

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.

Josh Bell, ACLU national, 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
Sandra Hernandez, ACLU Foundation of Southern California, 213 977 5252, SHernandez@aclusocal.org
Five people who have lived in the United States legally for decades filed a lawsuit today challenging a little-known government program used to deny thousands of law-abiding people citizenship, green cards, and visas on counterterrorism grounds - most of them from Muslim-majority countries. Immigrants whose applications are denied under the program do not find out why or have a meaningful opportunity to respond, the same as people who find themselves in the government's wider watchlist system.
Five people who have lived in the United States legally for decades filed a lawsuit today challenging a little-known government program used to deny thousands of law-abiding people citizenship, green cards, and visas on counterterrorism grounds - most of them from Muslim-majority countries. Immigrants whose applications are denied under the program do not find out why or have a meaningful opportunity to respond, the same as people who find themselves in the government's wider watchlist system.
The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, the national ACLU, and the law firms of Jones Day and Stacy Tolchin. It charges that the program violates immigration law, and is unconstitutional because it was adopted without any congressional approval and violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process.
"Our clients are long-time, law-abiding residents of the United States who, for years, the government has walled off from becoming citizens and lawful residents of this country without legal authority to do so," said Jennie Pasquarella, a staff attorney with the ACLU SoCal. "Under this unfair and unconstitutional program, the government has blacklisted their applications without telling them why and barred them from upgrading their immigration status in violation of the immigration laws."
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), part of the Department of Homeland Security, reviews and adjudicates immigration applications. In 2008, the agency unilaterally adopted the Controlled Application Review and Resolution Program (CARRP), which prohibits USCIS field officers from routinely approving an application with a potential "national security concern." They must instead deny the application or delay a final determination, often indefinitely. The plaintiffs' immigration applications have been pending for several years, even though the process is supposed to take no more than six months.
CARRP's definition of a "national security concern" is far more expansive than the ineligibility criteria specified by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which USCIS is required to follow. For example, CARRP automatically covers anyone whose name is on the government's Terrorist Watch List, which has been reported to include close to a million names. The government's guidelines for including people on the watchlist, which were leaked last week, show that the standards are vague and overbroad, particularly for non-citizens. The guidelines show that a person could be added to the list simply because he or she is "associated" with someone already on the watchlist, even if the government does not have reliable information about that person's activities.
"CARRP's definition of a 'national security concern' is far broader that any national security bar to immigration benefits set forth in the law," said Stacy Tolchin, of the Los Angeles-based Tolchin Immigration law firm. "It is the imperative of Congress, not USCIS, to set the standards for who can become American citizens or legally immigrate to this country."
Although the USCIS has not revealed the total number of people who have been subject to CARRP, the agency's data reveals that between fiscal years 2008 and 2012, more than 19,000 people from 21 Muslim-majority countries or regions were subjected to the program.
"It's deeply problematic that USCIS has a secret program identifying people as national security concerns based in part on their inclusion in the government's flawed watchlist system," said Hugh Handeyside, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "The watchlist system is composed of overbroad, exception-ridden standards that inevitably result in many individuals, like our clients, being blacklisted even though they are wholly innocent of wrongdoing."
The case, Muhanna, et al. v. USCIS, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court in for the Central District of California.
Today's complaint is at:
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/muhannacomplaint073114.pdf
Plaintiff bios and a video are at:
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/muhanna-v-uscis-challenge-government-program-denying-citizenship-and-green-cards
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) 549-2666One expert said that "this is exactly the kind of miscalculation—or intentional escalation, by hawkish bureaucrats aiming to scuttle talks—that can drag us into" war.
Amid recent reports that war is "imminent," the US military shot down an Iranian drone on Tuesday as it approached the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier in the Arabian Sea, according to a US official who spoke with Reuters.
Central Command spokesperson Capt. Tim Hawkins told the Associated Press that the drone “aggressively approached” the Lincoln with “unclear intent," and kept flying toward the aircraft carrier “despite de-escalatory measures taken by US forces operating in international waters."
It came after another tense encounter earlier in the day, during which the US military said Iranian forces "harassed" a US merchant vessel sailing in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Lincoln is part of an "armada" that President Donald Trump on Friday said he'd deployed to the region in advance of a possible strike against Iran, which he said would be "far worse" than the one the US conducted in June, when it bombed three Iranian nuclear sites.
After initially stating his goal of protecting protesters from a government crackdown, Trump has pivoted to express his intentions of using the threat of military force to coerce Iran into negotiating a new nuclear agreement that would severely limit its ability to pursue nuclear enrichment, which it has the right to do for peaceful means.
"Shifting justifications for a war are never a good sign, and they strongly suggest that the war in question was not warranted," Paul R. Pillar, a nonresident senior fellow at the Center for Security Studies of Georgetown University, said in a piece published by Responsible Statecraft on Tuesday.
Other international relations scholars have said the US has no grounds, either strategically or legally, to pursue a war, even to stop Iran's nuclear development.
For one thing, said Dylan Williams, vice president of the Center for International Policy, Trump himself is responsible for ripping up the old agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which required Iran to limit its enrichment of uranium well below the levels required to build a nuclear weapon in exchange for relief from crippling US sanctions.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was tasked with regularly inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities, the country was cooperating with all aspects of the deal until Trump withdrew from it, after which Iran began to once again accelerate its nuclear enrichment.
"There was 24/7 monitoring and no [highly enriched uranium] in Iran before Trump broke the JCPOA," Williams said. "Iran’s missile program and human rights abuses surged after he broke the deal."
Daniel DePetris, a fellow at Defense Priorities, marveled that "there is an amazing amount of folks who still think bombing Iran's nuclear program every eight months or so is a better result for the United States than the JCPOA, which capped Tehran's nuclear progress by 15-20 years."
With the Lincoln ominously looming off his nation's shores, Iran's embattled supreme leader, the 86-year-old Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned on Sunday that "the Americans must be aware that if they wage a war this time, it will be a regional war."
Trump responded to the ayatollah by saying that if “we don’t make a deal, then we’ll find out whether or not he was right.”
Despite stating their unwillingness to give up their nuclear energy program, which they say is legal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iranian envoys have expressed an openness to a meeting with US diplomats mediated by other Middle Eastern nations in Turkey this week.
On Monday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian wrote on social media that he had instructed diplomats "to pursue fair and equitable negotiations, guided by the principles of dignity, prudence, and expediency."
Trump is also pushing other demands—including that Iran must also limit its long-range ballistic missile program and stop arming its allies in the region, such as the Palestinian militant group Hamas, the Lebanese group Hezbollah, and the Yemeni group Ansar Allah, often referred to as the "Houthis."
Pillar pointed out that Iran's missile program and its arming of so-called "proxies" have primarily been used as deterrents against other nations in the region—namely, US allies Israel and Saudi Arabia. With these demands, he said, "Iran is being told it cannot have a full regional policy while others do. It is unrealistic to expect any Iranian leader to agree to that."
That said, Pillar wrote that "President Trump is correct when he says that Iran wants a deal, given that Iran’s bad economic situation is an incentive to negotiate agreements that would provide at least partial relief from sanctions," which played a notable role in heightening the economic instability that fueled Iran's protests in the first place.
But any optimism that appeared to have arisen may have been dashed by Tuesday's exchange of fire. According to Axios, Iran is now asking to move the talks from Turkey to Oman and has called for a meeting with the US alone rather than with other nations present.
Eric Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy, said: "This is exactly the kind of miscalculation—or intentional escalation, by hawkish bureaucrats aiming to scuttle talks—that can drag us into an illegal and catastrophic war in Iran."
“Religious readings belong in Sunday school, not in public schools," said one parent opposed to the proposal.
Less than six months after a federal judge enjoined a Texas law mandating display of the "allegedly Protestant version of the Ten Commandments" in public schools, Republican lawmakers in the Lone Star State are pushing legislation to force children to read the Bible in classrooms.
Last week, the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) voted 13-1 to delay voting on a proposed list of mandatory reading for all K-12 public school students until April in order to provide more time for feedback and thousands of corrections to a Bible-infused elementary school curriculum approved two years ago.
"This would bring the Word of God back into schools in a meaningful way for the first time in decades," SBOE member and Christian pastor Brandon Hall said last week in support of the forced Bible reading proposal.
However, as Texas parent Kevin Jackson—who spoke against the proposed list at a public hearing last week—put it, “Religious readings belong in Sunday school, not in public schools."
The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a Wisconsin-based advocacy group, said Tuesday on social media that "mandating Bible readings in public schools isn’t 'education,' it’s state-sponsored religious exercise."
"Public schools are for everyone," FFRF added. "Government has no business promoting or imposing religion on students. Church–state separation protects all Texans."
Carisa Lopez, deputy director of the Texas Freedom Network—a civil liberties and religious freedom group—said Friday that the proposal "enforces a one-size-fits-all approach in one of the largest and most diverse states in the nation."
“This kind of state micromanagement tosses aside local control and makes it harder or even impossible for teachers to tailor instruction in ways that are appropriate for their students," Lopez added. "Even worse is that this list represents another step by the state toward turning public schools into Sunday schools that undermine the right of parents to direct the religious education of their own children.”
Rabbi David Segal, policy counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, noted that “the proposed reading list relies heavily on Protestant Christian translations and leaves out other faith traditions."
“Public schools have a duty to prepare students to participate in civic life, not to advance a particular religious viewpoint," Segal stressed. "Teaching about religion has always been appropriate in public education, but what we are seeing here verges on state-sanctioned religious instruction."
The mandatory reading list also contains texts that conservative SBOE members say represent "foundational" literature that all students should know. However, some Democratic board members object to what they say is the list's lack of racial and gender diversity.
“This list does not represent the students of Texas,” Democratic SBOE member Tiffany Clark told Education Week. “For so many years, students of color have had to endure a European-centered philosophy, history, without representation of their own history being recognized. That is exactly what we see continuing to happen with this list.”
The proposed reading list follows the SBOE's 2024 approval of Bluebonnet Learning, a Bible-infused curriculum for elementary public school students that critics say violates the US Constitution's establishment clause.
Last year, Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott—a devout Catholic—signed SB 10, which forces display of the Ten Commandments in all public school classrooms. This, despite an earlier ruling from a federal judge, who found that a similar law in Louisiana was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.
In an extraordinarily pointed ruling last August, US District Judge for the Western District of Texas Fred Biery issued a preliminary injunction blocking parts of SB 10.
"Imagine the consternation and legal firestorm were the following fictional story to become reality," Biery wrote. "Hamtramck, Michigan: Being a majority Muslim community, the Hamtramck City Council and school board have decreed that, beginning September 1, 2025, the following teachings of the Quran, Surah Al-An’am 6:151 and Surah Al-Isra 17:23, shall be posted in all public buildings and public schools."
"While 'We the people' rule by a majority, the Bill of Rights protects the minority Christians in Hamtramck and those 33% of Texans who do not adhere to any of the Christian denominations," he added.
I don’t know who this man is but protect him at all costs!! He finally broke it down. So much she had no come back! See the God yall worshipping is yourself and your opinions!! I love how he use the word, the one she claims to know in his argument! Sadly they still won’t get it.… pic.twitter.com/KHqrVf5SHC
— Leslie Jones 🦋 (@Lesdoggg) January 23, 2024
If the new reading list mandate is approved in April as anticipated, Texas will become the first state in the nation to force every student in the state to read the Bible. Former Oklahoma State Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters—a Republican and Christian nationalist—mandated that all public school districts incorporate the Bible—and specifically the Ten Commandments—into their curricula for grades 5-12.
It would start with a mandate to read material including "The Golden Rule” in kindergarten, "The Parable of the Prodigal Son” in first grade, and "The Road to Damascus" in third grade.
As Hemant Mehta wrote for his Friendly Atheist blog :
The readings get more specific as students get older. Seventh graders would have to read "The Shepherd's Psalm (Book of Psalms, Chapter 23)” from the Old Testament along with “The Definition of Love” from 1 Corinthians 13. High schoolers would be reading Genesis 11:1-9 about the Tower of Babel, Lamentations 3, and the story of David and Goliath as told in 1 Samuel 17.
"What makes this proposal so damning is that Christianity is the only religious book included in the required readings, and even the more secular stories are infused with more direct religious messages," Mehta wrote on Saturday. "That’s on top of the state-sanctioned curriculum itself, which is already Bible-heavy."
"The Texas Board of Education is shoving explicitly Christian narratives into a mandatory, state-sanctioned reading list and pretending it’s objective when it comes to religion," Mehta added. "They want to privilege one (and only one) religion at the expense of all others, treating biblical stories as if they’re foundational truths and the default moral framework for everyone, regardless of their families’ beliefs."
There is an alternative proposal by Republican SBOE member Will Hickman that would increase the number of more contemporary works like The Hunger Games and Ender's Game and swap biblical texts with Judeo-Christian mythology such as the story of Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark "without any Bible thumping involved," as Mehta put it.
"That might be fine! But that’s clearly not what most Republicans are aiming for," he wrote. "They don’t care if kids are culturally literate regarding the Bible; they just want those kids to accept the Bible as true."
As if on cue, the Wiley Independent School District on Tuesday issued a statement announcing an investigation into what it called the "unauthorized distribution of religious materials" on the campus of Wylie East High School. While the announcement does not specify the religion in question, Marco Hunter-Lopez, who leads the school's Republican student club, said it was Islam.
🚨 Islamic Outreach Booth Sparks Parent Concerns at Wylie East High School 🚨
Wylie, Texas — Parents and community members are raising concerns after an Islamic outreach organization set up an informational booth on the campus of Wylie East High School during the school day this… pic.twitter.com/cNpq1aPfQf
— Texan Report (@TexanReport) February 3, 2026
At the national level, President Donald Trump and his administration have pledged to "protect" prayer in public schools.
“To have a great nation, you have to have religion," the thrice-married adulterer, serial liar, and purveyor of $1,000 branded Bibles said last year. "I will always defend our glorious heritage, and we will protect the Judeo-Christian principles of our founding.”
"We must not allow ICE to kidnap children and bring them to prisons where they profit off their pain, misery, and suffering," said Rep. Joaquin Castro.
A group of Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday demanded the termination of US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, as new footage emerged in Minneapolis of federal immigration officers drawing guns on unarmed observers.
More than a dozen Democrats serving in the US House of Representatives stood outside the Washington, DC headquarters of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Tuesday and demanded that President Donald Trump fire Noem, who has taken heat for making false claims in recent weeks about Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both of whom were gunned down by federal agents last month.
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) delivered a brief speech at the event where she described her home city of Minneapolis as being under "occupation" by federal agents sent by Trump and Noem.
"We do not exaggerate when we say we have schools where two-thirds of the students are afraid to go to school," she said. "We do not exaggerate when we say we have people who are afraid to go to the hospital because our hospitals have occupying paramilitary forces. We do not exaggerate when we say our restaurants are shutting down because there are not enough people to drive the employees to work and from work."
Omar went on to reiterate her past calls to abolish ICE, which she described as "not just rogue, but unlawful." She also said that “Democrats are ready and willing to impeach" Noem if Trump doesn't fire her.
Later in the event, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) spoke of his meeting last week with Liam Ramos, a 5-year-old boy from Minneapolis who had been detained at a Texas ICE facility before a judge last weekend ordered his release.
"While detained, he became lethargic and sick," Castro said, speaking of Ramos. "His father said that he'd become depressed. He was asking about his mother and his classmates, and most of all, he wanted to go home. But he also said that he was scared of the guards... he had clearly been traumatized."
Castro emphasized that, even though Ramos and his father have been freed from detention, there are still too many children being held at the facility, including at least one as young as two years old
"This is a machinery of cruelty and viciousness that Secretary Noem has overseen, the Trump administration has built, and people like Texas Gov. Greg Abbott have been complicit in upholding," he said. "We must not allow ICE to kidnap children and bring them to prisons where they profit off their pain, misery, and suffering."
As Democrats were making their case for Noem's removal, new footage emerged of federal immigration officers in Minneapolis pulling legal observers out of their cars at gun point.
In a video posted on social media by independent journalist Ford Fischer, agents can be seen swarming a vehicle with their guns drawn and demanding and its passengers exit the car.
Just now: ICE agents pull handguns and arrest observers who had been following them this morning in Minneapolis. pic.twitter.com/s3uIwWS3AA
— Ford Fischer (@FordFischer) February 3, 2026
After the observers were pulled from the vehicle and detained by officers on the scene, one officer in the video claims that the people in question had been threatening them with "hand guns."
An observer then asks the officer if he means that the people being taken into custody were waving firearms at them, and he replies that they were making fake guns with their fingers, not brandishing actual weapons.
As the officers left the scene, they were heckled by protesters.
"Put away your weapons you douchebag, nobody is threatening you!" yelled one.