the complaint."
The Journal's sources say that the complaint is so classified that no one in the US Congress has even laid eyes on it, as disclosure of its contents could cause "grave damage to national security."
A letter written by Andrew Bakaj, the whistleblower's attorney, to Gabbard in November accused her office of trying to block the complaint from reaching members of Congress by failing to provide guidance about how it should be handled while minimizing national security risks.
Gabbard's office told the Journal that it is working to get the issue resolved but that it is taking time because of the sensitive nature of the complaint, which it dismissed as "baseless and politically motivated."
However, Bakaj told the Journal that he doesn't believe Gabbard's office is making a good-faith effort to disclose the complaint to Congress.
“From my experience, it is confounding for [Gabbard’s office] to take weeks—let alone eight months—to transmit a disclosure to Congress,” he said.
The Journal was not able to verify the contents of the complaint against Gabbard, and Bakaj told the paper that its contents are so highly classified that he has not been allowed to view it.
Whistleblower Aid, the nonprofit legal organization where Bakaj serves as chief legal counsel, called on Monday for Congress to open an investigation into Gabbard "for hiding high-level intelligence... for nearly eight months," as well as for "her attempts to bury a whistleblower disclosure about her own actions," as required by US law.
National security attorney Mark Zaid, who co-founded Whistleblower Aid, praised the organization's work in representing the whistleblower and declared in a social media post that Gabbard and her office "have a lot of explaining to do."