February, 09 2018, 12:00pm EDT
Immigrant Rights Leader Ravi Ragbir and Community Organizations File First Amendment Lawsuit Challenging the Targeting of Immigrant Rights Activists
Federal government agrees to stay Mr. Ragbir’s deportation temporarily.
New York, NY
Immigrant rights leader Ravi Ragbir, together with the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, CASA de Maryland, Detention Watch Network, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, and the New York Immigration Coalition, filed suit (Ragbir v. Homan) in federal district court in the Southern District of New York today to challenge the recent targeting of immigrant rights activists by federal immigration officials. Pending briefing and consideration of a preliminary injunction motion, the government has agreed to stay Mr. Ragbir's deportation temporarily.
Mr. Ragbir, Executive Director of the New Sanctuary Coalition, was abruptly detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on January 11, 2018 at a routine check-in, and remained in immigration detention until a federal court ordered his release on January 29, 2018, concluding that his detention was "unnecessarily cruel" and unconstitutional, and expressing "grave concern" about the possible First Amendment implications of the targeting of an immigrant rights activist. Upon his release, ICE issued a notice ordering Mr. Ragbir to report to ICE for deportation on Saturday, February 10, 2018. That deportation date has now been converted into a regular check-in with ICE, which has agreed not to deport Mr. Ragbir at this time.
"Like so many people who are living in this country under the threat of deportation, I know how important it is to raise our voices against the injustices in the system," said Mr. Ragbir. "This lawsuit is not just about me, it is about all of the members of our community who are speaking out in our struggle for immigrant rights."
ICE's recent attempts to detain and deport Mr. Ragbir come amid a string of ICE actions against immigrant rights activists, including the detention and deportation of a co-founder of the New Sanctuary Coalition, Jean Montrevil, to Haiti last month. These high profile actions prompted Arnold & Porter and the New York University Immigrant Rights Clinic to file suit today to challenge federal immigration officials' retaliatory and discriminatory enforcement of immigration laws against Mr. Ragbir and other immigrant rights activists on the basis of their protected political speech. "ICE's targeting of immigrant-rights activists based on their protected speech and political advocacy plainly violates the First Amendment. We intend to put an end to this vindictive practice," said Sally Pei of Arnold & Porter.
The lawsuit seeks, among other forms of relief, a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining the government from taking further action to effectuate a deportation order against Mr. Ragbir, while also seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining the government from selectively enforcing immigration laws against individuals based on protected political speech.
"Justice was restored today, at least temporarily, as Mr. Ragbir is now able to remain in the United States and free until the Court reviews his constitutional claims," said R. Stanton Jones of Arnold & Porter. "If the First Amendment means anything, it means the Government can't silence immigrant-rights activists like Mr. Ragbir by deporting them. We look forward to presenting these grave constitutional claims to the Court."
"Today was a good day for Mr. Ragbir and for everyone who cares about immigrants' rights or the First Amendment," said William Perdue of Arnold & Porter. "Government officials cannot retaliate against those who speak out against them. Immigration authorities are no different."
The lawsuit was joined by numerous organizations who have been harmed by ICE's aggressive tactics in recent weeks and months. "Ravi has devoted his life to the immigrant rights movement. It is a testament to his work and the work of others like him that so many incredible organizations have stepped up to challenge the unjust targeting of our movement leaders through this lawsuit," said Alina Das of the NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic.
The plaintiff organizations have issued the following statements:
"Each day we wake up in this new era of American life, we are faced with the challenge of how we will choose to live. Will we be intimidated by a regime that believes in silencing activism and dissent? Or will we choose courage, standing up for our convictions? The New Sanctuary Coalition that Ravi leads helps thousands - with growing numbers by the day - to walk the courageous route. This lawsuit is our way of asserting our fundamental right to live in truth with a voice this country needs to hear. I am proud to co-chair this coalition because we see how this administration is trying to undo our fundamental way of life. Perhaps the administration finds liberty inconvenient. Thankfully we have a constitution to stop them," said the Rev. Kaji S. Dousa, co-chair of New Sanctuary Coalition, and Senior Pastor, Park Avenue Christian Church.
"If the First Amendment of the United States Constitution means anything, it means freedom of expression and freedom of action. Freedom doesn't bring with it being singled out, silenced or deported. Freedom means the capacity to speak your mind without state intervention or retribution. In the case of Ravi Ragbir, there is clear and unwarranted punishment for legal thoughts, words and actions. Not only is this punishment illegal. It is also fundamentally and cruelly immoral," said Rev. Dr. Donna Schaper, Senior Minister, Judson Memorial Church, and member of the Board of New Sanctuary Coalition.
"Ravi Ragbir has been clearly targeted for speaking out against the injustices of our immigration system; a cruel irony that further validates the importance of his work. The immigrant community and advocates will not be bullied into silence, we will only get louder, and we will fight back with every tool at our disposal," said Steven Choi, Executive Director of the New York Immigration Coalition.
"We are outraged by the intentional targeting of immigrant rights activists by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The right to outspoken political opposition is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, and attempts by the federal government to suppress dissent by targeting activists points to a broader threat that should concern us all. As a result of this egregious targeting, activists are taking increased precautions to protect themselves, while also remaining steadfast in their commitment to expose ICE's inhumane and unjust practices. DWN will continue to speak out against ICE's egregious patterns of abuse, stand with those they target, and demand accountability for their attempts to silence us," said Mary Small, Policy Director, Detention Watch Network.
"The current unconstitutional tactics being employed by ICE to try and silence the leaders of our movement will not succeed. Through this lawsuit, we stand with Ravi and all the other immigrant leaders who demand that ICE stop targeting our communities. We call on the courts to vindicate their constitutional rights and on our elected officials to finally pass legislation fixing our broken immigration system," said Gustavo Torres, Executive Director of CASA.
"ICE's targeting of immigrant activists for exercising their fundamental First Amendment rights must end. For nearly fifty years, NIPNLG has stood with community activists like Ravi Ragbir who courageously speak out against the injustices of the U.S. immigration system. We cannot allow the Trump Administration to use deportation as a tool for silencing political dissent," said Dan Kesselbrenner, Executive Director, the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NIPNLG).
[UPDATED 10:30 A.M.] Mr. Ragbir is no longer required by ICE to check in to 26 Federal Plaza in New York, NY, on Saturday, February 10, 2018 at 10am.
The New York Immigration Coalition aims to achieve a fairer and more just society that values the contributions of immigrants and extends opportunity to all. The NYIC promotes immigrants' full civic participation, fosters their leadership, and provides a unified voice and a vehicle for collective action for New York's diverse immigrant communities.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular