August, 05 2021, 10:55am EDT
ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging Texas Migrant Transportation Order
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas are suing Texas Gov. Greg Abbott over his executive order that bars the transportation of certain migrants in the state.
The filing follows Tuesday's ruling in a separate challenge brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which the judge paused the enforcement of the executive order for 10 days. The ACLU lawsuit differs from the DOJ case because the plaintiffs present the range of harms caused by the executive order to border communities, asylum seekers, their families, shelters, and drivers throughout Texas.
EL PASO, Texas
The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas are suing Texas Gov. Greg Abbott over his executive order that bars the transportation of certain migrants in the state.
The filing follows Tuesday's ruling in a separate challenge brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, in which the judge paused the enforcement of the executive order for 10 days. The ACLU lawsuit differs from the DOJ case because the plaintiffs present the range of harms caused by the executive order to border communities, asylum seekers, their families, shelters, and drivers throughout Texas.
The ACLU filed the federal lawsuit on behalf of Annunciation House, one of the largest shelter providers on the U.S.-Mexico border, based in El Paso, Texas; Angry Tias & Abuelas of the Rio Grande Valley, a volunteer organization that aids migrants; Jennifer Harbury, a humanitarian volunteer who frequently drives migrants; and FIEL Houston, an immigrants' rights organization with members who include recently arrived migrants subject to restrictions on travel due to the executive order.
"We are challenging this executive order because it is illegal and inhumane," said Spencer Amdur, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. "The governor of Texas cannot veto federal decisions about who can live in this country. And state police cannot be stopping drivers and impounding cars they suspect of carrying asylum seekers. This is an unprecedented attack on the federal immigration system and it must be struck down."
The order, signed last week, mandates that state law enforcement officers pull over drivers they suspect of transporting migrants, including migrants whom the Department of Homeland Security has allowed to enter and reside in the United States. It gives state officials unilateral authority to make guesses about complex immigration status questions, and if the order goes into effect, it will lead to arbitrary detention, questioning, racial profiling, property seizure, and heavy fines.
The order keeps migrants in Texas from engaging in all kinds of essential activities. It upends the system of onward travel for asylum seekers arriving at the border: once released from federal custody, migrants travel to shelters, to medical care, and to bus stations and airports for onward travel in groups. Under this order, shelters can no longer pick up asylum seekers or take them to get food, attend court hearings, or see doctors. The vast majority of migrants leave the border by bus, and are unable to join family members in other parts of Texas and other states. And Texans now face a harsh regime of arbitrary arrests by state officers, who are empowered to stop and question a driver they suspect of transporting asylum seekers, and to seize their vehicles or force them to drive to the border.
"Governor Abbott's executive order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens to turn Texas into a 'show me your papers' state," said Kate Huddleston, an attorney at the ACLU of Texas. "The order creates the perfect storm for racial profiling by allowing state troopers to view any group of people as 'certain immigrants' violating the order. It will lead to unlawful detention, vehicle seizure, and the forced 'rerouting' of vehicles to the Texas-Mexico border. This is yet another assault on Texans' civil rights by the governor and an effort to scapegoat immigrants in the state."
As the lawsuit explains, the order unlawfully interferes with the federal government's handling of immigration policy and foreign affairs. State and local law enforcement officers are not authorized to detain or arrest people based on their own suspicion of their immigration status, including individuals who are undocumented.
The lawsuit challenges the executive order as violating the Supremacy Clause, federal immigration law, and the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures."
The following are comments from the plaintiffs in this case:
Ruben Garcia, Director, Annunciation House: "Our shelters are places of temporary hospitality for asylum seekers who are traveling on to their ultimate destination, frequently after long and difficult journeys to reach El Paso. If we cannot help people reach their onward destinations, we will have to close our doors. Simply put, Governor Abbott's executive order prevents us from doing what we do -- serving migrants and refugees in our vibrant community."
Angry Tias & Abuelas of the Rio Grande Valley: "Our beloved fellow Tia Susan Law recently passed away. It is fitting that we file this lawsuit today to fulfill our mission of dignity and justice for asylum seekers. In doing so, we honor Susan's life and courageous work as part of the Tias."
Jennifer Harbury: "I recently assisted a woman and her little boy who were kidnapped three times in Reynosa, Mexico. She was gang raped in front of her child. I loved driving them to the movies, to ride a tricycle in the park -- the normal things after so much trauma. If the governor thinks he's going to scare me off from doing that, I'd say to him, 'Just go home, Mr. Abbott, just go home.'"
Cesar Espinoza, Executive Director, FIEL Houston: "We are proud to once again join with the ACLU to oppose bad policy which at the end of the day hurts our community as a whole. If Governor Abbott continues to erode community trust through these bad policies, we fear that our members will be afraid to come forward as witnesses and victims of crimes. We must do better to protect our community and we must not continue to put the blame on the immigrant community for everything -- including the growing pandemic in the state of Texas, which has worsened in large part due to the governor's irresponsibility."
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in El Paso, Texas.
Complaint: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/complaint-annunciation-house-v-abbott
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
128 House Democrats Join GOP to Kill Trump Impeachment Resolution
Rep. Al Green's measure calls the president "a threat to American democracy."
Jun 24, 2025
Over half of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives voted alongside all Republicans present on Tuesday to kill Rep. Al Green's impeachment resolution spurred by President Donald Trump's attack on Iranian nuclear sites.
The vote to table the Texas Democrat's five-page measure was 344-79, with 128 Democratic members of the House—including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.)—and 216 Republicans coming together to block the effort.
While Green has pushed to impeach the Republican president over various actions, his new resolution accuses Trump of abuse of presidential powers by disregarding congressional authority to declare war.
"President Trump's unilateral, unprovoked use of force without congressional authorization or notice constitutes an abuse of power when there was no imminent threat to the United States, which facilitates the devolution of American democracy into authoritarianism, with an authoritarian president who has instigated an attack on the United States Capitol, denied persons due process of the law, and called for the impeachment of federal judges who ruled against him—making Donald J. Trump a threat to American democracy," the resolution states.
"In starting his illegal and unconstitutional war with Iran without the constitutionally mandated consent of Congress or appropriate notice to Congress, President Trump acted in direct violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution," it continues.
The vote came after Jeffries faced criticism for telling reporters he had not looked at a bipartisan resolution that would require congressional approval for military action against Iran—and as Democratic leaders are under fire for their tepid response to Trump and GOP lawmakers.
In a statement after Tuesday's vote, John Bonifaz, a constitutional attorney and president of the advocacy group Free Speech for People, commended Green "for his courage and his leadership," and praised all 79 Democrats who "abided by their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and voted no on the motion to table this article of impeachment."
"Those who voted yes on that motion will be recorded in history for ignoring their oath and standing on the sidelines while this lawless president tramples on the Constitution," he argued. "They will now need to answer to their constituents on why, in the face of this attack on the Constitution, they did not stand up."
Bonifaz also noted his group's campaign to oust the Republican leader and predicted that "this was the first vote on impeaching Donald Trump in this presidential term, but it will not be the last." Trump was impeached twice during his first term.
"More than 700,000 people across the country have already joined us at www.impeachtrumpagain.org to demand that members of Congress do their job and impeach and remove Trump from public office for his multiple abuses of power," he said. "This movement will only continue to grow, and we will continue to stand up in the defense of our democracy and our Constitution at this critical moment in history."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Performative Bullsh*t': 16 House Republicans Get Cold Feet Over Medicaid Cuts
However, one critic noted that the lawmakers "already voted for the largest cut to Medicaid in American history—and when the time comes, they'll cave... once again to give their billionaire donors a massive tax break."
Jun 24, 2025
Under pressure from millions of constituents who would be stripped of healthcare coverage under the GOP's slash-and-burn reconciliation package, more than a dozen House Republicans claimed Tuesday that they would not back the Senate's version of the legislation if it contains proposed cuts to the Medicaid provider tax.
"Protecting Medicaid is essential for the vulnerable constituents we were elected to represent. Therefore, we cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers," wrote 16 House Republicans led by Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.)—whose largely rural Central Valley district has one of the highest concentration of Medicaid recipients in the nation—in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.).
"Throughout the budget process, we have consistently affirmed our commitment to ensuring that reductions in federal spending do not come at the expense of our most vulnerable constituents," the lawmakers' letter continues. "We write to reiterate that commitment to those we represent here in Washington."
"We support the Medicaid reforms in H.R. 1, which strengthen the program's ability to serve children, pregnant women, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities," the letter states, referring to provisions in the House version of the so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" that would still slash federal Medicaid spending by billions of dollars, introduce work requirements for recipients, and impose other conditions that critics say would result in millions of vulnerable people losing their coverage in order to pay for a massive tax cut that would disproportionately benefit the wealthy and corporations.
The letter continues:
The Senate proposal also undermines the balanced approach taken to craft the Medicaid provisions in H.R. 1—particularly regarding provider taxes and state directed payments. The Senate version treats expansion and nonexpansion states unfairly, fails to preserve existing state programs, and imposes stricter limits that do not give hospitals sufficient time to adjust to new budgetary constraints or to identify alternative funding sources.
We are also concerned about rushed implementation timelines, penalties for expansion states, changes to the community engagement requirements for adults with dependents, and cuts to emergency Medicaid funding. These changes would place additional burdens on hospitals already stretched thin by legal and moral obligations to provide care.
"Protecting Medicaid is essential for the vulnerable constituents we were elected to represent," the lawmakers concluded. "Therefore, we cannot support a final bill that threatens access to coverage or jeopardizes the stability of our hospitals and providers."
Both chambers of Congress are scheduled to be on recess next week for the Independence Day holiday. Senators still have not voted on the package—and both chambers must pass identical versions of the megabill before it will reach President Donald Trump's desk.
Trump impatiently said on his Truth Social network Tuesday: "To my friends in the Senate, lock yourself in a room if you must, don't go home, and GET THE DEAL DONE THIS WEEK. Work with the House so they can pick it up, and pass it, IMMEDIATELY. NO ONE GOES ON VACATION UNTIL IT'S DONE."
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokesperson Justin Chermol dismissed the 16 GOP lawmakers' letter as "performative bullshit."
"These so-called moderates already voted for the largest cut to Medicaid in American history—and when the time comes, they'll cave to their D.C. party bosses once again to give their billionaire donors a massive tax break," Chermol added.Keep ReadingShow Less
Three Years After Roe Reversal, Abortion Rights Defenders Say Dobbs Legitimized Extremism
"These anti-choice fanatics will stop at nothing. They don't think their work is finished even after such a horrible and wide-ranging decision as Dobbs," warned the Senate's top Democrat.
Jun 24, 2025
Reproductive freedom advocates on Tuesday marked the third anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court reversingRoe v. Wade by calling out Republican decision-makers—including President Donald Trump—for the harmful impacts of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.
"Three years after the Supreme Court's devastating Dobbs decision stripped away constitutional protections for reproductive freedom, we face not only the predicted economic catastrophe but a terrifying escalation of political violence targeting women's rights advocates," said Equal Rights Advocates executive director Noreen Farrell, pointing to the recent assassination of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman (DFL-61) and attempted murder of state Sen. John Hoffman (DFL-34).
"Equal Rights Advocates warned that Dobbs would unleash more than legal restrictions—it would legitimize extremism. Now we see the tragic fulfillment of that prediction," Farrell continued. "This administration's policies represent calculated economic warfare against women, particularly low-income women and women of color. The case of Adriana Smith last week illustrates the extreme consequences of the Dobbs decision—a pregnant Black woman denied medical care, becoming a brain-dead incubator for a fetus against her medical directive and her family's wishes."
"In the 21 states with abortion bans and extreme restrictions, women continue to die, and along with their providers, are being threatened, targeted, and criminalized."
The Georgia law doctors at Emory University Hospital cited to keep Smith on life support—allegedly without the input or consent of her family—until her fetus could be delivered is one of various anti-choice state laws that took effect after Dobbs.
"For the last three years, we have witnessed firsthand what happens when politicians try to control the rights of people to practice basic bodily autonomy—with dire results," said Dr. Jamila Perritt, an OB-GYN and abortion provider who serves as president and CEO of Physicians for Reproductive Health, in a Tuesday statement.
"We have seen countless people forced to leave their communities to get basic healthcare, forced to remain pregnant when they wouldn't have otherwise, criminalized for experiencing pregnancy loss, and ultimately, we have seen people dying after being turned away when seeking emergency abortion care," Perritt detailed.
The Guttmacher Institute on Tuesday released new data about the 155,000 abortion patients who traveled out of state to obtain care last year. The group said that "similar to 2023, Illinois remained a critical access point in 2024, with 35,470 patients traveling from across the South and Midwest to obtain abortion care in the state."
Guttmacher Institute data scientist and study lead Isaac Maddow-Zimet noted that "while these findings show us where and how far patients are traveling, they are not able to capture the numerous financial, logistical, social, and emotional obstacles people face. In addition to the travel costs, driving or flying across state lines often requires taking time off work, navigating complex logistics and arranging childcare, not to mention paying for the abortion itself."
As states continue to pass restrictions post-Dobbs, patients' options are dwindling. For example, Guttmacher director of state policy Candace Gibson explained that "Florida had been an important access point for abortion in the Southeast, so when the state's six-week ban went into effect in May 2024, it was not just Floridians who were impacted, but also the thousands of out-of-state patients who would have traveled there for care."
While running to retake the White House last year, Republican President Donald Trump—who appointed three of the Supreme Court's six right-wing justices during his first term—came out against a Florida ballot measure that would end his state's strict abortion ban and bragged about his role in reversing Roe but also tried to downplay the importance of reproductive rights to voters.
"It's been three years since people in the United States have lost their federal constitutional right to abortion; three years since President Trump's handpicked Supreme Court justices stripped Americans of this fundamental right to freedom," Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a Tuesday statement. "The consequences have been devastating, even lethal."
"We can't know all the names of the women who have died because of abortion bans, but we will never forget that people have endured injury, pain, and suffering because of the Dobbs decision," she declared. "We continue to fight President Trump and his backers' attacks on reproductive rights, including their effort to 'defund' Planned Parenthood in Congress and end abortion access for everyone, everywhere. Planned Parenthood Action Fund will never stop advocating for a country where all people have the power to control their own bodies, lives, and futures."
Reproductive Freedom for All president and CEO Mini Timmaraju was similarly determined on Tuesday, launching a campaign to mobilize against Trump and the GOP.
"In the 21 states with abortion bans and extreme restrictions, women continue to die, and along with their providers, are being threatened, targeted, and criminalized," Timmaraju said. "And while the Trump administration continues to gut our fundamental freedoms, we continue to fight against the GOP's attacks on Planned Parenthood, Medicaid, and essential reproductive care."
Congressional Democrats—who have minorities in both chambers—joined advocacy group leaders in using the Dobbs anniversary to direct anger at the president and Republican policymakers working to strip away reproductive freedom from people nationwide.
During a Tuesday press conference, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the high court's June 2022 ruling "will go down in history as one of the worst, most harmful, most regressive decisions in modern history" and stressed that "people are dying as a result of the Dobbs decision."
Noting that many patients have had to travel or wait for care, Schumer said that "this is abominable. We know that this is what Republicans want, a total ban on abortion. These anti-choice fanatics will stop at nothing. They don't think their work is finished even after such a horrible and wide-ranging decision as Dobbs. Reproductive freedom is under attack on all sides. Extremists are banning and restricting abortion, criminalizing providers, defunding care, and interfering with lifesaving medicines."
"These attacks are also devastating our economy. With fewer reproductive healthcare protections, fewer women are participating in the workforce. State-level restrictions on abortion access combined with the lack of federal protection cost the economy more than $133 billion nationally," he continued. "The 16 states with the most restrictive abortion policies were responsible for $64 billion in economic loss."
The Senate's top Democrat also called out his GOP colleagues for what he called "a Republican backdoor abortion ban done in the reconciliation bill," taking aim at "two nasty provisions to defund Planned Parenthood and eliminate coverage for comprehensive reproductive care" from the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
"I'm here to say that Democrats are going to fight like hell to strip these cruel provisions from the Republican bill, including in the Byrd bath, which will be occurring today or tomorrow," he pledged, referring to the Senate parliamentarian's review of the GOP megabill. "Just as we fought back against attacks on abortion before, we will fight these nasty provisions with every fiber in our being."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular