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
immigration and nationality act
Rights Groups Sue Over Illegal Detention of Migrants at 'Notorious' Guantánamo
Migrants at the infamous torture site "are surrounded by military officials, deprived of in-person contact with legal counsel, and subject to punitive conditions of confinement," the suit says.
Jun 05, 2025
Immigrant rights advocates on Wednesday launched a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration for detaining migrants at the U.S. naval station in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba—the site of a "notorious" prison where several foreign men and boys were indefinitely held and tortured as part of the so-called War on Terror.
The class action suit was filed in the District of Columbia by the ACLU's national and D.C. arms, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the International Refugee Assistance Project against the secretaries of defense, homeland security, and state, as well as their departments, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and ICE's acting director.
The coalition brought the case on behalf of two Nicaraguan men previously detained a facilities in Virginia and Louisiana—Yamil Luna Gutierrez and Rafael Angel Lopez Ocon—and other noncitizens the Trump administration is now holding under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) in "disturbing" conditions at Guantánamo.
"Immigration detention outside the United States is straightforwardly illegal."
Rather than keeping these migrants in the United States "while making arrangements to effectuate their removal, the government has flown them hundreds of miles away to detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for no legitimate purpose," the complaint states. "Plaintiffs are surrounded by military officials, deprived of in-person contact with legal counsel, and subject to punitive conditions of confinement, including in facilities previously used by the military to hold law-of-war detainees."
The plaintiffs, the filing says, "do not challenge the government's authority to detain them on U.S. soil or to directly remove them to their home country or to another statutorily authorized country. What they challenge is the government's unprecedented and unlawful decision to hold them in a detention facility at Guantánamo—which, under the INA, and for purposes of the application of that statute, is not the United States. Immigration detention outside the United States is straightforwardly illegal under the statute."
"Moreover," the document argues, "the government's use of Guantánamo for immigration detention is arbitrary and capricious, lacks any legitimate purpose, and imposes punitive detention conditions on immigration detainees in violation of their constitutional rights."
"Never before this administration has the federal government moved noncitizens apprehended and detained in the United States on civil immigration charges to Guantánamo, or to any other facility outside the United States, for the purpose of civil immigration detention. Nor is there any legitimate reason to do so," the document notes. "The government has ample detention capacity inside the United States, which is far less costly and poses none of the logistical hurdles attendant to detaining people at Guantánamo."
Specifically, according to the complaint, "since February 4, 2025, the government has held approximately 500 people in immigration detention at Guantánamo, at a reported cost of more than $40 million, or approximately $100,000 per day per detainee. In contrast, immigration detention at a U.S.-based detention facility costs, on average, $165 per day per detainee."
Previewing the Trump administration's likely arguments in court, the suit says that "in attempting to justify the transfers, the government has claimed that the individuals it is sending to Guantánamo are members of gangs and dangerous criminals—the 'worst of the worst.' That characterization has been proven wrong. Regardless, it is legally irrelevant."
The filing also stresses that "the government's real reason for holding immigration detainees at Guantánamo is to instill fear in the immigrant population. That is not conjecture; it is government policy."
The coalition is asking the court to rule that detaining these migrants at Guantánamo violates the INA, Administrative Procedure Act, and Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and to block the Trump administration from continuing to do so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warning of Grave Threat to Free Speech, Judge Frees Rümeysa Öztürk
"There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the op-ed," U.S. District Judge William Sessions III said, referring to Öztürk's article urging divestment from Israel.
May 09, 2025
Rümeysa Öztürk, one of several pro-Palestine scholars kidnapped and imprisoned by the Trump administration under its dubious interpretation of an 18th-century law and a Cold War-era national security measure, was released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody Friday following a federal judge's order.
U.S. District Judge William Sessions III in Vermont ruled that Öztürk—a 30-year-old Turkish Ph.D. student at Tufts University in Massachusetts and Fulbright scholar—was illegally detained in March, when masked plainclothes federal agents snatched her off a suburban Boston street in broad daylight in what eyewitnesses and advocates likened to a kidnapping and flew her to a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Louisiana.
"Thank you so much for all the support and love," Öztürk told supporters outside the facility following her release.
The government admits that Öztürk committed no crime. She was targeted because of an
opinion piece published in Tufts Daily advocating divestment from Israel amid the U.S.-backed nation's genocidal assault on Gaza and its apartheid, occupation, ethnic cleansing, and colonization in the rest of Palestine. Öztürk was arrested despite a U.S. State Department determination that there were no grounds for revoking her visa.
"There has been no evidence that has been introduced by the government other than the op-ed," said Sessions, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. "That literally is the case."
BREAKING: a federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to immediately release on bail Rumeysa Ozturk, a Muslim grad student at Tufts University who was abducted and abused by ICE agents, all because she wrote an editorial, yes, an editorial, critical of the Israeli government's genocide.
[image or embed]
— CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) ( @cairnational.bsky.social) May 9, 2025 at 11:12 AM
"There is no evidence here as to the motivation, absent consideration of the op-ed, so that creates unto itself a very significant substantial claim that the op-ed—that is, the expression of one's opinion as ordinarily protected by the First Amendment—form the basis of this particular detention," the judge continued, adding that Öztürk's "continued detention potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens."
"There is absolutely no evidence that she has engaged in violence, or advocated violence, she has no criminal record," Sessions noted. "She has done nothing other than, essentially, attend her university and expand her contacts in her community in such a supportive way."
"Her continued detention cannot stand," he added.
The Trump administration has openly flouted judge's rulings—including a U.S. Supreme Court order—that direct it to release detained immigrants. Sessions' Friday ruling follows his earlier order to send Öztürk to Vermont and Wednesday's 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmation of the judge's directive, both of which have been ignored by the administration.
Seeing that Öztürk was still in ICE custody hours after his order, Sessions reiterated his directive Friday afternoon.
"In light of the court's finding of no flight risk and no danger to the community, petitioner is to be released from ICE custody immediately on her own recognizance, without any form of body-worn GPS or other ICE monitoring at this time," the judge wrote.
Mahsa Khanbabai, Öztürk's attorney, toldCourthouse News Service she's "relieved and ecstatic" that her client has been ordered released.
"Unfortunately, it is 45 days too late," Khanbabai lamented. "She has been imprisoned all these days for simply writing an op-ed that called for human rights and dignity for the people in Palestine. When did speaking up against oppression become a crime? When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?"
The Trump administration has dubiously invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows the president to detain dor deport citizens of countries with which the U.S. is at war, in a bid to justify Öztürk's persecution. The administration has also cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which empowers the secretary of state to order the expulsion of noncitizens whose presence in the United States is deemed detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests.
"When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?"
Secretary of State Marco Rubio—who lied about Öztürk supporting Hamas—has used such determinations to target people for engaging in constitutionally protected speech and protest.
"We do it every day," Rubio said in March in defense of the policy. "Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas."
Rubio has invoked the law to target numerous other students who the government admits committed no crimes. These include Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Yunseo Chung—all permanent U.S. residents—as well as Ranjani Srinivasan and others. Far-right, pro-Israel groups like Betar and Canary Mission have compiled lists containing the names of these and other pro-Palestine students that are shared with the Trump administration for possible deportation.
Foreign nationals—and some U.S. citizens wrongfully swept up in the Trump administration's mass deportation effort—are imprisoned in facilities including private, for-profit detention centers, where there are widespread reports of poor conditions and alleged abuses.
These include denial of medical care, insufficient access to feminine hygiene products, and rotten food at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center, where Öztürk—who, according to Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), has received no religious or dietary accommodations and had her hijab forcibly removed—is being held.
Öztürk also suffers from asthma and told Sessions via Zoom Friday that her attacks have increased behind bars due to stress. Dr. Jessica McCannon, a pulmonologist, testified that Öztürk's asthma appears to be poorly controlled in ICE custody, according to
courtroom coverage on the social media site Bluesky by freelance journalist Joshua J. Friedman.
U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) was among those who on Friday demanded Öztürk's immediate release, while other lawmakers and human rights and free speech defenders celebrated Sessions' decision.
"Rümeysa Öztürk has finally been ordered released," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said on social media. "She has been unlawfully detained for more than six weeks in an ICE facility in Louisiana, more than 1,500 miles away from Somerville. This is a victory for Rümeysa, for justice, and for our democracy."
In the United States, we guarantee free speech. No one here will lose their rights and freedom for publishing an op-ed. This is a win for the rule of law. Rümeysa is free!
[image or embed]
— Representative Becca Balint ( @balint.house.gov) May 9, 2025 at 1:24 PM
Seth Stern, director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement that "it is unfathomable that in the United States legal system, it takes 45 days for a judge to rule that people can't be put behind bars for writing op-eds the government doesn't like."
"Without a system committed to its principles, the Constitution is just words on paper, and they don't mean much if this can happen here," Stern continued. "Öztürk's abduction and imprisonment is one of the most shameful chapters in First Amendment history."
"We're thankful that Judge Sessions moved it one step closer to an end and we call on the Trump administration to release Öztürk immediately and not attempt to stall with any further authoritarian nonsense," he added.
Amid President Donald Trump's defunding threats and pressure from ICE officials, universities have told "many hundreds" of international students that they have lost their immigration status and must immediately self-deport. These notifications were based on the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) termination of students' records on the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a database used by schools and authorities to access visa information.
Although DHS admitted in court that it had no authority to use SEVIS to revoke students' status, the Trump administration still canceled more than 1,800 visas before reversing course last month pending an ICE policy revamp.
In addition to moving to deport pro-Palestine students, the Trump administration is sending Latin American immigrants—including wrongfully expelled Maryland man Kilmar Abrego García—to a notorious prison in El Salvador, and the president has repeatedly threatened to send natural-born U.S. citizens there.
As with Öztürk and other detained students, the Trump administration has dubiously invoked the Alien Enemies Act in trying to deport García and others. However, federal judges—including multiple Trump appointees—have thwarted some of these efforts.
On Friday, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller said that Trump and his advisers are "actively looking at" suspending habeas corpus as a means of overcoming judicial pushback against the administration's deportation blitz.
"Well, the Constitution is clear—and that of course is the supreme law of the land—that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion," Miller told reporters at the White House. No foreign entity has invaded the United States since Japanese forces landed in the Aleutian Islands in the then-territory of Alaska during World War II.
Critics pointed out that Miller's proposal is, in fact, blatantly unconstitutional.
"Since it appears needs to be said: The authority to suspend habeas corpus lies with Congress, not the president, and is only legal during extreme circumstances of rebellion or invasion," Democratic pollster and strategist Matt McDermott said on Bluesky. "Stephen Miller is full of shit."
It wasn't just Democrats and Palestine defenders who cheered Sessions' ruling Friday. Billy Binion, who covers "all things injustice" for the libertarian website Reason, said on social media that the government's "entire case against her is that... she wrote an op-ed."
"Hard to overstate how bleak—and frankly embarrassing—it is that the Trump administration wants to jail and deport someone for speech," he continued. "In America."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ACLU Plans Lawsuit Over Biden's Trumpian Attack on Asylum Rights
"It was illegal when Trump did it, and it is no less illegal now."
Jun 04, 2024
The ACLU on Tuesday vowed to launch a legal challenge to U.S. President Joe Biden's executive order barring migrants who cross the southern border without authorization from receiving asylum.
Biden's executive action invokes Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act—previously used by the administration of former Republican President Donald Trump to deny migrants asylum—"when the southern border is overwhelmed."
Under the policy, asylum requests will be shut down when the average number of daily migrant encounters between ports of entry hits 2,500. Border entry points would reopen to asylum-seekers when that number dips below 1,500.
The president said he was acting, in part, because "Republicans in Congress chose to put partisan politics ahead of our national security, twice voting against the toughest and fairest set of reforms in decades."
On Tuesday, the ACLU said Biden's policy will "rush vulnerable people through already fast-tracked deportation proceedings, sending people in need of protection to their deaths."
"We intend to challenge this order in court," Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said in a statement. "It was illegal when Trump did it, and it is no less illegal now."
In July 2020 a federal judge in Washington, D.C. struck down the Trump administration's ban on most Central Americans and migrants from other countries.
ACLU chief political and advocacy officer Deirdre Schifeling said that "we need solutions to address the challenges at the border, but the administration's planned executive actions will put thousands of lives at risk."
"They will not meet the needs at the border, nor will they fix our broken immigration system," Schifeling added. "We urge the administration to uphold its campaign promise to restore asylum and mobilize the necessary resources to address the challenges at the border. It's not just the morally sound thing to do—it's good politics."
The ACLU pointed to polling showing that "voters nationwide and in battleground states largely reject enforcement-only policies that put vulnerable people in danger."
The group is advocating "balanced and humane solutions" including "improving processing at ports of entry and addressing the immigration case backlog by investing in immigration court judges and legal representation."
This isn't the first time that Biden's immigration policies have been likened to those of Trump, who is the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee despite having recently been convicted on 34 felony counts and facing 54 other federal and state charges across three cases.
One year ago, critics accused Biden of "finishing Trump's job" by implementing a crackdown on asylum-seekers upon the expiration of Title 42—a provision first invoked during the previous administration at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and continued by Biden to expel more than 1 million migrants under the pretext of public health.
The international medical charity Doctors Without Borders—which has deployed aid teams along migration routes—warned Tuesday that Biden's new order will put vulnerable people who endure treacherous, sometimes deadly, risks trying to reach the United States "at even greater risk."
"In signing this executive order, President Biden has betrayed his promise to build a fair, safe, and humane immigration system," Doctors Without Borders USA CEO Avril Benoît said in a statement. "This order is not only counter to U.S. law and international law, it puts people's lives and health at risk."
"Today's decision will trap vulnerable people, including young families, in insecure cities in Mexico and put them in grave danger," Benoît added. "The Biden administration continues to prioritize optics and political expediency at the expense of thousands of people who are attempting to exercise their legal right to seek asylum."
Kica Matos, president of the National Immigration Law Center and the NILC Immigrant Justice Fund, said Tuesday that "President Biden's craven embrace of failed Republican policies is a mistake that will only lead to more harm and dysfunction at the U.S.-Mexico border."
"There is a better way," she stressed. "Rather than playing politics with people's lives, the president should pursue practical solutions that increase our capacity to welcome immigrants humanely. These solutions include timely and fair processing of asylum applications, expanding legal pathways, and supporting cities that are welcoming our new neighbors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular