

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.

Maria del Carmen Rodriguez for Spanish, Austin Sanctuary Network Organizer at (512) 773-4508 carmendezuvieta40@gmail.com
Peggy Morton, Board President Austin Sanctuary Network at (512) 751-6415, peggy@austinsanctuarynetwork.
For Vicky Chávez and First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City: Joan M. Gregory, Sanctuary Director, First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, UT at 801-949-2906, joanmzg@gmail.com
Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org
Four sanctuary leaders - Vicky Chavez, Maria Chavalan Sut, Edith Espinal, and Hilda Ramirez - along with Austin Sanctuary Network (ASN), Free Migration Project (FMP), and First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, have filed a
Four sanctuary leaders - Vicky Chavez, Maria Chavalan Sut, Edith Espinal, and Hilda Ramirez - along with Austin Sanctuary Network (ASN), Free Migration Project (FMP), and First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, have filed a Second Amended Complaint in their lawsuit against U.S. immigration agencies and officials for targeting the leaders with retaliatory and excessive civil fines. They added new claims under the Federal Torts Claim Act (FTCA), alleging that the immigration agencies and officials intentionally and recklessly inflicted emotional distress on the sanctuary leaders through the civil fines policy under which they were fined hundreds of thousands of dollars. The groups also sent a sign-on letter today to Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from clergy members, faith leaders, congregations, and allied communities across the country calling for redress.
The sanctuary leaders are four asylum-seeking women who, under the threat of deportation, took sanctuary in houses of worship. Each woman became an immigrant rights activist and leader, garnering significant media attention as part of the national sanctuary movement and received support from the organizations joining them in the suit. Records obtained through ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation show a concerted effort on behalf of the Trump administration to track and target these leaders over a multi-year period and to penalize them with the largest fines statutorily possible for "failure to depart" with a deportation order. The lawsuit alleges that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) targeted these sanctuary leaders with the enormous fines to stop the women from speaking out, infringing upon their rights of free speech, association, and religion under the First Amendment, their right to be free from excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment, and their religious freedom under the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA).
Maria Chavalan-Sut said, "The fine imposed by ICE was an incalculably stressful pressure tactic, a direct attack on our lives."
Last year, on April 23, 2021, DHS Secretary Mayorkas announced that the Biden administration would no longer be pursuing civil fines for "failure to depart," acknowledging it as an "unnecessary and punitive measure." Despite this change in direction, the administration is poised to defend the policy in the litigation against the sanctuary leaders and has not conceded the illegality of the policy. Statutory authorization for the fines policy remains, leaving this administration and future administrations free to reinstate the policy at any time.
"This case raises serious questions about the Biden administration's commitment to free speech, religious freedom, and the reversal of Trump-era policies," said Jencey Paz and Lily Gutterman of the NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic.
It has taken nearly a year for sanctuary leaders to receive confirmation that their fines are officially canceled. At present, three of the four sanctuary leaders still await an official notice. The sanctuary leaders, who are unable to pay the fines, allege that ICE has caused them considerable emotional and physical distress through the exorbitant fines and their failure to cancel them, in violation of the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA). ICE has previously denied each of the leaders' FTCA claims through the administrative process, despite supporting medical records and statements from health professionals about the harms they have suffered. The sanctuary leaders now add these claims to the lawsuit to contest this determination.
Vicky Chavez said, "When I received my fine letter the first time, my legs were shaking. The letter came in English. I thought I read it wrong, so I asked someone from the church to please read the letter and explain it to me, but I was right. Since then, my nights have been longer. Being able to sleep became uncontrollable. I was afraid in the church knowing that ICE could arrive at any moment, and I did not know how to react or how to protect my daughters. Any strange noise scared me, so I asked for help to have someone check the church. The migraines became more intense. The nerves remain."
Edith Espinal said, "From the first time the church secretary informed me that I had mail from ICE, I was so scared that I spent nights without being able to sleep. I was more depressed for not being able to know or understand why the administration of former President Trump and ICE were attacking us in this way - for wanting to keep my family together. To this day, more than a year has passed and I still have a fine of almost $60,000, even though Secretary Mayorkas promised to withdraw these fines."
"After passing a credible fear interview at the border, the U.S. government locked my son and me in a detention center for 11 months, where we ate spoiled food and drank water that smelled and tasted horrible until they released us and forced me to wear an ankle shackle for eight months that hurt me and made me bleed," said Hilda Ramirez, who was fined $323,000, a fine that was later reduced to $59,000 before the U.S. rescinded the fine two weeks ago. "Why did President Biden continue this extortion from the Trump administration for a year when it was meant to silence me? My son and I have suffered so much from this persecution and trauma, all because I took refuge in a church and spoke publicly alongside people who love and trust us. The government must stop this and, at a minimum, use prosecutorial discretion and grant me the help I asked for at the border more than seven years ago."
The sanctuary leaders have garnered public support in their efforts to seek redress. Today, they are sending a sign-on letter to Secretary Mayorkas of DHS. The letter has 965 signatories from across the United States: including 190 clergy members and faith leaders from diverse faith traditions, 96 organizations and faith congregations, and 679 community members and leaders. It calls for a grant of deferred action and other forms of prosecutorial discretion for each sanctuary leader. Immigration relief and relief from future fines remain the utmost priority for the sanctuary leaders, FMP, ASN, and First Unitarian Church.
"As an ally of Hilda and her son, I am shocked and disappointed to see how slow President Biden and his administration have been to resolve this lawsuit considering all the promises he made during his campaign and having acknowledged the mistakes made during the previous administration he served under," ASN Organizer Maria del Carmen Rodriguez said. "As an immigrant and survivor of pain and persecution in my own life from the same failed immigration policy in the U.S., and as an ally and friend to Hilda, I want to see compassion, action, and resolution. This time is traumatizing these people and their children, and they will carry this trauma throughout their lives. We beg the government to stop with these tortures by granting a solution to these four sanctuary leaders."
Joan Gregory of First Unitarian Church said, "The community response to collecting signatures in support of Vicky, Maria, Hilda, and Edith was amazing. In just a short period of time we collected 965 signatures. Signatures have come from all over the country - in fact from 34 states and the District of Columbia, from California to Maine, from Washington to Florida, and all points in between."
Ms. Gregory added, "We need the Biden administration to keep its promises, to transform our system from a deportation system to a true immigration system, welcoming all 11 million immigrants who are already here and establishing an equitable and just system for those who will continue to seek refuge, asylum, safety, and freedom."
For more information, please visit:
Individual Plaintiffs
Hilda Ramirez Mendez and Ivan (Austin, Texas)
Edith Espinal Moreno (Columbus, Ohio)
Maria Chavalan Sut (Charlottesville, Virginia)
Vicky Chavez (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Organizational Plaintiffs
Austin Sanctuary Network, Austin, TX
First Unitarian Church, Salt Lake City, UT
Free Migration Project, Philadelphia, PA
Attorneys
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"Drug suspects should be arrested and prosecuted, not summarily executed," a human rights expert said.
The Trump administration continued its illegal bombing of small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific on Friday, killing two and leaving one survivor in its third such strike in five days.
US Southern Command announced the attack on social media, claiming that "intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations."
"Under [President Donald] Trump's illegal orders, the US military conducted its third boat strike in five days against supposed drug smugglers, killing at least two. Each of these is a murder. Drug suspects should be arrested and prosecuted, not summarily executed," former Human Rights Watch executive director Kenneth Roth wrote on social media Saturday in response to the news.
Friday's strike marks the 57th by the Trump administration and raises the death toll from the boat-strike campaign, which experts say is illegal even if every boat targeted is ferrying drugs, to 192.
"Really absurdly, there’s been no impact on flows of drugs toward the United States."
"What do you call a US citizen who smuggles drugs, SOUTHCOM? A 'narco-terrorist'?" social media user Andrew Marinelli said in response to the Southern Command announcement. "If a US citizen [allegedly] drove drugs into Canada and they blew him away with a drone strike, would you accept it?"
The administration has also not provided evidence for its claims that the boats belong to drug traffickers, and relatives of the victims say at least some of those killed were simply on the water to fish.
Friday's strike was notable in that it left behind a survivor and that US Southern Command said it had activated the US Coast Guard to conduct a search and rescue operation.
The announcement may reflect a response to backlash after news broke last year that, in the administration's first such strike, commanders had ordered a vessel bombed twice when it became clear there were survivors, in keeping with Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth's directive to "kill everybody."
Despite scrutiny, the campaign has continued and even escalated in the past few weeks. There have been three such bombings since the beginning of May, according to The Intercept: One on May 4 in the Caribbean that killed two, one on May 5 in the Pacific that killed three, and the Pacific strike on May 8 that killed two. The reported survivor remains missing.
While the Trump administration claims the strikes have dramatically reduced the flow of illegal drugs into the US, evidence reveals this is not the case, according to an Intercept analysis published May 4.
For example, Trump claimed that drugs entering the US by sea had decreased by 97%, but the administration's own data contradicts this claim, retired Rear Adm. William Baumgartner told The Intercept.
Adam Isacson, the director for defense oversight at human rights group Washington Office on Latin America, said, "Really absurdly, there’s been no impact on flows of drugs toward the United States,” noting that Customs and Border Protection seized 6,000 pounds more cocaine at all US borders in the seven months following the strikes than in the seven months before.
As Sanho Tree, who directs the Institute for Policy Studies' Drug Policy Project, put it, "It wouldn’t be the first time this administration just made up something out of whole cloth."
"Across the South, states are rushing to suppress Black voting power now that they mistakenly believe they can get away with it," one advocate said.
In the latest fallout from the Supreme Court's further weakening of the Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, Alabama and South Carolina on Friday both took steps to further gerrymandering plans that would reduce representation for Black and Democratic voters in their states.
Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation on Friday that would ignore the results of May 19 primaries and hold a new election if federal courts agree to rescind the creation of a second near-Black majority congressional district in the state.
At the same time, the South Carolina legislature held a meeting to consider creating new maps that could grant the Republican Party the chance to win all of the state's seven seats in the US House of Representatives by redrawing the state's only majority-Black district.
“I was out there in 1965 marching for the right to vote, and now we are back here in 2026 doing the same thing,” Betty White Boynton, who joined a protest outside the Alabama Statehouse on Friday, told The Associated Press.
“What happened here today is that we were set back as a people to the days of Reconstruction.”
The moves, with risk eroding the gains of the civil rights movement, also come in the midst of a redistricting battle set off when President Donald Trump called on GOP-led states to redraw their maps to help his party retain control of the House in the 2026 midterm elections
In Alabama, the Supreme Court case Allen v. Milligan led to the creation of a second district with close to a Black majority and the election of Democratic Rep. Shomari Figures. The new map would leave Black voters with a chance to elect a representative in just 1 of the state's 7 districts, despite the fact that they make up 30% of the population.
“Despite remaining under a court order that bars Alabama from redrawing its congressional map and that voters have already cast ballots in the state’s congressional primary elections, Alabama Republicans are desperately and shamelessly moving to pave the way for reversion to a map that robs Black voters of equal access to representation in the US House," John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said in a statement.
Bisognano continued: "What is happening in Alabama is not happening in a vacuum. Across the South, states are rushing to suppress Black voting power now that they mistakenly believe they can get away with it. The Alabama legislature’s fevered rush to diminish Black voting power in their state is clear proof that protections once afforded under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act remain vital still today. Alabamians across the state are rising up in protest to this immoral power grab—their voices must not be silenced.”
After the Republican-majority Alabama legislature passed the bill on Friday, state Sen. Rodger Smitherman (D-18) said, “What happened here today is that we were set back as a people to the days of Reconstruction,” according to AP.
However, it is unclear how successful the Republican effort will be in Alabama, given that the Supreme Court explicitly said in Louisiana v. Callais that its decision did not apply to Alabama, as Figures pointed out at a town hall Friday evening. Also on Friday, a three-judge panel refused to lift an injunction on changing the state's maps, meaning the decision will rest with the Supreme Court on Monday, May 11.
"I feel pretty confident that the lines will stay the same in the immediate future, but it has not changed the efforts of Republicans here in the state of Alabama and across the country," Figures said, as Alabama Reflector reported.
In South Carolina on Friday, legislators held a meeting that would be the first step toward redrawing their districts to eliminate the one currently represented by Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn. While lawmakers agreed that the Supreme Court's ruling in Louisiana v. Callais would allow for the redistricting, some questioned the wisdom and morality of the act.
“I agree if the law allows us to do it, then we can do It,” state Rep. Justin Bamberg (D-90) said. “But I can slap somebody’s mama and it’s not the right thing to do.”
Bisognano also linked the South Carolina plan to Louisiana v. Callais:
Following the Supreme Court’s shameful decision to gut the Voting Rights Act, South Carolina Republicans are now racing to be second to push through an immoral gerrymander that would demolish the lone congressional district that gives South Carolina’s Black voters a meaningful opportunity for representation in the US House.
This gerrymander is a deliberate attempt by South Carolina Republicans to tear apart a long-standing Black-opportunity district and diminish their vote by spreading Black voters into six districts that stretch over a hundred miles in every direction. On this gerrymander, all South Carolinians would lose. South Carolinians deserve maps that respect communities of interest and protect the fundamental right to vote.
Rep. Clyburn, meanwhile, stood up for his district and criticized state Republicans for prioritizing loyalty to Trump over loyalty to voters.
"Republicans are trying to break apart South Carolina’s 6th District. Not because voters demanded it, but because Donald Trump requested it," Clyburn wrote on social media Thursday.
He continued: "This fight is bigger than one district. It’s about whether our democracy belongs to the people, or to politicians who change the rules when they don’t like the results. We cannot let them succeed."
The Alabama and South Carolina developments capped a dramatic week for national redistricting battles. On Thursday, the Tennessee House voted to break up the state's only Black congressional district. The Senate followed suit, and Gov. Bill Lee promptly signed the new map into law.
On Friday, the Virginia state Supreme Court dealt a blow to Democratic efforts to counteract the new Republican maps, striking down a voter-approved redistricting in Virginia that would favor Democrats.
They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance," Mahmoud Khalil said.
An immigration court decision that could hasten the deportation of Palestinian rights activist Mahmoud Khalil was marked by irregularities, including unusual speed and the recusals of several judges, The New York Times reported Friday.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is housed in the Department of Justice (DOJ) but is legally enjoined to make independent decisions, ruled on April 9 that Khalil could be deported from the US. However, documents obtained by the Times show that the case was fast-tracked in a manner that experts say is unusual.
"This is the due process the administration is offering me, corrupt and unprecedented," Khalil posted on social media Friday in response to the Times' reporting.
Khalil, a student leader of Columbia University protests against the Gaza genocide, was an early target of the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech when he was abducted by Department of Homeland Security agents while returning to his New York home in March 2025. Despite being a permanent resident married to a US citizen, Khalil was detained in Louisiana for over three months, where he missed the birth of his son.
“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision."
Despite the BIA's ruling, Khalil cannot be deported while his separate habeas corpus case proceeds through federal courts. However, the Times' reporting raises questions about how fairly he is being treated by the Trump administration and how quickly he could face removal if the federal case falls through.
"This story proves that the Trump administration's treatment of my case has always been corrupt and retaliatory. They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance," Khalil wrote.
According to the Times:
The case was considered high priority even before the board officially received it. A note from an internal case-tracking file from June said that, even though Mr. Khalil had been released several days earlier, the case was to be handled as if he were still in detention, which would speed it along.
"Please process as quickly as possible,” said another note, from October. Another document shows that the court’s chair—its highest ranking member—oversaw the case from early on.
The decision was made nine days after all the paperwork was submitted, a timeline that Biden BIA appointee Homero López called "unprecedented," as the board often takes years to decide similar cases.
“It’s an insane turnaround, particularly for such a high-profile case on a novel legal issue,” López, who was fired under President Donald Trump, told the Times.
At the same time, people familiar with the situation told the Times that at least three judges had recused themselves from the case, one before it was decided and the others once it became clear it would be published, meaning it would be considered precedent setting.
Former board judge Andrea Sáenz, also fired by Trump, told the Times that judges often recuse themselves because they have somehow been involved with the case before it is appealed.
“How many people touched this case when the immigration judge was handling it the first time?” Sáenz asked.
Former DOJ official David McConnell, who has experience with the immigration appeals process, said that both the quick processing and the recusals were "very unusual." However, he added this did not mean the board necessarily did anything wrong.
However, the BIA's decision was heavily criticized by Khalil's legal team in April, as it upholds Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination that Khalil could be deported because his activism posed a threat to US foreign policy, which a federal judge in New Jersey said was "likely" unconstitutional and could not be the basis for his detention or deportation. It also justified removal on the grounds that Khalil omitted certain details on green card paperwork, but the government only added those charges after Rubio's foreign policy gambit was challenged.
“In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision. The BIA's decision has absolutely no support in the record, violates a federal court order, and we’ll be fighting it until the end,” Khalil's lead lawyer Marc Van Der Hout said in a statement when the decision was first issued. “Federal courts have already agreed that Mahmoud was targeted for his speech, and there is likely much more evidence of the government’s unlawful retaliation that has yet to come to light. This is a clear continuation of the administration’s retaliation against Mahmoud for exercising his First Amendment rights.”
Responding to the new reporting on Friday, Van Der Hout told the Times that the case's handling suggests it “has been controlled from Day 1 by higher-ups in the administration.”