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.

In a sweeping legal challenge to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement regime, a coalition of civil rights organizations filed two motions for summary judgment seeking to vacate and block some of the administration’s most extreme policies on a nationwide scale.
The motions, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seek to vacate (1) ICE’s waiver of the 12-hour limit on detention in temporary holding cells, and (2) ICE and the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s (EOIR) courthouse arrest policies, which target immigrants at immigration courts. If granted, the rulings would apply nationwide, ending both the policy permitting extended detention in ill-equipped short-term facilities and the policies permitting mass arrests of immigrants while they attend court.
The motions arise from the ongoing federal class action lawsuit Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, challenging the Trump administration’s policy of courthouse arrests and the prolonged detention of immigrants in unsafe and unlawful conditions at short-term holding facilities.
The motion to vacate the courthouse arrest policies challenges Trump administration policies that have forced immigrants to choose between attending mandatory hearings and risking arrest or skipping court and facing automatic deportation. The policies have led to a sharp increase in absenteeism, undermining the integrity of the immigration court system. The motion argues that the policies violate the Administrative Procedure Act, as they reverse a longstanding practice without a reasoned explanation and fail to consider the severe chilling effect on access to justice.
On December 24, 2025, Judge Casey Pitts issued a ruling staying for the pendency of the lawsuit the ICE and EOIR courthouse arrest policies in ICE’s San Francisco Area of Responsibility, which includes Northern and Central California, based on a finding that the policies likely violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
The motion to vacate ICE’s “Nationwide Hold Room Waiver” challenges a policy ICE issued in June 2025 which extended the limit on detention in temporary holding facilities from 12 hours to 72 hours. The motion argues that ICE failed to consider alternatives and disregarded the humanitarian and constitutional consequences of detaining people overnight or for days in barebones cells designed for short-term use.
Both motions seek full vacatur of the policies nationwide. If successful, they would restore the 12-hour limit for ICE holding facilities across the country, restrain ICE from making civil arrests at immigration courthouses nationwide, and reinforce the principle that federal agencies must provide reasoned justifications for abrupt policy changes, especially when those changes endanger human rights and access to due process.
The plaintiffs are represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCRSF), the Central American Resource Center of Northern California (CARECEN SF), the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California (ACLU NorCal), and Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP.
View the motions here and here.
Attorney Quotes:
"The Trump administration’s arbitrary policies are an assault on due process. Transforming immigration courthouses into sites of arrest eviscerates the right to access justice while prolonging detention in barren cells violates the Fifth Amendment's core promise against punishment without trial. Our fight is to restore the foundational principle that the government cannot detain people in inhumane conditions or terrorize them out of court," said Nisha Kashyap, Program Director at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.
“The administration’s reckless courthouse arrest policy is an affront to justice, designed to sabotage the immigration court system and force people to abandon their lawful claims,” said Jordan Wells, Program Director at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. “This is a critical step in ensuring that immigrants can safely pursue their immigration cases without fear of arrest.”
“From arrest to detention, the Trump administration’s policies are a symptom of a lawless approach to governance. One policy creates fear of the system, and the other inflicts suffering within it, creating a cycle of trauma.We are fighting to break this cycle by ending both the courthouse arrests and the prolonged, brutal detentions they feed,” said Neil Sawhney, Director of Appellate Advocacy at ACLU of Northern California.
“These policies are a direct attack on the safety and dignity of our families. They force parents to choose between appearing in court to fight for their right to stay with their children, or missing that hearing to avoid being snatched away by masked agents. We hear the trauma in our community's voices every day. This legal action is our collective cry for justice. We ask the court to uphold the rule of law and restore human dignity,” said Laura Sanchez, Legal Director at the Central American Resource Center of Northern California.
“The Administrative Procedure Act is a cornerstone of accountable government, requiring agencies to act with reason and transparency. The Trump administration has trampled on these requirements.The government failed to consider alternatives and disregarded profound constitutional and human costs. We hope the court will see these failures and vacate both policies.” said Mark Hejinian, Partner at Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP.
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today.
(202) 662-8600"Secretary Noem made a series of demonstrably false statements in a brazen attempt to undermine critical congressional oversight of the Department of Homeland Security."
Two Democratic congressional leaders on Monday said they had "low expectations" for President Donald Trump's Department of Justice to examine alleged perjury by ousted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, but they noted that the statute of limitations for making false statements to Congress is five years as they referred her for an investigation—meaning Noem's recent remarks about her department's operations under her leadership could be probed after Trump leaves office.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi days after Noem testified before two panels earlier this month—proceedings that came just before Trump announced he was firing the secretary.
Noem, who will officially leave office at the end of the month, has presided over the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as Trump has embarked on his mass deportation plan—deploying armed federal agents to cities across the US, resulting in the deaths of more than two dozen people including at least three US citizens, sending hundreds of people to a notorious prison in El Salvador against a judge's orders, and detaining tens of thousands of people in centers known for abuse and neglect.
Those subjects were all addressed at the hearings in which Noem testified on March 3 and 4, and Durbin and Raskin argued in their letter to Bondi that the secretary's comments on the issues could make her liable for a federal crime.
"After months of evading our committees’ requests to testify in routine oversight hearings, Secretary Noem made a series of demonstrably false statements in a brazen attempt to undermine critical congressional oversight of the Department of Homeland Security," wrote the lawmakers. "Making false statements to Congress, and making false statements under oath, are federal crimes."
Noem repeatedly told the committees that under her leadership, DHS "absolutely" complies with federal court orders, and persisted in that claim even after Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) pointed out that days earlier, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz in the District Court of Minnesota had identified 210 instances of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violating court orders. The violations noted by the judge only represented those that took place between December 2025-February 2026 in the state of Minnesota.
Schiltz is one of several judges who have determined DHS and its underlying agencies have defied court orders, including in cases when judges have ordered the immediate release of immigrants who were held without due process or on false pretenses. The fact that Noem repeatedly told lawmakers that "we comply with all federal court orders" could violate federal statutes including 18 USC §1001, said Durbin and Raskin.
Noem was also asked by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) about a $220 million advertising campaign that featured her prominently in what she said was an effort by Trump to get "the message out" about her agency's anti-immigration operations. The president denied on the day he fired Noem that he had known anything about the campaign, but aside from that discrepancy, Durbin and Raskin said the outgoing secretary may have falsely stated that there was a competitive bidding process for the campaign.
Noem was confronted with evidence during one of the hearings that one contractor, Safe America Media, had received $143 million to produce the campaign. But she said repeatedly that "there was no involvement whatsoever of anybody that is on the political appointee side of this position on that media contract."
New reporting has shown that Noem actually "handpick[ed]" four companies that were politically connected to the secretary and her allies for the ad campaign.
At both the Senate and House hearings, Noem was asked whether DHS has detained US citizens since Trump took office for his second term last year. She responded definitively in the negative at both hearings—making "demonstrably false" statements, said Durbin and Raskin.
At least 170 US citizens were wrongfully detained in the first six months of Trump's crackdown, and during "Operation Midway Blitz" in Durbin's home state, a 15-year-old, a man who had presented his birth certificate and ID to prove his citizenship, and members of Chicago Alderman Mike Rodriguez's staff were among those who were detained.
Finally, the two Democrats accused Noem of perjuring herself when she responded to questions about conditions in ICE detention centers, claiming that the facilities provide "medical care to all of our detainees [and] three nutritious meals a day," and that detention standards are "the highest in the nation."
Numerous reports have pointed to medical neglect and abuse—some that could amount to torture, according to Amnesty International—at detention centers across the country. At least 48 people have died in these ICE facilities since January 2025. A family's account of conditions at Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas, which is run by private prison contractor CoreCivic, detailed moldy and worm-infested food and medical neglect, with the center ignoring a doctor's referral for a comprehensive scan to examine a lump under the mother's rib cage.
"There is ample evidence that ICE is neither meeting its own detention standards, nor providing anything that resembles a nutritious meal," wrote Durbin and Raskin. "ICE internal audits have documented significant failures to meet medical care standards."
The lawmakers urged Bondi to respond to their referral promptly while noting that they had "low expectations" that the Trump administration would hold Noem accountable.
At the House hearing earlier this month, Balint issued a warning to Noem that Americans "will get accountability" sooner or later.
One day, Kristi Noem won’t have Trump to hide behind.
She will be held accountable for the terror she and her employees have unleashed on the American people. pic.twitter.com/qVbz8Rd7Jy
— Rep. Becca Balint (@RepBeccaB) March 4, 2026
"You are the secretary of DHS—for now," said Balint. "And you think you're immune from accountability, but I promise you this: One day, [Trump] is not going to be president anymore. He is not going to be in charge, and when that day comes, we will still be here."
“The desperation of families to find disappeared loved ones evokes the darkest days of dictatorships in Latin America,” said one human rights campaigner.
The administration of right-wing Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele is arbitrarily detaining and forcibly disappearing Salvadorans deported from the United States, a leading rights group said Monday.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said on the one-year anniversary of President Donald Trump's mass deportation of Salvadorans, Venezuelans, and others that, of the 9,000 Salvadorans expelled from the US since the beginning of last year, "only 10.5% had a conviction in the United States for a violent or potentially violent crime."
Yet according to HRW, these deportees—most of whom were illegally expelled without the requisite due process—were "immediately detained in El Salvador" upon arrival and "have not been allowed to communicate with their relatives or lawyers."
"None of the relatives or lawyers have had any indication from the authorities that the men have been brought before a judge since their arrival," HRW said. "Some have not been informed of where their loved ones are held, or why. In five cases, relatives learned about deportees’ whereabouts only though litigation at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR)."
HRW Americas director Juanita Goebertus said that "whatever the criminal history of these Salvadoran men, they have a right to due process, to be taken before a judge, and their relatives are entitled to know where they are being held and why."
"Deportation cannot mean enforced disappearance," Goebertus added.
Many of the deportees have been sent to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in Tecoluca in central El Salvador. HRW and others have documented a range of serious human rights abuses committed by staff at the megaprison, including torture, sexual violence, and brutal beatings.
The Salvadoran investigative journalism outlet El Faro—which, along with its staff, has been the target of sweeping government persecution—last year published a report on CECOT, citing one former prisoner who said that inmates are "committing suicide out of desperation."
While the Trump administration has alleged that many of those expelled are members of MS-13, a street gang founded in the 1980s by Salvadoran immigrants in Los Angeles, neither US nor Salvadoran authorities have provided much evidence to substantiate claims regarding many of the deportees.
At least one deported Salvadoran—longtime Maryland resident Kilmar Ábrego García—was wrongfully expelled due to what the Trump administration called an "administrative error." Abrego García said he was tortured at CECOT before a US federal judge ordered his release last December.
For its new report, HRW interviewed relatives of many of the Salvadoran deportees, one of whose sisters said she "kept calling the migrant shelter in El Salvador, but they never gave me any information."
"So I filed a complaint with the [Salvadoran] Human Rights Ombudsperson’s Office,” she said. “An official told me that my brother was deported on March 15 [but] because of the state of emergency they would not provide any information.”
The mother of another Salvadoran deportee told HRW that she struggled to find legal representation for her son.
“I started looking for lawyers in El Salvador, but several told me they could not take those cases because they feared government reprisals,” she said.
“I called several institutions, the attorney general’s office, the Ombudsperson’s Office, a migrant shelter, and government ministries in El Salvador, but they gave me no information," the woman added. "At the Ombudsperson’s Office, they told me that due to the state of emergency, they were not obligated to provide me with information. I feel abandoned.”
HRW Americas Program deputy director Juan Pappier told The Washington Post Sunday that “these people have been sent to a black hole, a court system with no due process."
Goebertus echoed Pappier's language, saying Monday: “The desperation of families to find disappeared loved ones evokes the darkest days of dictatorships in Latin America. The United States should stop casting people into the black hole of El Salvador’s prison system.”
While credited for dramatically reducing crime in what was not too long ago the world's murder capital, the state of emergency—officially the State of Exception—declared by Bukele in 2022 has been denounced by human rights defenders. It purportedly targets criminals, but others—including journalists, lawyers, human rights advocates, environmental activists, nonprofit workers, political critics, clergy, labor organizers, and community leaders—have been persecuted under the decree.
Originally authorized for 30 days, Bukele has repeatedly extended the State of Exception, fueling accusations of authoritarianism.
HRW noted Monday that Bukele's government has used the emergency decree "to suspend, among others, the rights to be informed promptly of the grounds for arrest, to remain silent, to legal representation, and the requirement to present any detainee before a judge within 72 hours of arrest."
In addition to Salvadorans, hundreds of Venezuelans were sent to CECOT under an agreement between the Trump and Bukele administrations. The US paid millions of dollars to El Salvador to accept the deportees, who Trump claimed—often without evidence—were members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
However, only about 3% of the deported Venezuelans had been convicted of violent criminal offenses in the United States—and the Trump administration knew it, according to Department of Homeland Security records.
Last July, El Salvador released 252 Venezuelans imprisoned at CECOT and sent them to Venezuela in a prisoner swap that saw the government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro free 10 US citizens and permanent residents jailed in the South American nation.
Following their repatriation, many of the Venezuelans said they endured torture, sexual assault, severe beatings, and other abuse at CECOT.
Last December, Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the Trump administration broke the law by deporting the Venezuelans without due process.
Last week, the International Group of Experts for the Investigation of Human Rights Violations Under the State of Exception in El Salvador (GIPES)—an independent panel of jurists established in 2024—published a report which found that "the serious human rights violations committed by the government of El Salvador during the state of emergency may indeed constitute crimes against humanity because of the widespread and systematic nature of the attacks, their commission against the civilian population, and their commission as part of a state policy or plan."
International Commission of Jurists general secretary Santiago Canton—a member of the panel—said that “the Bukele model is sustained by the dismantling of the rule of law to systematically violate human rights without institutional restraints."
"In the very short term, it may appear to improve security, but it inevitably weakens the very security it claims to protect," Canton added. "The danger is that this approach is increasingly being promoted across Latin America by authoritarian and unscrupulous political leaders as a solution to crime."
"Nearly 50% of all consumer spending now comes from the top 10% of earners. The bottom 80%? Their share keeps falling."
Wealth inequality in the US has grown unsustainably large, according to one billionaire wealth manager.
In a Monday social media post, Peter Mallouk, the CEO of wealth management firm Creative Planning, shared a graph from the Financial Times showing that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending.
"This is 100% completely unsustainable as a society," Mallouk commented. "Nearly 50% of all consumer spending now comes from the top 10% of earners. The bottom 80%? Their share keeps falling."
Mallouk added that this disparity is "why the economy can look strong in the data while millions of people feel like they're falling behind."
Mallouk's observations about the highest earners accounting for a disproportionate share of consumer spending are in line with what economists have been describing as a "K-shaped" economy in which wealth continues growing for the very wealthiest while the vast majority of the population gets left behind.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that "the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year," as "upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit."
Bushmeneva also projected that this divide would only grow in the coming year given that the tax cuts passed by Republicans in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025 are expected to provide outsized benefits to the wealthiest Americans, even as "a reduction in funding to various government programs" such as Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program "will weigh on low-income households."
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told Axios in a January interview that the data on US consumer spending patterns shows that "the economy is narrowly perched on the backs of the well-to-do," which he noted leaves it in a vulnerable position should the ultrawealthy pull back on their spending at any time.
Zandi's view of the instability of such an economy was echoed in a February column by Carol Ryan of The Wall Street Journal, who warned about the dangers of relying on the wealthiest to drive economic growth.
Given that the wealth of these Americans is tied up in the stock market, Ryan argued, this "could mean the entire economy pays a steep price in the next market correction," as consumer spending would then likely turn negative.
While the richest Americans continue getting wealthier, the US labor market has entered a downturn, as the most recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed that the American economy lost 92,000 jobs, and overall the economy has posted a net loss of 19,000 jobs since May 2025.