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
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
Whistleblower Says Top DOJ Official Pushed to Ignore Court Orders to Carry Out Deportations
Emil Bove "does not belong on the federal bench," said one Democratic lawmaker ahead of confirmation hearings on the Justice Department official's judicial nomination.
Jun 24, 2025
With the Senate scheduled to hold a confirmation hearing on federal judicial nominee Emil Bove on Wednesday, Democrats urged the Republican Party to consider an explosive whistleblower complaint as they weighed Bove's nomination—one that revealed allegations that he directed U.S. Department of Justice staffers to ignore court orders to carry out the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda.
The whistleblower complaint was filed Tuesday with federal lawmakers and the DOJ's inspector general by a veteran lawyer in the agency's Office of Immigration Litigation, Erez Reuveni, who was fired in April after expressing concerns in federal court that the administration had wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.
In the 27-page complaint, filed by Reuveni's lawyers at the Government Accountability Project, the attorney described a meeting on March 14 in which Bove, the principal associate deputy attorney general, told his subordinates that President Donald Trump would soon invoke the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to quickly remove a group of immigrants from the U.S., sending more than 200 people to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
Bove "stressed to all in attendance that the planes needed to take off no matter what," the complaint reads. He noted that "a court order would enjoin those removals before they could be effectuated," but said the DOJ "would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such order."
"Mr. Reuveni perceived that others in the room looked stunned, and he observed awkward, nervous glances among people in the room. Silence overtook the room," reads the complaint.
Reuveni also alleged that DOJ lawyer Drew Ensign lied in court on March 15, the day Trump invoked the AEA, when he told Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. that he didn't know whether any deportation flights were scheduled to leave in the coming 24-48 hours.
"Ensign had been present in the previous day's meeting when Emil Bove stated clearly that one or more planes containing individuals subject to the AEA would be taking off over the weekend no matter what," reads the complaint.
Reuveni said that by April, he was "frozen out" of discussions about the Trump administration's use of the AEA to carry out deportations.
That month, he said in a court hearing that the deportation of Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man with no criminal record, had been a mistake. Abrego Garcia was sent to CECOT in March. The administration repeatedly said it would not facilitate his return to the U.S. as it was ordered to by the U.S. Supreme Court, before Abrego Garcia was indicted in Nashville on smuggling charges and abruptly returned to the U.S., where he is still detained, earlier this month.
After the hearing, Ensign asked Reuveni in a phone call why he hadn't supported the administration's claims in court that Abrego Garcia was a terrorist and gang member. He replied that no evidence supported the claim, and noted that even if Abrego Garcia was a criminal he would still be entitled to due process, which he was not afforded when he was sent to El Salvador.
As The New York Timesreported:
The next day, Mr. Reuveni was told he should sign an appeal brief making the terrorism claim against Mr. Abrego Garcia.
Mr. Reuveni's lawyers say he resisted, arguing that the law does not allow advocates to make new factual claims, which he saw as "contrary to law, frivolous, and untrue."
That led to a final standoff with his supervisor... who told him "he should sign the brief and that he had signed up for the responsibility to do so," the account states.
Mr. Reuveni responded, "I didn't sign up to lie."
He was placed on administrative leave hours later, and fired the next week.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) responded to the report by saying that Bove "does not belong on the federal bench."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urged Republicans on the panel "not to turn a blind eye to the dire consequences of confirming Mr. Bove to a lifetime position as a circuit court judge."
"The accusations against Emil Bove are serious. Not only do they speak to his failure to fulfill his ethical obligations as a lawyer, they also demonstrate his part in a broader pattern by the Trump-Bondi DOJ to undermine the rule of law," he said, referring to Attorney General Pam Bondi—who has been accused of "serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice."
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, applauded Reuveni "for having the great courage to come forward to expose the lawlessness of Mr. Bove and Trump's DOJ."
"Whistleblowers are the first line of defense to hold those in power accountable," said Raskin. "The extraordinary nature of the disclosure demands further investigation by Congress, and Judiciary Democrats are committed to getting to the truth on all of the Trump administration's efforts to turn the Department of Justice into a gangster state law firm devoted to violating the rights of the people, lying to federal judges, violating court orders, and persecuting those who uphold their oaths and speak the truth."
The news of the whistleblower complaint came two days after Judge Barbara Holmes of the Federal District Court in Nashville said Abrego Garcia should be freed from immigration detention.
Holmes took issue with the Trump administration's central claim about Abrego Garcia: that he is a member of the gang MS-13.
"Abrego has no reported criminal history of any kind. And his reputed gang membership is contradicted by the government's own evidence," said Holmes.
U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said Holmes' ruling was "remarkable."
The opinion, she said, "completely [dismantled] all the allegations and 'evidence' against him as 'defy[ing] common sense' and not credible."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Say Cruz Proposal Takes Industry-Friendly AI Rules 'From Ludicrous to Insane'
Under Cruz's proposal, states would be required to swear off all regulations on artificial intelligence in order to get funding to improve their high-speed internet.
Jun 24, 2025
Consumer advocates are criticizing a change made by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz in the Republican megabill this week that would stop states from regulating artificial intelligence in order to bring it in line with the reconciliation process.
The House's version of the $4 trillion budget package, passed last month, contained a sneaky provision that would bar states from enforcing any proposed or existing regulations on AI programs for the next 10 years, which a critic called "one of the most radical positions Republicans have taken."
However, that version of the provision was rejected by the Senate parliamentarian, who oversees chamber rules requiring that reconciliation measures have a budgetary impact.
Cruz (R-Texas), the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, proposed a workaround: threatening to withhold federal broadband infrastructure funding to coerce states into abandoning AI regulations.
The Senate bill's revised language would impact states' access to funding from the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. Part of former President Joe Biden's 2021 infrastructure law, BEAD allocated $42.45 billion to expand high-speed, affordable internet access across the United States. On Sunday, the parliamentarian approved Cruz's updated version of the bill.
"This backdoor preemption not only forces states into an impossible choice between protecting their residents and providing broadband access, but also undermines public safety, privacy, and democratic governance just as AI harms are accelerating," the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen said in a Tuesday statement.
States around the country have introduced dozens of bills aimed at curbing the potential harms of AI programs.
Many states have passed or introduced bills banning the use of AI to generate fake "revenge porn" or election misinformation. Some have enacted laws regulating AI in hiring and healthcare to prevent discrimination. Others have taken steps to ensure AI algorithms do not violate copyright protections.
Last week, Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) held a press conference in which they spoke out against the provision.
"They have adopted these laws that fill a gap while we are waiting for federal action," Cantwell said. "Now Congress is threatening these laws, which will leave hundreds of millions of Americans vulnerable to AI harm by abolishing those state law protections."
If the Republican moratorium passes, states will be forced either to dump these regulations and or hamstring efforts to update their broadband internet infrastructure.
"High‑speed internet is now a prerequisite for economic participation, education, and healthcare," said Tyler Cooper, editor-in-chief for the research group Broadband Now.
A nationwide audit published by the group earlier this month found that 26 million people across the United States lack access to high-speed internet. Cutting broadband funding to states could hinder efforts to connect them.
The parliamentarian's decision to greenlight this new version of the bill has drawn sharp criticism from consumer advocates.
"This extreme measure is a clear gift to Big Tech at the expense of everyday people,” said Ben Winters, director of AI and data privacy for the Consumer Federation of America.
The push to deregulate AI has big money behind it. Last week, the Financial Times reported that "lobbyists acting on behalf of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta are urging the Senate to enact" the moratorium.
According to data from OpenSecrets, these four companies alone spent nearly $19 million on lobbying in just the first three months of 2025.
That avalanche of money has left many doubting that Congress will ever regulate AI. But it also may ensure that states can't either.
"The tipping point from ludicrous to insane is making broadband funding for rural and urban communities contingent on states abandoning their right to protect their citizens—fully knowing Congress has not historically and will likely continue not to regulate Big Tech," said J.B. Branch, Big Tech accountability advocate for Public Citizen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular