

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.

Alina Das, NYU Law Immigrant Rights Clinic, (347) 693-6485, alina.das@nyu.edu
Peggy Morton, Austin Sanctuary Network, (512) 751-6415, peggy@austinsanctuarynetwork.org
David Bennion, Free Migration Project, (646) 441-0741, david.bennion@freemigrate.org
Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org
Four women living in sanctuary, along with Austin Sanctuary Network (ASN) and Free Migration Project (FMP), filed a lawsuit on Tuesday suing U.S. immigration agencies and officials for targeting sanctuary leaders with retaliatory and excessive civil fines.
Each of the plaintiffs is a leader in the modern sanctuary movement. The sanctuary movement originally began in the 1980s as resistance to government oppression. Today, houses of worship across the country are continuing that tradition and have come together in support of immigrant rights, including by offering sanctuary as an act of solidarity to people who would otherwise be deported.
"As people of faith called to love our neighbors, we've embraced immigrants who were fleeing violence, much of it caused by failed U.S. military and economic systems," Austin Sanctuary Network chair Peggy Morton said. "Consequently, we've witnessed abject cruelty from U.S. government officials surveilling houses of worship, retaliating against our friends with huge fines and growing unnecessary trauma among loving and courageous human beings who are not a threat to U.S. security."
The women are bringing claims against ICE and various officials under the First and Eighth Amendments and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The leaders allege that the government's discriminatory and retaliatory issuance of these exorbitant civil fines infringes upon their rights of free speech, association, and religion, as well as their right to be free from excessive fines. They also allege that the government has violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The decision to take sanctuary is an act of faith. Each of the individual plaintiffs have spoken out about their decision to take sanctuary as an exercise of their religious faith and work closely with the churches that have offered them sanctuary to expose the injustices of federal immigration policies.
In the summer of 2019, ICE targeted high-profile activists in sanctuary--all of whom fled persecution in their countries of origin--with notices stating its intent to seek up to $500,000 in fines from each of them. These notices were abruptly withdrawn, only to be re-issued several months later in 2020 against several individuals. Today, each woman faces the possibility of fines of approximately $60,000.
Records recently obtained through Freedom of Information Act litigation have confirmed that these fines are part of a years-long effort by high-level Trump Administration officials and ICE to target sanctuary leaders. The suit argues that these records prove, along with other evidence, that ICE issued these excessive fines to sanctuary movement leaders to stop them from speaking out and participating in the sanctuary movement.
"Fining us for telling the truth is an unfair way to shut us up. I decided to take sanctuary to protect the lives of my daughters, and arriving at my church without knowing anyone was God's purpose so that I could continue fighting for justice in my case," said Vicky Chavez, a plaintiff in the new lawsuit and a targeted sanctuary movement leader residing in Salt Lake City, Utah .
Hilda Ramirez, another plaintiff and sanctuary movement leader residing in Austin, Texas, noted that ICE's fines were particularly shocking in light of the fact that this very agency is preventing the leaders from working to support themselves financially: "ICE knows that I am living in a church, that I don't have my own income or a way to make my own money. I am forced to rely on the church to meet my family's basic needs, since I don't have permission to work. I am also being followed by ICE and they know that I would never have an amount of money that HUGE. I am scared and anxious, and I feel like I am being extorted."
ICE's targeting has negatively impacted the leaders' emotional, mental, and physical health, as well as that of their families. Edith Espinal, plaintiff and movement leader in sanctuary in Columbus, Ohio, recalls, "When I first learned that the Trump administration was trying to levy a fine against me, I immediately felt a chill down my spine and tears began flowing down my cheek. I was scared and angry because I saw it as an attempt by the government to punish me for trying to protect my family. I have lived constantly worried and in fear of what else the government may do against me or my children. But I have sought refuge in my faith and the love and support of my community."
Free Migration Project and Austin Sanctuary Network, two organizations working in conjunction with sanctuary movement leaders to support the fight for immigrant rights, have had to divert significant resources from other projects to respond to ICE's actions.
David Bennion, Executive Director of the Free Migration Project says, "It has been our honor to support sanctuary leaders as they continue to stand up for their families and communities despite ICE's egregious attempts to silence them. We believe that the practice of sanctuary is a sacred defense of basic human rights and an affirmation of the inherent worth of all people regardless of where they were born."
Among other forms of relief, the plaintiffs are suing for a permanent injunction restraining ICE from selectively enforcing its civil fines policy, damages, and a formal apology for the harm that ICE's targeting has caused.
"I am asking that ICE publicly recognize and correct their mistakes," said Maria Chavalan Sut, plaintiff and movement leader in sanctuary in Charlottesville, Virginia. "It's important to remember that this retaliation is falling disproportionately on women, many of whom are indigenous, who have already survived unimaginable violence and persecution. These are sacred lands, and when European colonizers came here 500 years ago, these lands had no borders or exclusion of human beings. ICE should not only rescind the fines but also pay us reparations."
Rafaela Uribe, Bertha Justice Fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, "The sanctuary leaders and families at the helm of this case have lived in uncertainty and fear for too long. These women have been unlawfully targeted by the Trump administration for organizing together to demand change in our broken immigration system. We hope this case brings them relief and brings attention to the changes needed to our unjust immigration policies that use xenophobic rhetoric to punish immigrant communities."
"ICE's civil fines were designed to stop sanctuary leaders from speaking out and are transparently punitive," said Elena Hodges of the NYU Law Immigrant Rights Clinic. "Their targeting of sanctuary leaders is just the most recent chapter of U.S. immigration agencies' long history of retaliation against the sanctuary movement," added Katie Matejcak, also of the NYU Law Immigrant Rights Clinic.
"Despite ICE's efforts to silence the sanctuary leaders, the leaders have continued to make their voices heard. The sanctuary leaders' efforts have helped inspire many faith communities and others to become part of the movement for immigrant rights. ICE cannot stop the sanctuary movement, and the sanctuary leaders are taking this action as another step toward accountability and justice," said Dinesh McCoy, a legal fellow at Just Futures Law.
To learn more about the case and read today's filing, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights case page.
For more information about the plaintiff organizations, please visit:
https://austinsanctuarynetwork.org
https://freemigrationproject.org
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464"America is strongest when we lead with our values, not when we demand immunity from them."
Days after Secretary of State Marco Rubio vowed to "dismantle” the International Criminal Court, Rep. Ilhan Omar hit back on Wednesday with a resolution urging the US to join the international war crimes tribunal for the first time.
The Democrat from Minnesota was the first member of Congress to push back against the Trump administration's pledge that it would “systematically disable” the ICC's “ability to operate, target American servicemen or officials, or otherwise threaten American sovereignty.”
“The ICC is a crucial tool for justice in places where victims have nowhere else to turn,” Omar told The Guardian. “If we truly believe in human rights and the rule of law, we should strengthen international justice—not undermine it. The United States should lead by example and show that no one is above the law.”
The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC in 1998. But during President Donald Trump's second term, his administration has waged war on the body, specifically over its investigations into Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and investigations into US personnel over alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.
It has imposed sanctions on most of the court's leadership, as well as on those who have "materially assisted" ICC investigations it opposes, including lawyers and human rights groups that have provided evidence.
The administration has also reportedly demanded that the court amend the Rome Statute to ensure that Trump and members of his administration, as well as Israeli officials, cannot be investigated or prosecuted.
Rubio's pledge to dismantle the court has drawn widespread condemnation from human rights advocates.
Agnès Callamard, the secretary general of Amnesty International, said that “in trying to discredit the court, Rubio instead highlights its very purpose: ensuring accountability when those with the power to act choose not to.”
"His arguments read like a tacit admission of wrongdoing," she said, "suggesting concerns that US officials could one day be held accountable for actions that may amount to crimes under international law, including deporting people to torture in El Salvador’s prisons or the campaign of extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific."
She said, "The only reason he would have to fear the ICC is if US officials have committed such crimes outside the United States and the US government is unwilling to hold them genuinely accountable.”
Omar's resolution came as a pair of advocacy organizations launched a lawsuit against Trump and other top administration officials alleging that they illegally "muzzle[d] Palestine advocacy" in violation of the First Amendment when they sanctioned human rights groups that called for investigations into US and Israeli nationals over war crimes in Gaza.
While Rubio has denounced the court's very existence as a threat to “every aspect of [America’s] political and legal system," and argued that it could lead to the prosecution of US soldiers simply for serving in the military, Omar said this was "simply not true."
"The ICC is an international court of last resort, intended to prosecute only the most horrific crimes—war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity—when countries are unable or unwilling to do so themselves," she said. "The best way to avoid ICC scrutiny is simple: don't commit atrocity crimes, and if credible allegations arise, investigate them transparently and hold those responsible accountable."
Omar has introduced two previous resolutions calling on the US to ratify the Rome Statute and join the ICC in 2020 and 2022. Neither of them was brought to the floor for a vote, though the latter one had nine Democratic cosponsors.
Announcing plans for a new resolution on Monday, she said, "I urge my colleagues who believe in justice and human rights to join me."
She said: "America is strongest when we lead with our values, not when we demand immunity from them. If we respect human rights, uphold the rule of law, and hold ourselves to the same standards we ask of others, we have nothing to fear from the ICC.”
"The US government should shut it down, conduct independent investigations into all abuses and deaths in custody, and put an end to mass deportations and mandatory immigration detention."
The ACLU and Human Rights Watch on Wednesday released a joint report documenting abusive treatment of immigrants at the largest immigration detention facility in the US.
The groups' report focuses on Camp East Montana, located on Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas, which can hold up to 5,000 detainees.
In total, the groups interviewed 71 detainees at the facility, along with four family members of detainees, and five legal service providers.
According to the report, people detained at Camp East Montana have suffered from "conditions of confinement that amounted to enforced disappearance, cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment, excessive use of force including one extrajudicial killing, life-threatening medical neglect, barriers to legal representation, and coercive third-country removals."
Detainees said that the camp's unsanitary conditions—which the report says include "overcrowded housing areas, bathrooms covered in feces and urine, and living quarters flooded with dirty water and dust"—have led them to develop infections and other health complications for which they have been regularly refused treatment.
One woman who spoke with investigators said that she is now at risk of permanent blindness after guards and nurses denied her request for emergency medical care, the report notes.
A Honduran immigrant identified as "Ismael M," who was detained at the camp for over five months, told investigators that conditions there were so terrible that he often had suicidal thoughts.
"I’ve gone a month without seeing the sun," said Ismael. "I am forced to live in filth... I have been taken from my family, from my home, and I know that no matter how long they keep me here, they will end up deporting me. I'm so afraid I will get killed once I am sent back. That is why I left."
Detainees also described regular beatings by guards at the facility.
A Cuban detainee identified as "Ricardo H" told investigators that he was beaten by guards simply for demanding to be fed.
"I didn’t get breakfast that day," Ricardo explained. "Our lunch is usually distributed at noon. By 1:30 pm the guards had not handed our meals out. Our meals were ready, the guards placed the food cart in front of us and were refusing to serve it. I protested verbally, I told them I was hungry and that I was human. I needed food. They ignored me so I kicked the metal door out of desperation."
This led to several officers opening his cell and beating him, he said.
"A lieutenant grabbed me by the shirt and slammed me to the ground," he said. "Six officers restrained me with my face down. I still have severe pain in my ear and in my right collarbone. They also stomped on my neck."
A Venezuelan detainee identified as "Armando G" said that he was beaten by guards after he went on hunger strike to protest food that he said was "not nourishing and was making us sick."
"I was tackled to the ground by seven guards," said Armando. "One of them was choking me, another pulled my hair and slammed my head on the ground. They were dragging me on the ground like a rag doll."
Angélica César, Aryeh Neier Fellow at Human Rights Watch and the ACLU, said the groups' report shows the camp is "a human rights disaster."
"The US government should shut it down," said César, "conduct independent investigations into all abuses and deaths in custody, and put an end to mass deportations and mandatory immigration detention."
"The bottom line is this: Seniors who choose traditional Medicare should not have their care blocked by AI," said one campaigner.
Advocates for seniors on Wednesday urged US senators to vote for a resolution that, if passed, would block a new Trump administration pilot program under which claims by patients seeking certain healthcare services through traditional Medicare would be reviewed by private companies using artificial intelligence to deny care.
Upper chamber lawmakers are set to vote Thursday on a resolution introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and supported by 20 Democratic colleagues and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to stop the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' so-called Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction (WISeR) Model.
CMS claims WISeR "helps protect American taxpayers by leveraging enhanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, along with human clinical review, to ensure timely and appropriate Medicare payment for select items and services."
What CMS doesn't mention—and what alarms a growing number of physicians and advocates—about the voluntary model is that AI-assisted reviews could contribute to inappropriate care denials, despite the required human review. Private Medicare Advantage healthcare profiteers have been using AI to deny care for years.
Critics argue that, even if a human must sign off, AI will effectively drive many of the recommendations, making it easier and faster to deny or delay care. They also warn of inevitable financial incentives tied to reducing Medicare spending, raising concerns that AI would likely be used as a cost-cutting tool.
"WISeR is not wise at all. It is a dangerous, profit-motivated experiment that allows private third parties to use artificial intelligence to delay and deny seniors’ medical care," Social Security Works executive director Alex Lawson said Wednesday. "Under the WISeR pilot program, which went live in January 2026, reports already show Medicare beneficiaries are waiting 2 to 4 times longer to access certain care."
"This is just one more example of the harm that Republicans’ disastrous healthcare agenda has already waged on American patients," he continued. "Last year, Republicans slashed $1 trillion in Medicaid and Affordable Care Act spending to line their cronies’ pockets. Now, they are importing the worst parts of Medicare Advantage—automated care denials—into traditional Medicare."
"The bottom line is this: Seniors who choose traditional Medicare should not have their care blocked by AI," Lawson added.