SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
due process
New Trump Asylum Rule Would Send Hundreds of Thousands of Applicants Straight to Deportation Proceedings
Under the new rule, an immigrant rights activist said, many asylum seekers "will never get a chance to argue their case."
Jul 27, 2026
The Trump administration published a new regulation on Monday that will immediately allow it to potentially send almost a third of asylum applicants straight into deportation proceedings without an interview to evaluate their claims.
US asylum law requires the government to give asylum seekers a “reasonable opportunity” to present evidence that they face persecution in their country of origin as a result of race, religion, nationality, social group membership, or political opinion.
For more than three decades, US Citizenship & Immigration Services explicitly stated that this process includes the "right" to an interview, where those seeking asylum have the opportunity to describe the persecution they fear and provide facts that may not have been included in their written asylum application.
But an interim final rule is scheduled to take effect on Tuesday that will scrap this right, allowing USCIS to skip the interview and refer applicants directly to immigration judges based solely on other documents they have submitted, which are often prepared without the help of an attorney in a language the applicant may not speak fluently.
In the filing for the new rule, USCIS acknowledged that applicants may be more likely to provide greater detail in face-to-face interviews, but that the overwhelming backlog of cases makes this unsustainable.
The filing states that the new rule will “more quickly place certain aliens into removal proceedings” at the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), the agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ_ that runs the federal immigration court system.
While these officials are referred to as "judges," they are really part of the executive branch, appointed at the discretion of the attorney general and not subject to any Senate confirmation process.
Critics say that under President Donald Trump, these appointees have been selected to carry out his restrictive immigration agenda.
For these positions, which the administration has advertised as “deportation judges,” The Washington Post found that two-thirds of those appointed as of April 2026 had no immigration law experience. Immigration judges granted asylum in fewer than 5% of cases in February 2026, compared with 48% in 2024.
In September, the Trump DOJ gave immigration judges broader discretion to toss out claims by allowing them to "pretermit" those that they decide are "legally deficient," meaning that applicants can be deported without a full hearing.
As it has carried out its "mass deportation" campaign, the administration has often violated the due process of immigrants in the US by removing them without notice or hearings, detaining longtime residents without the opportunity to secure bond, restricting access to legal counsel, and using mass court procedures to prevent claims from being meaningfully heard in court.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that the new rule will allow USCIS to "deny hundreds of thousands of applications without an interview, sending applicants directly to deportation proceedings."
According to the filing, the Department of Homeland Security estimated that the new rule could affect as many as 444,724 pending cases and roughly 132,000 future applicants each year.
"This means many people will never get a chance to argue their case," Reichlin-Melnick said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Going Out of Its Way to Enable Trump,’ Supreme Court Has Used Secretive Shadow Docket Like Never Before
"That hugely consequential cases are decided with no transparency," said one civil rights lawyer, "only adds to the court's illegitimacy and further decreases the public's confidence."
Jul 02, 2026
As its conservative majority showed unprecedented deference to President Donald Trump, the US Supreme Court passed what ProPublica described as a "troubling milestone" during the term that ended last October.
For the first time in its modern history, an analysis published Wednesday found, the court decided more cases using its secretive "shadow docket" than using the regular process.
Unlike the so-called "merits docket," in which cases undergo lengthy periods of review, parties file briefs and make oral arguments for their side, and the justices issue extensive signed rulings explaining their reasoning, shadow docket decisions are expedited and offer little mechanism for accountability.
They are often unsigned, with no final vote count or explanation of the court’s decision, and are often issued within hours of legal action being taken, leaving no time for deliberation or public input.
These cases are meant to be reserved for emergency or temporary interventions. But as Trump has attempted to exert unprecedented executive authority that often brazenly pushes legal boundaries, ProPublica found that the court's use of the shadow docket has exploded.
The analysis found that during the last Supreme Court term, the court issued 63 decisions on the shadow docket, compared with just 56 on the merits docket. Analyzing more than two decades of decisions by the high court, they found that the court has never come close to issuing this many secret decisions in any previous term.
This is due largely to the Trump administration's unprecedented petitioning to have cases decided on the shadow docket after elements of the president's agenda were stymied by lower courts.
As ProPublica explained, the court "has repeatedly green-lit policies of his that lower courts have blocked—and has done so with little to no explanation," and often the decisions have been highly consequential and "have thrown lower courts’ processes into turmoil and have sometimes directly contradicted longstanding legal precedent."
On June 23, 2025, after a lower court had ruled that eight men being deported to South Sudan should have due process, the Supreme Court intervened after a request from the administration to stop that order. The men were deported. The majority didn’t issue an opinion justifying its ruling.
Three months later, the Supreme Court voted to allow immigration agents to stop people based on racial or ethnic characteristics while still-ongoing litigation against it proceeded. To justify the decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a rare shadow docket opinion that people who were in the country legally would be “free to go after the brief encounter.” These became known as “Kavanaugh stops.” Last year, ProPublica found more than 170 citizens who had been stopped and detained by ICE agents. The more than 50 Americans held even after agents learned of their citizenship were almost all Latino.
And in May, while an election in Louisiana was already underway, the justices allowed the state to immediately redraw its electoral map, removing one of the two majority-Black voting districts. Louisiana can now use that map for the 2026 midterms as part of a nationwide redistricting battle for control of the House of Representatives—an effort touched off by Trump’s call for Republican-led states to create more safe seats for themselves.
An analysis by the legal group Court Accountability in October found that the Supreme Court sided with Trump 90% of the time in the 23 orders included in its analysis of his second administration through October 2025, nearly all of which were issued on the shadow docket.
“The patterns show a court going out of its way to enable Trump,” Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University and a Supreme Court analyst, told ProPublica.
Noting that the American public’s approval of the high court has fallen substantially in recent years, Leslie Proll, a civil rights lawyer and the former director of voting rights at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, called the court’s unprecedented secrecy “utterly disgraceful.”
"That hugely consequential cases are decided with no transparency," she said, "only adds to the court's illegitimacy and further decreases the public's confidence."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bearing Witness to ICE Abuses at Delaney Hall
We must work together to keep the pressure on the Trump administration to meet detainees' demands for human rights, due process, and for their freedom.
Jun 10, 2026
The warehouses of human suffering are all around us. Filthy, inhumane prisons where immigrants are hidden away and brutalized. It's up to us to keep pushing to end these modern-day concentration camps. To expose them, empty them, and tear them down.
For months we New Jerseyans have mobilized to defend our brothers and sisters locked away in Delaney Hall in Newark. Many there are on a hunger and labor strike to protest the inhumane conditions inside—the rotted food, untreated illness, physical abuse and mental anguish—and the injustice of their detention in the first place. They are demanding their freedom.
Delaney Hall is just one part of a national network of immigrant abuse. It’s not about enforcing immigration laws—it’s about a paramilitary operation to attack and imprison immigrants and people of color, and keep them in inhumane conditions without the possibility of freedom until they give up their rights and accept deportation. In prisons all over the country—Adelanto, Dilley, Krome, Otay Mesa, Hutto, and others—corporate contractors like GEO Group are profiting from human isolation, sickness, and death. The Trump administration is supplying the bodies. And Congress is pumping billions of dollars more to feed this obscene, corrupt system.
Right now there is so much we can and must do to support the people suffering and protesting inside those walls. Some courageous fighters have already been released. But the struggle continues. We must work together to keep the pressure on the administration to meet their demands for human rights, due process, and for their freedom, starting first with the release of the most vulnerable, the elderly, young, pregnant, and sick.
We who are outside need to keep fighting and organizing to defend imprisoned immigrants and to support their families.
At a bare minimum, we must bear witness. The ICE Out of New Jersey collective has brought together several state and local community and grassroots organizations to be in the front lines to defend immigrants and expose and resist the administration's abuses. The groups are the New Jersey Immigrant Rights Program of the American Friends Service Committee, CATA - The Farmworkers Support Committee, Cosecha NJ, DIRE (Deportation and Immigration Response Equipo), El Pueblo Unido, Estamos Unidos NJ, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Resistencia en Acción NJ, and Semilla Roja NJ.
Also, Eyes on ICE is building a network of watchful vigilance and mutual aid. Community members, elected officials, faith leaders, students, unions—it's going to take all of us, all across the country. To show that we could be different. We must not look away. And we must not stop.
President Donald Trump and those enforcing his white-supremacist campaign of mass imprisonment and mass deportations want us to feel afraid and powerless. The police—like the New Jersey state troopers who attacked peaceful protesters at Delaney Hall—want to intimidate us. We need to work together to shift this narrative, at all levels, from the governor and state and federal representatives to mayors and grassroots leaders.
When we say, “No justice, no peace,” we mean it. We are neither afraid nor powerless. And we are not strangers. We are human, like those just inside those walls.
Our freedom out here is linked to their freedom inside. We must fight for the liberation of all. The attack on one is an attack on all of us.
We must be witnesses when we are ordered to leave and told there's nothing to see. Even when Immigration Custom Enforcement agents and state police officers beat, trample, and pepper spray us in the name of "keeping the peace."
We must keep saying no—not now, not ever, never again. We must not allow the Trump administration and its state and local partners to keep abusing their power and using our money to commit moral atrocities in secrecy.
We the people must hold firm to our humanity and reject their barbarism.
The administration's top goal is to dehumanize immigrants. But despite all their violence, they have failed. The men and women behind the bars of immigrant prisons like Delaney Hall refuse to be dehumanized. Those who are on a hunger and labor strike are asserting their human dignity, which can never be erased.
We who are outside need to keep fighting and organizing to defend imprisoned immigrants and to support their families. We must keep up the pressure, for as long as it takes and with all the power we have.
We must not let their inhumanity dehumanize us.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Is Systematically Dismantling the Immigration Court System
The Trump administration’s overhaul of the immigration court system prioritizes cruelty and deportations over justice and the people’s right to due process.
Jun 01, 2026
On May 26, Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival issued a memo directing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, attorneys within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor to develop “anti-fraud policies” designed for “robust enforcement.” This effort “should include enforcement against immigration attorneys filing false asylum claims in immigration courts.”
In a press release, Percival further added: “Protection claims like asylum are intended to cover unique and narrow circumstances, but it is standard practice for immigration attorneys representing illegal aliens to assert that virtually every illegal alien is going to be persecuted or tortured in his or her home country. Historically, ICE has depended on the discipline of immigration judges and the enforcement of criminal fraud laws to deter this conduct, but ICE has its own tools. Now, thanks to this directive, ICE attorneys have greater authority to enforce the law and stop the abuse of our asylum system by illegal aliens and attorneys.”
Despite these accusations, however, there is no evidence of widespread asylum fraud occurring. As the National Immigration Forum explains, there are two departments responsible for adjudicating asylum cases: the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). While each department has a dedicated fraud detection and prevention division, neither releases regular data on the number of cases terminated or investigated for fraud.
What limited data is available does not support the Trump administration’s case whatsoever. For instance, according to a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, “The number of USCIS asylum terminations for fraud has decreased in recent years, from 103 in fiscal year 2010 to 34 in fiscal year 2014.” During that span, USCIS terminated asylum for a total of 374 individuals due to fraud, while granting asylum to 76,122 individuals.
Going after immigration attorneys is another step toward dismantling the immigration court system and stripping noncitizens of any legal protection.
The Catholic Legal Immigration Network reports that USCIS issued 892 Notices of Intent to Terminate (NOITs) asylum status between 2009 and 2020, according to data they obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Of those issued NOITs, Notices of Continuation of Status were granted in 231 cases. Only 562 cases were terminated due to “fraud in the application.”
It is also worth noting that most asylum requests are denied. This does not mean, however, that those people did not have a legitimate fear of being persecuted or harmed in their home country. Because of regulations imposed by the Trump administration and other precedents, it is incredibly difficult for those fleeing domestic abuse, gender-based violence, police violence, and gang violence to win asylum. Even cases that would have been approved in the past are now ending with deportation orders.
What is occurring here is simply another instance of President Donald Trump weaponizing allegations of fraud to target and undermine an institution he dislikes. Whether it’s elections, Medicaid, Social Security, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Democrat-run cities, or immigration, Trump insists, without evidence, that widespread fraud is occurring at unprecedented levels. That baseless accusation then becomes the pretext for a wildly illegal abuse of power. All the while, the actual rampant fraud being committed by the Trump administration is swept under the rug.
Going after immigration attorneys is another step toward dismantling the immigration court system and stripping noncitizens of any legal protection.
Already in the past year, Trump has fired over 100 immigration judges out of roughly 750 that were in place when he returned to power. The majority of those fired were appointed under Democratic administrations, had previously worked as attorneys defending immigrants, and granted asylum at higher rates than those who kept their jobs (46% compared with 15%). The administration’s new hires, by contrast, have granted asylum in approximately 6% of cases.
Notably, in August 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a rule allowing “any attorney,” including those with no prior experience in immigration law, to serve as temporary immigration judges. The same week, the Pentagon authorized 600 military lawyers to serve six-month terms as temporary judges. As Kyra Lilien, a former immigration judge who was abruptly terminated in July 2025, noted: “Firing expert, high-performing, effective judges and replacing them with inexperienced temps does not make the courts more efficient or achieve any goals of systemic reform. It is simply destructive.”
Amid this purge of immigration judges, San Francisco’s immigration court, which handled the third-largest number of asylum cases in the nation, was forced to close on May 1, 2026. This is no accident. Between 2019 to 2024, almost 75% of petitioners were granted some form of relief by that court compared with 43% nationwide. This disparity, however, is not due to fraud, but rather reflects the incredible work of California’s vast pro-immigrant organizations and pro bono or low-cost legal services. Their efforts continue to ensure that most noncitizens across the state have access to legal representation at their hearings.
More than 117,000 cases previously handled by the San Francisco court are now being relocated to a courthouse in Concord, about 30 miles away from the city. However, because of firings, the Concord court is, at the time of this writing, down to four immigration judges and one supervisor.
These firings will continue. Any judge who resists Trump’s mass deportation regime will be removed and replaced with someone who won’t. In recruitment ads, the DOJ and DHS openly encourage applicants to “become a deportation judge.”
At the same time, Trump is taking additional steps to maximize the number of removal orders being issued by the courts. As part of removal proceedings, individuals are required to attend “master calendar hearings”—these are brief, preliminary hearings wherein a judge formally notifies the person of the charges against them and provides them with a schedule for future hearings.
Noncitizens are now being scheduled for master calendar hearings consisting of 100 or more people at a time. These “mega masters” are largely made up of people without any form of legal representation whose original hearing was scheduled for 2027, 2028, or 2029. In February 2026, dozens of Somali migrants also had their hearings abruptly rescheduled for later that month and the next.
The goal here is simple: When someone does not appear for their hearing, regardless of the reason, a judge can issue an in absentia removal order that allows ICE agents to detain and deport them. The Trump administration is fast-tracking these cases, providing immigrants and their attorneys little to no notice, in the hopes that most will miss their hearings and a judge—whether out of fear of losing their job or loyalty to Trump—will move to deport them.
In short, the Trump administration’s overhaul of the immigration court system prioritizes cruelty and deportations over justice and the people’s right to due process.
This must end. Immigration judges should not fear losing their job for doing the right thing. Immigration attorneys should not be subject to federal investigations for helping their clients. Meaningful reforms must be implemented both to solve the problems Trump has created and the ones that predated him.
Such reforms include: first, guaranteeing that every noncitizen has access to a publicly funded attorney.
Second, ensuring that the asylum process is fair and consistent across the nation. As it stands, asylum acceptance and denial rates vary significantly from judge to judge and from court to court, effectively making the asylum process into a lottery. For instance, a 2017 Reuters report documented the nearly identical stories of two Honduran women who were targeted by gang violence due to their activism. One was granted asylum by the now-closed San Francisco court, while the other was denied their request by a court in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, immigration courts must be removed from the executive branch. This is a necessary step to protect due process and stop the abuses being enacted by the Trump administration.
Ultimately, everyone, regardless of immigration status or whatever Trump believes, deserves to be treated with dignity and have their rights respected.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's New Green Card Application Policy Is Unlawful, Immoral, and Xenophobic
The policy effectively redesigns the system such that for some nationalities—predominantly those from African, Asian, Caribbean, and Latin American countries—no realistic legal pathway to obtain a green card exists.
May 26, 2026
On May 22, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a policy memo announcing a major shift in immigration policy. As USCIS Spokesperson Zach Kahler explains: “From now on, an alien who is in the US temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances. This policy allows our immigration system to function as the law intended instead of incentivizing loopholes.”
This new policy is unlawful, immoral, and xenophobic. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as well as the LIFE Act, Congress created various pathways for immigrants to apply for “adjustment of status.” This allows a temporary legal resident to apply for legal permanent resident (LPR) status without having to leave the US.
Such adjustments are not limited to “extraordinary circumstances.” As the USCIS Policy Manual makes clear:
Aliens who are present in the United States and who are beneficiaries of approved immigrant petitions may generally file an application with USCIS to adjust their status to that of an LPR, or they may depart the United States and apply for an immigrant visa abroad. One reason Congress created the adjustment of status provision was to enable certain aliens physically present in the United States to become LPRs without incurring the expense and inconvenience of traveling abroad to obtain an immigrant visa. Congress has added additional adjustment of status provisions to: Ensure national security and public safety; Advance economic growth and a robust immigrant labor force; Promote family unity; and Accommodate humanitarian resettlement.
If Congress intended “adjustment of status” to be limited to “extraordinary circumstances,” then they would have made that clear. What’s more, if that was their intention, then they would not have consistently added more adjustment provisions. The fact of the matter is that neither the plain language of the relevant statutes nor the history of “adjustment of status” guidelines justify this policy revision. Rather than “returning to the original intent of the law” as USCIS Director Joseph Edlow claims, the agency is twisting the law to satisfy President Donald Trump’s desires.
That USCIS had the audacity to even release such an obviously politically motivated and illegal policy speaks to the broader decline in the integrity of American institutions.
As former USCIS senior adviser Doug Rand noted, “Trump has banned people from over 100 countries from returning to the US, so forcing them to go abroad for consular processing is no pathway at all.” This includes nationals from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria, Somalia, and Yemen—countries that Trump has bombed in his second term; as well as Cuba, which is still suffering under a US oil blockade and sanctions.
For those from countries not included in one of Trump’s travel bans, the new process will be significantly more expensive, time-consuming, and complicated. Applicants will be forced to leave their loved ones and wait months or years before they can return to the US.
Now, the memo does acknowledge “limited exceptions” to this new requirement. This includes people on “dual intent” visas such as the H-1B (for specialized workers) or O-1 (for those with “extraordinary ability or achievement”), as well as “immigrant categories where only adjustment of status provides a pathway to permanent resident status.” While the memo fails to specify, the latter may include refugees and asylum-seekers.
Two points are worth emphasizing here: First, the policy memo states that “adjustment under most provisions is granted only as ‘a matter of discretion and administrative grace.’” Maintaining lawful status under a H-1B or O-1 visa “is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.” As Kahler further clarified in an email to Newsweek on May 24, “People who present applications that provide an economic benefit or otherwise are in the national interest will likely be able to continue on their current path.” He added, others “may be asked to apply abroad depending on individualized circumstances.”
Ultimately, however, as the memorandum makes clear, USCIS officers are advised to consider “if approval of the alien’s adjustment of status application is in the best interest of the United States.” This means weighing multiple factors, including “the applicant’s moral character.”
Second, even if one of the “limited exceptions” applies to refugees, it may amount to very little given the Trump administration’s concerted efforts to weaken the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP).
In October 2025, the Trump administration lowered the cap on the number of refugees the US will admit to 7,500. Between October 2025 and April 2026, the US only admitted 4,499 refugees. All, except three from Afghanistan, were South African.
In November 2025, USCIS issued a memo ordering the review of about 233,000 refugees who entered the US between January 20, 2021 and February 20, 2025. It also halted all processing of green card applications for refugees who entered during that period.
As part of their operations in Minnesota in January 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and USCIS launched a sweeping initiative to re-review and potentially terminate the protective status of refugees who had not yet obtained permanent resident status. This led to more than 100 refugees with no criminal records being arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on allegations of fraud, transferred to detention centers in Texas, and threatened with deportation.
The USCIS policy effectively redesigns the system such that for some nationalities—predominantly those from African, Asian, Caribbean, and Latin American countries—no realistic legal pathway to obtain a green card exists. For all others, it becomes a matter of administrative discretion—or more precisely, Trump’s discretion. The true dividing line here is not whether one contributes economically to the US or follows its laws, but rather whether Trump believes a person comes from a “shithole” country or a “nice” country.
This divide has a further implication: Under Trump’s birthright ban, only children born of US citizens and lawful permanent residents automatically acquire citizenship. If the Supreme Court upholds his order, and if this policy revision survives its inevitable lawsuit, then it would dramatically alter who could become a citizen. This has been an underlying goal of Trump’s immigration agenda from the start.
Kahler insists that this policy is necessary to close a dangerous loophole that immigrants exploit to stay in the US indefinitely. He remarks, “When aliens apply from their home country, it reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the US illegally after being denied residency.”
This is bullshit, plain and simple. US Customs and Border Protection calculated that in 2024 the US visa overstay rate was 1.15%. “In other words, 98.85% of the in-scope nonimmigrant visitors departed the United States on-time and in accordance with the terms of their admissions.”
The true goal rather is to force people to leave the US and have consular officers abroad quickly and quietly reject their applications without any consideration for due process or the applicant’s legal rights. As the CATO Institute reports, even prior to this new policy, DHS had already cut green card approvals by roughly half.
Hopefully, the courts or Congress will intervene and put an end to this policy. However, that USCIS had the audacity to even release such an obviously politically motivated and illegal policy speaks to the broader decline in the integrity of American institutions. Even if this attempt fails, the Trump administration will continue to go after immigrants. They will not stop; so, neither can we. We must remain vigilant and continue to keep our communities safe.
Keep ReadingShow Less
For Maine Communities, Congress Must Fund Defenders, Not Detention and Deportation
Having experienced firsthand the terrors of the Trump administration’s detention and deportation agenda, Maine has already paid the price of this cruelty. We cannot afford one additional dollar of public investment in immigration operations.
May 17, 2026
In recent weeks, Congress passed a budget proposal seeking additional billions to fund federal immigration operations. Despite widespread public opposition to the inhuman actions of the Trump administration’s immigration agencies, Congress is moving forward with these budget plans that would further harm the stability and well-being of Maine’s families and immigrant communities. As the budget reconciliation process continues, Sens. Susan Collins and Angus King and our representatives must reject these dangerous proposals and instead fund real solutions to protect families and our constitutional rights.
On top of the $170 billion that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was granted last year, the proposal passed by the House and the Senate would give $70 billion in additional funding for harmful immigration operations, with no strings attached. Having experienced firsthand the terrors of the Trump administration’s detention and deportation agenda, Maine has already paid the price of this cruelty. We cannot afford one additional dollar of public investment in immigration operations.
Over the last 15 months, DHS has used its billions to send federal agents into Maine and other communities to abduct people from courtrooms, workplaces, and homes, tearing them from their right to a fair day in court. This has led to unprecedented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention rates, an ever-increasing death toll in detention, thousands of family separations, and growing numbers of removals without due process.
According to an analysis by our organization, ICE apprehensions in Maine increased 37% when comparing all of 2024 and the first 10.5 months of 2025. ICE predominantly targeted Black and brown individuals without any criminal charges. ICE relies on categorizing people as having “Pending Criminal Charges” or “Other.” They targeted working-age men, disproportionately from African and Latin American countries, robbing families of their breadwinners.
Instead of attacking families and their constitutional rights, our federal funds should be used to support families and uphold due process.
Immigrants are integral to our state. More than 19,000 children in Maine have at least one immigrant parent. Over 56,000 immigrants live in Maine—and though they make up only 4% of the population, immigrant workers account for nearly 5% of the labor force. In 2025 alone, Maine’s immigrant residents paid 625.8 million in taxes.
In the face of escalating raids, in partnership with Presente!ME and their People’s Coalition on Safety and Justice, Maine Immigrants Rights' Coalition launched an Immigrant Defense Hotline and Resource Hub in October 2025 as “Community Watch” to record ICE sightings and offer legal support. Because there is no public defender system in immigration court, our services have been a critical last line of defense. But up against chaotic federal agencies with unlimited funding, this has not been enough.
Instead of attacking families and their constitutional rights, our federal funds should be used to support families and uphold due process. Research, including a recent three-year randomized study by the Vera Institute of Justice, consistently shows that people with a lawyer are far more likely to obtain the legal relief they are entitled to—allowing them to return to their jobs, communities, and families. When our rights and communities are threatened, we must fund defenders, not the detention and deportation machine.
As a diverse network of over 100 organizations, my partners and I are committed to defending due process and holding the government accountable. Just as we work every day to hold DHS accountable in the courtroom, Congress must do the same in Washington and reject this unnecessary and harmful infusion of funding for immigration detention and operations. Congress should invest in less costly, more supportive services like legal representation that uphold the right to due process and help people navigate the immigration system without disrupting our communities.
As Maine’s congressional leaders move forward with their budget reconciliation proposals, we urge them to remember that the stability, rights, and well-being of our communities are in their hands. We send you to Washington to invest in solutions that give every Mainer a fair shot at building a safe, stable, and dignified life in this nation they call home.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Each of These Is a Murder': Trump Admin Conducts 3rd Deadly Boat Strike in 5 Days
"Drug suspects should be arrested and prosecuted, not summarily executed," a human rights expert said.
May 09, 2026
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."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Corrupt and Unprecedented': Immigration Board Fast-Tracked Khalil Deportation Decision
They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance," Mahmoud Khalil said.
May 09, 2026
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.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Petitions Israeli Supreme Court to Free Abu Safiya and 13 Other Gaza Doctors
By holding doctors from Gaza without charge, Physicians for Human Rights Israel said the military was "effectively paralyzing an entire healthcare system already made fragile by the ongoing destruction."
May 01, 2026
An Israeli human rights group is petitioning for the country's Supreme Court to order the release of 14 doctors from Gaza who have been imprisoned for more than a year without charges.
Among them is Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, the director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital, who has been detained without charges since December 2024 and this week had his detention extended by a district court, which Physicians for Human Rights Israel (PHRI) described as "unlawful."
On Thursday, PHRI said that Israel's Supreme Court must recognize "the special protections afforded to doctors and medical workers under international humanitarian law, as well as the urgent need for medical personnel from Gaza to carry out their duties and help rehabilitate the extensive damage inflicted on Gaza’s healthcare system."
They called on the court to revoke the detentions of Safiya and 13 other doctors, who include pediatricians, orthopedic specialists, and surgeons.
Nearly all of the hospitals in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed during more than two years of genocidal war by Israel, and more than 1,500 healthcare workers have been killed in what UN experts have described as a "medicide."
PHRI said that hundreds of medical workers have been targeted and arrested by the Israel Defense Forces without charge, "effectively paralyzing an entire healthcare system already made fragile by the ongoing destruction."
"Over the past two years, testimonies from detained medical workers have described dire conditions of incarceration, including starvation and abuse amounting to torture across Israeli detention facilities," the group said, noting that at least five of them had died in custody.
PHRI said it had submitted a request to Israel's Supreme Court to reconsider the detention orders, but upon receiving no response, it filed a petition.
"Despite protections under international humanitarian law, and an ongoing ceasefire, doctors from Gaza are still being held without any due process, subjected to severe conditions amounting to torture," the group said. "The continued detention of doctors who could provide urgently needed medical care—actively hinders the rehabilitation of the healthcare system and prevents any meaningful recovery."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Fucking Insane': Journalist Finds at Least 2,300 Illegal ICE Detentions Since July
"This is what 'mass deportations' looks like. Neither due process nor basic humanity," said one lawyer. "Don't look away."
Jan 26, 2026
In yet another display of the Trump administration's disregard for the US Constitution, there have been at least 2,300 cases in which federal judges have ruled that immigration officials illegally detained people without bond or due process since just July, according to one journalist.
Politico reporter Kyle Cheney shared some of the cases he's tracked in a thread on the social media platform X late Saturday. "This is one that stands out," he said of Sonik Manaserian, an Iranian woman of Armenian ethnicity who is a member of the Baha'i faith.
According to an order out of the Central District of California in Manaserian's case, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) "arrested a chronically ill, 70-year-old woman, who came to this country to avoid religious persecution and applied for asylum, who has lived here peacefully for 26 years and complied with all check-in requirements and other conditions of release, who has no known criminal record and poses no threat to anyone, without notice or the process required by their own regulations and without any plan for removing her from this country, then kept her in detention for months without sufficient medical care—and they do not have any argument to offer to even try to justify these actions."
Cheney's thread came just hours after Customs and Border Protection (CBP) fatally shot legal observer and nurse Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, less than three weeks after ICE officer Jonathan Ross similarly killed Renee Good in Minnesota's largest city.
"Minnesota courts have been inundated with these cases since the beginning of Operation Metro Surge last month," said the journalist, noting a Friday order in which a judge freed Audberto J., a Mexican man residing in the state, "where he and his wife have lived and raised three children together over the last 20 years."
While the Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that its immigration enforcement operations are targeting "the worst of the worst," like the vast majority of immigrants actually seized by agents with the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in recent months, Audberto J. has no criminal history, according to the order.
"Yet another ruling from Friday, freeing a man detained by ICE in Minnesota who suffered severe head injuries during his arrest and has been hospitalized since. The man claims ICE has required him to be shackled in the hospital, against the wishes of doctors," Cheney noted. "Here's another Minnesota ruling that just came in tonight: A federal judge is threatening DHS with contempt for transferring a petitioner out of the state despite a court order enjoining the administration from doing so."
The journalist added to the thread on Sunday, as judges in Minnesota continued issue to rulings. In one of those cases, "Judge [Katherine] Menendez—who issued last week's injunction against ICE's retaliatory use of pepper spray—just ordered the release of a Kenyan woman arrested while picking up seizure medication at CVS."
Sharing the thread, American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick stressed "this is what 'mass deportations' looks like. Neither due process nor basic humanity. Don't look away."
Immigrant Defenders Law Center co-founder and CEO Lindsay Toczylowski said that "as you read this excellent thread, let it sink in that one of the most pervasive issues for people in ICE detention is lack of access to counsel which means in most cases people have no shot at filing these challenges to their illegal detentions in federal court."
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution states in part that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," and protects various rights in legal proceedings. The Trump administration has also faced intense criticism recently for its disregard of rights protected by the First, Second, and Fourth amendments.
Cheney was praised by other journalists for "such good shoe-leather reporting," as "PBS NewsHour" correspondent Lisa Desjardins put it. Lawfare senior editor Roger Parloff suggested that he "should get a Pulitzer for this thread."
John Yarmuth, a former newspaper editor and Democratic congressman from Kentucky, said that "this is a great example of a journalist doing his very critical job. Now it's up to government officials to act to correct these injustices. AND be shamed and replaced if they don't."
Last Thursday, seven Democrats in the US House of Representatives voted with nearly all Republicans to pass a multibillion-dollar DHS funding bill. Pretti's killing has increased pressure on all senators to reject it. While immigration agents' deadly and illegal actions have fueled calls to "abolish ICE," some lawmakers are demanding reforms at the agency and across the department.
Pointing to Cheney's findings, anti-monopoly lawyer Basel Musharbash said: "This is fucking insane. What reforms are supposed to fix an agency that commits 2,300 adjudicated constitutional violations in just six months? And those are just the ones that made it to court!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy