Federal Court Delivers Major Blow to Trump Detention Policy of Jailing Immigrants With No Hearing, No Explanation

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 3, 2026 — On July 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that people facing immigration detention have the right to meaningful due process protections and must be afforded a bond hearing within 90 days. The decision deals a major blow to the Trump administration’s new mass detention efforts, rejecting the government’s argument that it can detain people without ever having to justify it to a judge. 

At the center of the case are three fathers of U.S. citizen children—all longtime Texas residents with no criminal history—who were arrested following routine traffic stops and detained without any meaningful opportunity to challenge whether that detention was necessary. The American Immigration Council and the National Immigration Project argued before the Fifth Circuit on behalf of these three men, whose cases were consolidated for appeal.

“This case asked a simple question: if the government wants to lock someone up, does it have to show that imprisonment serves a purpose?” said Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council, who argued the case. “Today’s decision reaffirms that constitutional rights do not disappear simply because someone is in immigration proceedings. The government must provide a meaningful opportunity for people to challenge their detention.” 

In its decision, the court held that the Constitution does not allow the government to detain noncitizens for “indefinite and extensive periods of time without an individualized determination.” Noncitizens detained under the government’s recently expanded mandatory detention policy are entitled to a bond hearing within 90 days of their arrest, and at that hearing, the government must provide an individualized justification for continued detention. It cannot simply hold someone because of how they entered the country, no matter what the immigration detention statute says. 

“The Fifth Amendment has protected people living in this country from being imprisoned without justification for well over a century. What it doesn’t do is enforce itself,” said Ellie Norton, Senior Staff Attorney, of the National Immigration Project. “Ignacio, Alejandro, and Miguel are fathers who have lived in Texas for more than a decade. They’re the reason this court had to confront the question of whether the government can detain people like them without any checks and balances. Thousands of people in detention will benefit from what these three men were willing to fight for.” 

The decision will provide crucial due process protections for people held in immigration detention throughout Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, states that collectively hold some of the largest immigration detention populations in the country. The court’s ruling has enormous implications for the thousands of noncitizens the government has detained in these states without any due process. It requires the administration to justify their incarceration and the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars on detention of people who have built their lives in and contributed to this country. 

Immigration detention has expanded dramatically under the second Trump administration, while reports of overcrowding, inadequate medical care, and a record number of deaths in custody have continued to mount. Without the chance to go before a judge, people who pose no danger and no flight risk can remain incarcerated for prolonged periods while their immigration cases proceed. The Fifth Circuit’s decision puts an end to this injustice.

Additional context on the ruling:

For any noncitizen held under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A) and thus subject to mandatory detention under the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494, 506 (5th Cir. 2026), “the Government must show” that the individual presents an “identified and articulable threat” or flight risk. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that individuals detained under this statute must be provided bond hearings within 90 days of their detention, where the government must articulate an “individualized justification” for continued detention. The court made clear that its ruling does not require every single noncitizen subject to mandatory detention in the Fifth Circuit to file an individual habeas petition to get this relief.

Read the ruling here.

More about the lawsuit here.

MEDIA CONTACTS

Elyssa Pachico, epachico@immcouncil.org 

Lilly Gonzalez, media@nipnlg.org 

###

The National Immigration Project is a membership organization of attorneys, advocates, and community members who believe that all people should be treated with dignity, live freely, and flourish. We litigate, advocate, educate, and build bridges across movements to ensure that those most impacted by the immigration and criminal systems are uplifted and supported. Learn more at nipnlg.org. Follow the National Immigration Project on Bluesky, Facebook, Instagram, and Threads at @NIPNLG.

The American Immigration Council works to create a more welcoming and fair immigration system. Through litigation, research, and programs that expand access to legal assistance, the Council helps ensure immigrants are embraced, communities are enriched, and justice prevails for all. Follow us on BlueSky @immcouncil.org and Instagram @immcouncil.   

The post Federal Court Delivers Major Blow to Trump Detention Policy of Jailing Immigrants With No Hearing, No Explanation  appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/NfUDPGV
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

Court Declares Unlawful the Department of Education’s Rule Restricting Public Service Loan Forgiveness Eligibility

Washington, D.C. — The Trump Administration’s attempt to politicize the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is unlawful, a federal judge ruled today. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down a rule issued by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) that threatened to disqualify certain employers from eligibility for PSLF. 

The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed in November 2025 by Public Citizen Litigation Group and Student Defense on behalf of the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center, the American Immigration Council, The Door – A Center of Alternatives, Inc., and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC).

The lawsuit challenged a rule finalized in October 2025 that allowed ED to disqualify an employer from the PSLF program if the Secretary of Education determined that the organization had a “substantial illegal purpose.” Under the rule, ED gave itself the unilateral power to decide whether an organization had such a purpose, based on the organization’s participation in activities that the current administration disapproves of concerning immigration, discrimination, gender-affirming care, and other matters.

As the plaintiffs explained in the motion granted today, the rule violated the state governing the PSLF program and allowed arbitrary enforcement against mission-driven organizations doing work or expressing opinions that the government opposes. The organizations asked the court to declare the new rule unlawful because, among other things, ED lacks the legal authority to change the statutory criteria for PSLF.

“The court’s ruling is a major victory for those who work in the public interest and the communities they serve. People who devote their careers to public service and non-profit work deserve access to loan forgiveness on the terms Congress promised, without the threat of retribution from the Trump administration.” said Cormac Early, attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel on the case.

“Today’s decision is a victory for student loan borrowers, for the First Amendment, and for the rule of law,” said Aaron Ament, President of Student Defense. “Public servants should not have to worry that the federal government will punish them because of their employer’s mission or perceived political views. We’re relieved that the court ruled our government must follow through on its promise of loan forgiveness for the millions of teachers, military personnel and other public servants who have dedicated their lives to making our country a better place, regardless of ED’s opinions.”

“The Trump administration’s baseless and blatant attempt to revoke Congressionally appointed benefits wasn’t just a threat to our nonprofit employees,” said Kerry Kennedy, president of the Kennedy Human Rights Center. “It was a threat to everyone we serve, to the women, men, and children who rely on our organization to protect their most fundamental human rights. Today’s decision is an important victory, and an affirmation of what Congress decided almost twenty years ago – public servants should be supported.”

“Today’s decision protects public servants from a rule that would have punished them for simply working to support immigrant families and other underserved communities targeted by this administration. Public Service Loan Forgiveness was created to encourage people to work to help underserved communities and populations. This ruling affirms that the government cannot rewrite the terms of that promise for political reasons,” said Jorge Loweree, Managing Director of Programs and Strategy at the American Immigration Council. 

“Today’s decision is a victory for public service professionals and the communities they serve. Public Service Loan Forgiveness was created to encourage educators, counselors, social workers, attorneys, and other professionals to dedicate their careers to serving others and strengthening their communities. For organizations like The Door, that means being able to attract and retain the talented staff who help young people access opportunity, overcome challenges, and build stable futures. We are grateful that the court upheld that commitment,” said Kelsey Louie, CEO of The Door – A Center of Alternatives, Inc. 

“This ruling is a victory for every public servant who chose to dedicate their career to lifting up their community, and for the Latino families those public servants serve. The Department of Education does not get to rewrite the promise Congress made, and it certainly does not get to punish organizations like ours for the advocacy and civil rights work that is at the heart of our mission,” said Juan Proaño, CEO of the LULAC Institute. 

Read the ruling here.

Read the original complaint here.

###

About Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center:

The Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization that works across the courtroom, the boardroom, and the classroom to build a more just and peaceful world. Inspired by the legacies of Senator Robert and Ethel Kennedy, we work with international and domestic partners to protect fundamental human rights. We pursue strategic litigation to hold governments accountable at home and around the world; foster a social good approach to business; and train the next generation of changemakers through our human rights education programs.

About the American Immigration Council:

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration. The Council employs four coordinated approaches to advance change—litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications. Follow the latest Council news and information on LinkedIn, BlueSky, Instagram and YouTube. 

About The Door – A Center of Alternatives, Inc. 

For over 50 years, The Door has been a trusted place for young people between 12 and 24. All are welcome as they are, to be themselves, address challenges, and access services when and how they need them. With roots in the heart of New York City and a presence across the boroughs, The Door offers comprehensive programs and services, including mental health counseling, health and nutrition assistance, legal services, housing support, arts, education, and career guidance. At The Door, everything is free and everyone is welcome. 

The Door’s on-site charter high school, Broome Street Academy, serves 300 students per year from across all five boroughs, with reserved seats for students who are transitionally housed or in foster care.

About The LULAC Institute

The LULAC Institute is the nonprofit arm of The League of United Latin American Citizens Institute (LULAC), the nation’s oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization. Founded in 1929, LULAC is committed to advancing the rights and opportunities of Latino Americans through advocacy, community building, and education. With a growing network of councils nationwide, LULAC remains steadfast in its mission to protect and empower millions of Latinos, contributing daily to America’s prosperity. For more information about LULAC and its initiatives, please visit www.LULAC.org.

About Public Citizen Litigation Group

Public Citizen Litigation Group is the litigating arm of the nonprofit consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen. For more than 50 years, the Litigation Group has worked to advance the interests of consumers, workers, and the public, and to hold the government and corporations accountable to the people. Read more at https://ift.tt/FNOLC9Y. 

About Student Defense

The National Student Legal Defense Network (“Student Defense”) is a non-profit organization that works, through litigation and advocacy, to advance students’​ rights to educational opportunity and to ensure that higher education provides a launching point for economic mobility.

The post Court Declares Unlawful the Department of Education’s Rule Restricting Public Service Loan Forgiveness Eligibility appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/x4EwAlO
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

In Blow to Asylum Rights, Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Block Asylum Seekers at Border

The Supreme Court ruled today that the Trump administration could turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the southern border, and that doing so does not violate federal immigration law. The case, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, addressed a now-defunct policy, under which immigration officers at official border crossings physically and indefinitely blocked people seeking safety from setting foot on U.S. soil, flouting the government’s legal responsibility to inspect and process those seeking asylum. As Justice Sotomayor explained in a dissent joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, the Court’s decision “blesses the Executive Branch’s decision to slam the door shut on all who are fleeing persecution, despite the detailed inspection and asylum system that Congress enacted and commands.”

This afternoon immigrant rights advocates will gather for a virtual media briefing at 3:00 pm ET/12:00 pm PT to discuss the decision.

“We believe that today’s ruling violates international law, as well as the express intent of Congress, which enshrined the rights and obligations of the Refugee Convention into U.S. federal law over 40 years ago. For decades, the United States has allowed individuals and families who are fleeing persecution, torture, and death to ask for protection at U.S. borders and exercise their legal right to seek asylum,” said Erika Pinheiro, Al Otro Lado’s Executive Director. “This decision has destroyed the United States’ position as a global leader in promoting the rights of refugees and threatens to serve as a dangerous justification for other countries that unlawfully prevent refugees from crossing borders in search of safety. In a world of increasing conflict and climate disaster, this hardening of borders to keep out the most vulnerable is sure to result in many more lives lost.”

The turnback policy, euphemistically dubbed “metering” by government officials, broke with both international and federal asylum law. It denied thousands the right to seek asylum, forcing them to languish in hazardous conditions in Mexico or return to the peril they had fled.

In 2017, Al Otro Lado, a binational organization that provides free legal and humanitarian assistance to migrants, and a group of asylum seekers brought a class action suit challenging the policy, which the courts ruled unlawful in both 2022 and 2024. Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision declaring the policy unlawful. 

“As explained by Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, the Court’s decision to greenlight the government’s turnback policy is an affront to congressional authority over immigration matters with devastating humanitarian consequences,” said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case. “The ball is now in Congress’s court to enact legislation correcting the Court’s error and ensuring that arriving asylum seekers are not forced back to violent and life-threatening situations.” 

The ruling effectively overturns immigration laws that, for more than a century, have required government officials to inspect all people presenting themselves at designated ports of entry. And since Congress enacted asylum into U.S. law more than 45 years ago, the port inspection requirement has ensured that the U.S. government does not send vulnerable people back to danger without giving them an opportunity to seek protection.

“This ruling should sound the alarm for anyone who cares about human rights and the rule of law,” said Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS). “The majority opinion in Al Otro Lado suggests the president may unilaterally override decades of established law and trample on people’s legal rights if doing so suits his political agenda. The turnback policy did not merely delay entry for people seeking safety. For far too many asylum seekers, the policy denied entry entirely. In some cases, that became a death sentence. While this decision is a significant blow, our movement will keep fighting to restore asylum as a lifeline for people seeking refuge. We will never turn our backs on those who look to the United States for safety and justice.”

“My heart is with the thousands of desperate and endangered asylum seekers across the U.S.-Mexico border whose rights the U.S. has erased with the stroke of a pen,” said Center for Constitutional Rights Senior Staff Attorney Angelo Guisado.  

“On the 250th anniversary year of the United States, our federal executive branch is abandoning its obligations to asylum seekers fleeing perilous circumstances in fear for their lives and putting thousands of people – including children – in dangerous and dire situations,” said Sarah Rich, Senior Attorney at Democracy Forward. “Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that will put even more people and families in harm’s way. We are disappointed in the Court’s decision and call on all Americans to demand that our government protect the families the Court abandoned today. Congress should act to protect not only the lives of asylum seekers, but also the best of American values.”

“Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system; it only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families. What we need is an asylum system that is fair, efficient, accountable, and treats people with dignity. Unfortunately, today’s decision validates an approach that treats people seeking safety as a problem to shut out instead of creating an orderly system that actually works,” said Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council. 

For more about the case, see the campaign website, No Turning Back.

---

Al Otro Lado provides holistic legal and humanitarian support to refugees, deportees, and other migrants in the U.S. and Tijuana through a multidisciplinary, client-centered, harm reduction-based practice.  They engage in individual representation, human rights monitoring, medical-legal partnerships, and impact litigation to protect the rights of immigrants and people seeking asylum.

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. The Council brings together problem solvers and employs four coordinated approaches to advance change—litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications.

The Center for Constitutional Rights works with communities under threat to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach. 

The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies defends the human rights of courageous refugees seeking asylum in the United States. With strategic focus and unparalleled legal expertise, CGRS champions the most challenging cases, fights for due process, and promotes policies that deliver safety and justice for refugees.

The Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. 

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection is a non-partisan, public interest organization within Georgetown Law. ICAP engages in litigation, policy, and public education to defend constitutional rights and protect our democratic processes.

The post In Blow to Asylum Rights, Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Block Asylum Seekers at Border appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/MSRLoO9
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

New Report Shows Immigrants in the Akron-Canton Region Contributed $5.0 billion to Region’s GDP

Ohio, June 18, 2026 – New research from the American Immigration Council underscores the crucial role immigrants play in Ohio’s labor force, housing market, population growth, and economy. The new report was prepared in partnership with Ohio Business for Immigration Solutions, a statewide 100+ member business coalition powered by the American Immigration Council, and the Akron-Canton Advocacy Alliance. The report focuses on the Akron-Canton region of Ohio. 

In response to persistent workforce gaps and the need for sustainable talent pipelines, ACAA convened regional and national leaders to examine how immigration is impacting the Akron-Canton economy and its future growth. The report was released as part of that discussion, featuring insights from U.S. Congressman Michael Rulli (OH-6), U.S. Congresswoman Emilia Sykes (OH-13), Patrick Shen of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and representatives from the American Immigration Council and Ohio Business for Immigration Solutions. The conversation reinforced that immigration is not an abstract national issue, but a local economic reality—grounded in facts and focused on helping the region move forward. 

“The findings of this report demonstrate the value and importance of immigrants’ economic contributions to the Akron and Canton regions of Ohio,” said Juan Avilez, Policy Associate of the State and Local Initiatives team at the American Immigration Council. “In particular, it shows that immigrants are supporting the region in big ways – they contributed $5.0 billion to the region’s GDP and held $1.8 billion in spending power – showing why it’s important their contributions are recognized.” 

“The findings out of Akron-Canton confirm what we’re seeing across Ohio: immigrants are essential to the strength of our communities and our economy. Akron-Canton is one story among many,” said Madison Lisotto Whalen, Esq., Ohio Business for Immigration Solution Coalition. “From our manufacturing floors to our hospitals, immigrants are helping communities across the state stay vibrant, competitive, and positioned for long-term growth.” 

“The ACAA brings leaders together around the issues that matter most to our business community, and workforce is at the top of that list. Employers consistently tell us their biggest challenge is finding, attracting, and retaining the talent needed to grow,” said John Rizzo, Vice President of the Akron-Canton Advocacy Alliance. “This research paints a clear picture of the role immigrant populations play in our economy and informs a more data-driven approach to strengthening our talent pipeline. The ACAA will continue to bring forward data, convene leaders, and advocate for policies that reflect the real needs of our business community and support long-term economic success. 

Key Findings

• Immigrants in the Akron-Canton region contributed billions in taxes and consumer spending. In 2023, immigrant households earned $2.5 billion in income, with $446.0 million going to federal taxes and $227.5 billion going to state and local taxes, leaving them with $1.8 billion in spending power that can be reinvested back into local communities. Robust consumer spending by immigrant households supports small businesses and keeps local economic corridors vibrant. 
• Immigrant residents are helping Akron-Canton meet its labor force demands and will help meet future needs. In 2023, immigrants were 21.6 percent more likely to be of working age than their U.S.-born counterparts, and made-up 8.7 percent of workers in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) fields. This means that immigrants in the Akron-Canton region played an outsized role in the area’s labor force and technological growth. 
• Immigrants in Akron-Canton are supporting the preservation of American manufacturing. Immigrant workers accounted for 6.0 percent of the manufacturing industry and 5.9 percent of the transportation and warehousing industries in 2023. Immigrants living in the region helped to create or preserve around 2,700 manufacturing jobs that would have been eliminated or moved by 2023.  
• Immigrant entrepreneurs have contributed to growing local economies. Immigrants were 35.9 percent more likely to be an entrepreneur than their U.S.-born counterparts in the Akron-Canton region. In 2023, 3,800 immigrant entrepreneurs generated $166.9 million in business income. Signifying the ability of immigrants in building and supporting new, revenue generating businesses.   
• Immigrants are helping stabilize population trends and will play a critical role in the Akron-Canton region’s future growth. Between 2018 and 2023, while the region’s overall population remained flat, the immigrant population grew by 11.4%, increasing from 52,500 to 58,400 residents. Without this growth, the region would have experienced population decline. As demographic challenges persist across many Midwest communities, this trend underscores the importance of immigrants in sustaining population levels, supporting community vitality, and positioning the region for long-term economic stability and growth. 

Read the full factsheet to learn more.   

The post New Report Shows Immigrants in the Akron-Canton Region Contributed $5.0 billion to Region’s GDP  appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/kbj3zox
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

New Report Shows Immigrant Texans Held are Vital to the Food and Agriculture Industry in Texas

New research from the American Immigration Council underscores the crucial role that immigrants play in Texas' food sectors, including agriculture. The new report, From Field to Fork: The Economic Impact of Immigrants on Texas' Food Industry, was prepared in partnership with Texans for Economic Growth, a statewide 160+ member business coalition powered by the American Immigration Council. The report focuses on the state of Texas, with a spotlight on the Houston Metro Area. The report was publicly released in collaboration with multiple Texas-based partners at an event hosted by Amegy Bank. The regional event served to showcase the findings of the report and discuss the impact of immigration on Texas' food industry with local leaders. The event featured a discussion with business and civic leaders about how Texas can act on this topic.

"Texas' agriculture and food industries are a cornerstone of our state's economy, generating more than $102 billion in economic output and supporting communities across every region of Texas," says Chelsie Kramer, Texas State Organizer for the American Immigration Council and Texans for Economic Growth. "This report underscores something Texas employers and community leaders already know firsthand: immigrants are essential to keeping our food system moving. The report also highlights the reality that 14.5 percent of Texas' food workers and 13.5 percent of the state's agricultural workforce are undocumented immigrants, reinforcing that workforce stability and practical policy conversations are critical to the long-term strength and competitiveness of Texas' food economy."

"Texas restaurants are built by people who work hard, serve their neighbors and help make our communities stronger. Immigrant workers have long been part of that story, not only in restaurant kitchens and dining rooms, but across the farms, suppliers and small businesses that make our food system work," says Emily Williams Knight, Ed.D., president and CEO of the Texas Restaurant Association. "This report is an important reminder that practical workforce solutions do exist that would protect local businesses, keep food costs in check and preserve the hospitality that defines communities across Texas."

"This report provides crucial data on the essential role that immigrants play to power the American food system via Texas, from farms to restaurants," says Anne McBride, Vice President of Impact at the James Beard Foundation. "These two sectors cannot exist without the other and face similar challenges when it comes to our immigrant entrepreneurs and workers, which is why the James Beard Foundation is thrilled to partner on the release of this important work."

"This report highlights a reality Texas employers know well: immigrant workers are essential to the strength, stability, and competitiveness of our agricultural and food economy. As Texas continues to grow, maintaining a dependable workforce will remain critical to supporting our producers, businesses, and consumers alike," noted Justin Yancy, President & CEO of Texas Business Leadership Council, a statewide network of senior business leaders.

Key Findings

Across the Texas food sector, 400,500 immigrant workers make up nearly one-quarter (24.9 percent) of the workforce, contributing to industries including agriculture, food processing, food wholesale trade, food retail trade, and food services. Beyond farms and ranches, immigrants are essential across the broader food supply chain. These interconnected industries rely on immigrant labor to move food from production to consumers.

Immigrant workers in Texas hold a wide range of immigration statuses. About one-fifth of workers in the food sector are naturalized citizens, while 14.5 percent were undocumented, including 20,100 DACA-eligible individuals. The state's reliance on workers with a range of immigration statuses across the food industry means that shifts in immigration policy acutely affect workforce stability and the continuity of food production and distribution.

In 2024, agriculture, food processing, and food services generated $102.6 billion in economic output in Texas. The state exports $6.5 billion worth of agricultural commodities annually and is responsible for a sizable share of the United States' agricultural exports.

Immigrant workers fill key occupations across the food sector. They comprised 47.8 percent of miscellaneous agricultural workers, 31.7 percent of cooks, and 24.6 percent of cashiers. Farms, restaurants, and grocery stores rely on immigrants to staff key frontline positions.

In 2024, agriculture and food services generated approximately $2.7 million in GDP in the Houston Metropolitan Area, and immigrants comprised over one-third (34.3 percent) of the workforce in the food sector.

Read the full factsheet to learn more.

About the American Immigration Council

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. The Council brings together problem solvers and employs four coordinated approaches to advance change — litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications. In January 2022, the Council and New American Economy merged to combine a broad suite of advocacy tools to better expand and protect the rights of immigrants, more fully ensure immigrants' ability to succeed economically, and help make the communities they settle in more welcoming. Follow the latest Council news and information on ImmigrationImpact.com and Twitter @immcouncil.

About Texans for Economic Growth

Texans for Economic Growth is a coalition of more than 145 Texas business leaders and associations dedicated to recognizing and supporting immigrants' positive impact on the Texas economy as business owners, taxpayers, and consumers. Upon its launch, the coalition released the Texas Compact on Immigration, a set of principles signed by more than 145 Texas business leaders and groups to guide the immigration discussion at the state and federal levels. Texans for Economic Growth supports common-sense federal immigration reforms and statewide policies that recognize the valuable contributions immigrants make to the state. Learn more at txcompact.org.

The post New Report Shows Immigrant Texans Are Vital to the Food and Agriculture Industry in Texas appeared first on American Immigration Council.

As Public Support for Mass Deportation Falls, New Proposal Seeks to Restore Credibility and Humanity in Immigration Enforcement

Washington DC, May 12 Tues – Today, the American Immigration Council released a new framework calling for the overhaul of the United States’ immigration enforcement system. The framework argues that the country’s current approach is fundamentally disconnected from public safety and has trapped the immigration debate into a false binary between either mass deportation or no enforcement at all.

Restoring Credibility and Humanity: A New Framework for Immigration Enforcement, lays out a roadmap for replacing indiscriminate mass deportation with a system focused on increasing compliance with the law, prioritizing public safety threats, proportionate consequences, and meaningful accountability for government abuse. 

Read the framework here.

The proposal comes amid growing backlash to the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda, which has swept in longtime residents, families, business owners, and people actively pursuing lawful status.

“Mass deportation has eroded public trust in the federal government by treating every immigrant as a violent criminal,” said Nayna Gupta, national policy director and co-author of the report. “A credible system should give people who want to follow the rules, a way to do so, and use consequences that are proportionate to the actual violation. The Trump administration has weaponized outdated laws that use detention and deportation as a one-size-fits-all punishment, even for people with long-standing ties who pose no public safety threat.” 

The framework proposes major reforms across four pillars: 

• Creating a new process for long-term undocumented residents to gain lawful permanent status through fines, community service, and probation-like systems instead of deportation. 
• Revising outdated laws to focus enforcement on people convicted of violent or especially serious recent crimes while professionalizing enforcement.
• Legislating new, proportionate consequences for violations of immigration law, rather than subjecting every immigration violator to detention and deportation. 
• Establishing independent oversight and stronger court authority to hold immigration agencies and agents accountable for abuses. 

The framework argues that immigration enforcement should be measured not by the number of deportations carried out, but by whether laws are enforced consistently, fairly, and humanely.  

“The whole goal when all this immigration stuff started ramping up about a year and a half ago was to get violent offenders off the street. And no one has any problem with that. The issue is you have people who are here and they are following the rules—people who are reporting to their regular check-ins and being taken into custody at those check-ins. Things like that really erode trust and really make it more dangerous for everyone out here when law enforcement can’t be trusted,” said Joseph Kennedy, sheriff of Dubuque county, Iowa. 

The framework also calls for sweeping accountability reforms, asserting that public confidence in immigration enforcement cannot be rebuilt without meaningful oversight and consequences for abuses of power. That means that agencies and agents that abuse their power should be reined in or pushed out. Among other recommendations, the proposal calls for expanding judicial authority to review unlawful enforcement actions, creating an independent immigration accountability commission, strengthening internal oversight offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and giving victims of civil rights violations the ability to sue. 

“Building a credible and humane immigration enforcement system depends on establishing that enforcement agencies are accountable both to the public and other branches of government,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow and co-author of the report. “No law enforcement agency can maintain legitimacy if abuses of power carry no consequences. A credible enforcement system must give courts and Congress stronger authority to intervene when federal agencies and officers abuse their authority.”

The framework warns that the U.S. has reached a critical point after decades of failed immigration policymaking that is overly focused on punishment instead of long-term compliance and public safety. According to the report, continuing down the path of indiscriminate enforcement risks locking the country into a permanent system of mass detention and social disruption. 

“We are facing a choice between indiscriminate enforcement that destabilizes communities and pulls resources away from genuine public safety threats, versus credible enforcement that is targeted, proportional, and actually capable of delivering public safety,” said Gupta. “The question is not whether immigration laws should be enforced. The question is whether enforcement will be smart, focused, and humane, or driven by fear, quotas, and political theater.” 

The full framework is available here. 

The post As Public Support for Mass Deportation Falls, New Proposal Seeks to Restore Credibility and Humanity in Immigration Enforcement appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/nbKic19
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

Senate Pushes Ahead with $70 Billion More for ICE and CBP, Excluding Accountability Measures

This week, Congress moved closer to advancing legislation that would add about $70 billion in funding to immigration enforcement agencies through 2029, which is in addition to the $170 billion already provided last year. If enacted, the proposal would mark yet another circumvention of the regular government funding process—which requires bipartisan negotiations—to fund these agencies.

This funding is being pursued through the reconciliation process, which bypasses the 60-vote threshold needed in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. For the second time, congressional leaders aim to use reconciliation to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and its subagencies, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

Since February 14, Democrats have refused to fund ICE and CBP unless meaningful reforms, including stronger warrant requirements and professional law enforcement standards, in an attempt to rein in aggressive conduct that has resulted in multiple deaths, including of U.S. citizens. Those efforts failed.

The result is a proposal that could fund ICE and CBP for years to come, with no meaningful congressional oversight. All of this funding would be available to the agencies through the end of fiscal year 2029.

What’s in the bill?

The proposal allocates $72 billion in new funding with nearly all of it going to immigration enforcement. It includes:

• ICE: $38.2 billion to expand and sustain enforcement operations by hiring and equipping personnel across its divisions, supporting detention and removal transportation, upgrading technology and facilities, and expanding 287(g) agreements with local law enforcement. $7.5 billion of this funding is specifically earmarked for ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations for “non-immigration” purposes.
• CBP: $26 billion to hire and equip personnel, upgrade surveillance and inspection technologies, conduct screenings of unaccompanied children, and support DHS’ border enforcement mission.
• DHS: $5 billion to fund several broad purposes, including those related to the Homeland Security and Judiciary portions of the reconciliation bill passed last year, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA). In OBBBA, DHS received a similar pot of money—often referred to as a “slush” fund given its broad purpose—of $10 billion. DHS has used those funds in legally suspect ways, including to cover DHS employees’ salaries during the government shutdown.
• Department of Justice (DOJ): $1.5 billion for a variety of purposes, including enforcing and administering federal immigration laws under the DOJ’s authority.

How does this compare to previous ICE and CBP budgets?

ICE and CBP are already among the most highly-funded law enforcement agencies in the federal government. In recent years, Congress has increased funding to both agencies through its annual appropriations process at the expense of agencies that process immigration benefits. Nevertheless, this proposal, especially combined with last year’s reconciliation bill, represents a historically high increase in immigration enforcement funding.

The proposal is nearly four times ICE’s annual budget from FY 2025. Combined with the $75 billion ICE already received last year through OBBBA, the agency will have received over eleven times its 2025 budget. While the funds can be used through 2029, the Congressional Budget Office notes that there is considerable uncertainty over the pace of spending given the lack of guardrails on when the money can be spent. 

This is a big concern, as ICE received $45 billion for detention through OBBBA to be used through 2029 but instead decided to use the overwhelming majority ($38 billion) of it immediately to convert warehouses into immigration detention centers. At a recent conference in Arizona, a DHS official in charge of spending funding from OBBBA said that the agency was on track to “obligate 75% of the funds” by the end of September this year.

Similarly, CBP, which would receive funding for its border operations in this proposal, would receive 3.5 times its 2025 budget. Again, this funding is available until 2029, but there are no proposed constraints on it being used sooner.

In addition, DHS would receive $5 billion beyond its annually appropriated amount to fund broad categories of priorities, including immigration-related provisions of last year’s OBBBA. The administration has so far been able to rely on its own interpretations when deciding how to use similar funds provided under the OBBBA.

What makes this particularly concerning is not just the amount—but the structure. By using the reconciliation process, Congress would effectively provide multi-year, lump-sum funding with fewer mechanisms for oversight or course correction. In contrast, the annual appropriations process allows lawmakers to revisit funding levels each year, adjust priorities, and impose conditions on how funds are spent.

What’s being foregone to fund immigration enforcement at these levels?

The tradeoffs here are significant. By channeling such a large share of federal resources into immigration enforcement—through a process that minimizes oversight—congressional leaders are also choosing not to invest those funds elsewhere.

In April, the Trump administration submitted its funding priorities for FY 2027. While lawmakers are considering giving billions more to ICE and CBP, the White House has proposed massive cuts to essential domestic programs. $70 billion could instead fund:

• Biomedical research for 4 years
• Student higher education grants for 5 years
• Energy assistance for low-income households (LIHEAP) for 6 years.
• Job Corps, a workforce development program, for 14 years
• Pre-school development grants for 73 years
• Rural health programs for 242 years

Instead, taxpayer dollars are being directed away from helping people meet basic needs and toward further expanding immigration enforcement infrastructure.

What does this mean for the future of immigration enforcement funding?

This isn’t just a debate about funding levels—it’s a debate about Congress’ priorities. Reconciliation was never designed to serve as the primary vehicle for shaping complex, long-term policy in areas like immigration enforcement. Unlike the traditional government funding process, reconciliation lacks many of the guardrails that require agencies to report their activity, provide members of Congress access to detention facilities, or operate certain programs.

Should Congress commit $70 billion to expand federal enforcement capacity with fewer checks, fewer reporting requirements, and less flexibility to respond to changing conditions? That’s the choice this bill presents.

The Senate is expected to vote on the bill during the third week of May.

The post Senate Pushes Ahead with $70 Billion More for ICE and CBP, Excluding Accountability Measures appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/91VPLm7
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

Data: Eligible Immigrant Voters Play a Key Role in Elections in Hundreds of Swing Districts

Analysis of 284 congressional districts highlights immigrants’ role in shaping close races 

April 16, Washington DC — A new analysis from the American Immigration Council finds that millions of immigrant voters who are U.S. citizens are a central part of the electorate across 284 congressional districts where elections will take place this year. 

The analysis on voting data reflects eligible and registered voters only. Under federal law, only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections. 

Drawing on the latest available data from the 2024 American Community Survey, the analysis shows that immigrants account for nearly one in five residents across the districts studied. They play a significant role in the workforce, tax base, and local economies that shape voters’ priorities. 

Key findings include:  

• U.S. citizens who are immigrants are poised to play a key role in close elections. There are an estimated 16 million registered immigrant voters (that is, naturalized U.S. citizens eligible and registered to vote) across the districts analyzed. In 44 percent of these districts (126 of 284), the number of eligible immigrant voters exceeds the margin of victory in the 2024 elections. 

• For example, in Florida’s 25th congressional district there are an estimated 135,500 immigrant voters. The district flipped from GOP to Democratic control in 2022 and the Democrats won again in 2024 by a narrow margin of victory of 30,700 votes. 

• In New Jersey’s 9th district, Democrats won by just over 12,600 votes in 2024. There are nearly 165,000 immigrants there who are U.S. citizens age 18 and above and thus eligible to vote.   

• Language and outreach matter. On average, 83.1 percent of immigrants speak a language other than English at home, highlighting the importance of outreach that reflects the diversity of communities in these districts. 

• Immigrants are a major part of local communities. On average, immigrants make up nearly 20 percent of residents across the 284 districts analyzed, and in some districts, they represent more than half of the population. 

“Immigrant voters who are U.S. citizens are a meaningful part of the electorate in many communities, especially in close races,” said Nan Wu, director of research at the American Immigration Council. “Like other voters, they care about jobs, housing, and the economy, and they are deeply embedded in the communities they help sustain.” 

The analysis also underscores that immigrants’ influence extends beyond elections. Across the districts studied, immigrants help drive economic growth, support key industries, and shape the issues that dominate elections, from inflation and housing to workforce shortages. 

Taken together, the findings show that immigrants are not a niche population, but a core part of the communities, economies, and electorate that define many congressional districts.

The post Data: Eligible Immigrant Voters Play a Key Role in Elections in Hundreds of Swing Districts appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/26krpdj
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

◆ YEAR IN KENYA SERIES

This essay is part of the Year in Kenya series — twelve months in Nairobi, April 2025 to April 2026.

The analytical home for the series is gabrielmahia.com, where Gabriel writes on power, institutions, and what holds under pressure. The full reading order — 34 essays across 5 properties — is at the Year in Kenya series page.

Read the Series →gabrielmahia.com

New Report: Immigrants Power Ohio’s Workforce and Pay Billions in Taxes

Immigrants in Ohio earned $27.3 billion in income and paid $7.3 billion in local, state, and federal taxes in 2023. New research from the American Immigration Council underscores the crucial role that immigrants play in Ohio's economy, filling jobs in critical industries, strengthening the workforce, and contributing billions in taxes each year. The new report was prepared in partnership with Ohio Business for Immigration Solutions — a statewide business coalition powered by the American Immigration Council with over 100 members.

"Immigrants are essential to Ohio's future, powering the state's workforce, strengthening critical industries, and paying billions in taxes that communities depend on every day," said Rich André, Director of State and Local Initiatives at the American Immigration Council.

"Ohio's workforce shortages are placing real strain on businesses across the state, and as this new report highlights, immigrants play a vital role in driving economic growth and sustaining Ohio's future," said Jaclyn Ringstmeier, Executive Director of the Greater Medina Chamber of Commerce.

Key findings:

Immigrants are helping fill Ohio's workplace shortages and will help meet future needs. From 2019 to 2024, the number of overall online job postings increased by 8.2 percent. In 2023, 75.5 percent of immigrants were active in the labor force. That same year, immigrants were 29.4 percent more likely to be of working age than their U.S.-born counterparts — demonstrating that immigrants are already meeting a growing demand for workers and are poised to continue to be active contributors to the workforce.

Immigrants in Ohio contributed billions in taxes and consumer spending. In 2023, immigrants earned $27.3 billion in income and paid $7.3 billion in taxes, leaving $20 billion in spending power that supports local businesses and communities. That spending by immigrant households helps fuel growth and keeps local economic corridors vibrant.

Immigrants are uniquely positioned to meet critical multilingual needs in the workforce. From 2019 to 2024, the number of online job postings that required or prioritized bilingual skills in Ohio increased by 39.2 percent. Immigrants often have multilingual skills, enabling them to fill those positions.

Ohio is underutilizing its immigrant talent. Many immigrants with specialized training and skills gained abroad are unable to work in their fields, due to barriers like relicensing and language proficiency. As a result, in 2023, 43.7 percent of immigrants with a college education were working in jobs that did not require a college degree.

Read the full factsheet to learn more about how immigrants are supporting Ohio's workforce, tax base, and economic growth.

About the American Immigration Council

The American Immigration Council works to create a more welcoming and fair immigration system. Through litigation, research, and programs that expand access to legal assistance, the Council helps ensure immigrants are embraced, communities are enriched, and justice prevails for all. Follow us on BlueSky @immcouncil.org and Instagram @immcouncil.

About Ohio Business for Immigration Solutions

Ohio Business for Immigration Solutions (OBIS) is a coalition of more than 100 Ohio businesses, trade associations, chambers of commerce, and economic development groups that believe modernizing our immigration system is critically important for the growth of the state's economy. Upon its launch, the coalition released the Ohio Compact on Immigration, a set of principles developed to elevate the Ohio business community's desire to promote immigration reforms that will strengthen the economy, attract and retain global talent, and bring new businesses to the Buckeye State. OBIS supports sensible public policy solutions that rise above partisanship and rhetoric and meet the challenges of the current immigration system while recognizing the valuable contributions immigrants make to the state.

Supreme Court Today: Immigration Advocates Tell Justices Trump’s Turnback Policy Violated Law

Thousands denied the right to seek asylum and forced back into danger; case has implications for refugee rights.

Immigration advocates argued before the Supreme Court that the Trump administration's turnback policy violated federal immigration law. Under the now-defunct policy, immigration officers at official border crossings physically and indefinitely blocked people seeking safety from setting foot on U.S. soil, flouting their legal responsibility to inspect and process those requesting asylum.

"For more than 45 years, Congress has guaranteed people arriving at our borders the right to seek asylum, consistent with our international treaty obligations," said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court Director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case. "Yet this Administration believes that Congress gave it discretion to completely ignore those requirements, and turn back those who are seeking refuge from persecution at its whim. Nothing in the law supports that result."

The turnback policy, euphemistically dubbed "metering" by government officials, broke with longstanding practice and violated the law. It denied thousands the right to seek asylum, forcing them to languish in hazardous conditions in Mexico or return to the peril they had fled. In 2017, Al Otro Lado, a binational organization that provides free legal and humanitarian aid to immigrants, and a group of asylum seekers brought a class action suit challenging the policy, which the courts ruled unlawful in both 2022 and 2024. Although the turnback policy has not been in effect since 2021, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision declaring the policy unlawful.

"The right to seek asylum is not a policy preference or a loophole — it is a promise to human beings in their most desperate hour, a promise forged after the world witnessed the horrors of the Holocaust and said 'never again'. Seeking asylum is not like taking a number at a deli counter and waiting for your turn," said Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, Border Rights Project Director at Al Otro Lado, plaintiff in the case. "The people turned away at our border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping, and death threats. You cannot tell families running for their lives to go back and wait in danger because their suffering is inconvenient. We brought this case because the United States made a legal and moral commitment to protect people fleeing persecution. The question before the Court is whether that promise still means something — or whether it can be discarded when it becomes politically uncomfortable."

For over a century, under our immigration laws, government officials have been required to inspect people seeking asylum who present themselves at designated ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border — as they must inspect all noncitizens seeking admission to the United States. This requirement ensures that the U.S. government does not send vulnerable people back to danger without giving them an opportunity to seek protection.

"The government's turnback policy ran roughshod over our laws and treaty obligations. It fueled chaos and dysfunction at the southern border. And it was a complete humanitarian catastrophe, returning thousands of vulnerable refugees to grave harm," said Melissa Crow, Director of Litigation at the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies. "For far too many, the turnback policy was a death sentence. We are here at the Supreme Court today for them, and for all people who continue to look to the United States as a beacon of hope, as a place where the persecuted may find safe haven. We will never stop fighting for the rights of people seeking safety at our nation's doorstep."

"We hope the Court rejects the administration's cynical attempt to manipulate the meaning of the border to evade the most fundamental protections of international law and to continue to exile vulnerable asylum seekers," said Baher Azmy, Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "Our humanitarian treaty obligations, forged out of the horrors of WWII, are too important to suffer from the whims of CBP."

"President Trump's effort to abandon asylum seekers fleeing dangerous circumstances in fear for their lives is an unlawful overreach that imperils thousands of people — including children — in dire circumstances," said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. "Democracy Forward is proud to work with these brave plaintiffs and our partners to protect the rights of people seeking asylum."

"The Trump administration's illegal turnback policy has flouted both U.S. and international law, all while creating massive dysfunction at our southern border," said Rebecca Cassler, Senior Litigation Attorney at the American Immigration Council. "But most importantly, we cannot forget the people at the heart of this case — the hundreds of thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers who were sent back to danger, and in some cases, death. They deserve justice most of all."

Al Otro Lado provides holistic legal and humanitarian support to refugees, deportees, and other migrants in the U.S. and Tijuana through a multidisciplinary, client-centered, harm reduction-based practice. They engage in individual representation, human rights monitoring, medical-legal partnerships, and impact litigation to protect the rights of immigrants and people seeking asylum.

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping how America thinks about and acts towards immigrants and immigration and by working toward a more fair and just immigration system that opens its doors to those in need of protection and unleashes the energy and skills that immigrants bring. The Council brings together problem solvers and employs four coordinated approaches to advance change — litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications.

The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies defends the human rights of courageous refugees seeking asylum in the United States. With strategic focus and unparalleled legal expertise, CGRS champions the most challenging cases, fights for due process, and promotes policies that deliver safety and justice for refugees.

The Center for Constitutional Rights works with communities under threat to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach.

The Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that advances democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement.

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection is a non-partisan, public interest organization within Georgetown Law. ICAP engages in litigation, policy, and public education to defend constitutional rights and protect our democratic processes.

Federal Court Blocks Significant Pieces of Administration’s Sweeping Immigration Appeals Rule That Eliminates Meaningful Judicial Review

Order Halts Implementation of Dangerous Steps that Would Have Dismantled Safeguards at the Board of Immigration Appeals

Washington, D.C. — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order late last night in Amica Center for Immigrant Rights et al. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review et al., blocking significant pieces of the Trump-Vance administration's new policy that sought to eliminate meaningful appellate review before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Plaintiffs in the case include Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Brooklyn Defender Services, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, HIAS, and National Immigrant Justice Center. Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, and National Immigrant Justice Center represent the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit and motion for preliminary relief challenge an Interim Final Rule (IFR), "Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals," which was set to take effect immediately. The IFR would have imposed sweeping changes that would have eviscerated noncitizens' right to appeal decisions in their immigration cases. Those changes, now blocked, include: reducing the time to file most appeals from 30 days to 10 days; requiring summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of permanent BIA members vote within 10 days to accept the case for review; and permitting dismissal decisions before transcripts are created or records are transmitted.

"At a time when the due process rights of immigrants are under attack, this ruling prevents the BIA from reaching the point of near self-destruction," said Emilie Raber, Senior Attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. "We hope that this decision is the first step of many steps in ensuring that immigration courts reach decisions based on the law rather than on pre-determined outcomes."

"Today's ruling preserves a vital avenue for judicial review in removal proceedings," said Lucas Marquez, Director of Civil Rights & Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender Services, "and reminds government agencies to follow proper procedures when attempting to make sweeping changes to regulations."

"This ruling keeps in place a basic, yet critical, protection for immigrants facing removal: the ability to appeal their case," said Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. "As the administration continues to try to deport as many people as they can quickly and often without a fair day in court, it is critical for everyone to have the opportunity to file an appeal. Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency."

"Today, the court has again held the federal government to its foundational responsibility to afford basic fairness and due process to all whose rights it seeks to curtail," said Stephen Brown, Director of Immigration Legal Services at HIAS. "We are grateful to our counsel in this case, and proud to stand with our co-plaintiffs to work for a fair immigration system."

"Today's ruling is an important win in the face of an administration that is intent on dismantling our immigration system at any cost, including betraying our country's shared values of the importance of due process and access to counsel," said Mary Georgevich, Senior Litigation Attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center. "While imperfect, the Board of Immigration Appeals is the body that Congress has mandated to review deportation orders when the immigration courts get it wrong. Allowing the Trump administration's reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated, all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda. We are grateful the court seemed to see this proposed rule for what it was and is ruling to uphold both due process and rule of law."

"Today's decision makes it clear that the Trump-Vance administration cannot play games with the immigration appeals system to eliminate basic due process and fast-track deportations," said Erez Reuveni, Senior Counsel at Democracy Forward, who presented the oral argument. "Once again, no matter how hard this administration tries to hide its cruel and unlawful actions behind an 'immigration policy,' a federal court has made clear that the government must follow the law and cannot strip people of their basic rights. This is another demonstration that litigation is powerful. We will continue representing our plaintiffs in court to defend their rights and hold this administration accountable."

"This order protects a critical safeguard in our immigration system: the ability to appeal a court decision," said Suchita Mathur, Senior Litigation Attorney at the American Immigration Council. "This rule would have led to the rushed deportations of untold people before their cases could even be properly reviewed. Today's decision helps protect basic fairness in our immigration courts."

The IFR was issued without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking period and fundamentally restructures appellate review in removal proceedings. By requiring summary dismissal unless the full Board acts within 10 days — before transcripts are created — the rule makes meaningful review functionally impossible in most cases.

The legal team at Democracy Forward includes Erez Reuveni, Allyson Scher, Catherine Carroll, and Robin Thurston. Counsel at American Immigration Council include Michelle Lapointe and Suchi Mathur.

The post Federal Court Blocks Significant Pieces of Administration's Sweeping Immigration Appeals Rule That Eliminates Meaningful Judicial Review appeared first on American Immigration Council.

Legal Groups Sue to Block Rule Gutting Immigration Appeals

Emergency Filing Seeks Court Order to Halt Implementation of Interim Final Rule that Dismantles Safeguards at the Board of Immigration Appeals

Washington, D.C. — The American Immigration Council and a coalition of other legal groups, including the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Brooklyn Defender Services, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, HIAS, and National Immigrant Justice Center, filed a lawsuit and emergency motion to block a new interim final rule issued by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) that would effectively eliminate meaningful appellate review before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges the Interim Final Rule (IFR) titled Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is set to take effect shortly. As detailed in the complaint, the IFR imposes sweeping changes that would eviscerate noncitizens' right to appeal decisions in their immigration cases, including: Reduce the time to file most appeals from 30 days to 10 days; Require summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of permanent BIA members vote within 10 days to accept the case for review; Permit dismissal decisions before transcripts are created or records are transmitted; Impose simultaneous 20-day briefing schedules with extensions allowed only in narrow "exceptional circumstances"; Eliminate reply briefs unless specifically invited; and Impose rigid case completion deadlines and concentrate decision-making authority in agency leadership.

"The BIA Interim Final Rule makes a mockery of due process. In addition to taking away virtually any benefit the BIA could provide immigrants, it will wreak havoc on people with cases in immigration court or federal appellate courts," said Emilie Raber, Senior Attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights. "Litigants who are children, are detained, do not have a lawyer, have disabilities, or speak rare languages will be disproportionately harmed by this Interim Final Rule."

"The Interim Final Rule creates a barrier to appellate review in removal proceedings and strikes at the heart of due process," said Lucas Marquez, Director of Civil Rights & Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender Services. "The Rule will result in the deportation of people who are eligible for immigration relief — people who have valid legal claims that an immigration judge got it wrong — simply because the Board of Immigration Appeals will no longer be an avenue to fairly review their cases."

"This interim final rule completely decimates the process to appeal a case in front of the BIA," said Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. "It will render the vast majority of immigrants unable to appeal their cases and will be particularly harmful to those who most need the recourse of an appeal process, including pro se litigants, vulnerable children, Indigenous language speakers, and people in immigration detention. It will be nearly impossible for most detained pro se individuals to submit a notice of appeal in just 10 days, and without the ability to appeal, many people will be unjustly deported back to dangerous or even life-threatening conditions."

"Our clients deserve a fair chance in the immigration court system," said Stephen Brown, Director of Immigration Legal Services at HIAS. "Without access to a meaningful appeal process, people who have fled persecution and violence could face dangerous consequences, including the risk of being sent back to a place that is not safe for them. We are proud to join this legal challenge, and to take a stand against a policy change that will have seismic impact on the ability of legal service providers such as HIAS to support immigrants in navigating a complex and ever-changing legal system."

"It is hard to overstate the potential human toll of the changes proposed in this rule," said Lisa Koop, director of legal services at the National Immigrant Justice Center, which is co-counsel and an organizational plaintiff in the lawsuit. "Curtailing due process in this manner guarantees that legal services providers like ours will be less able to help our clients defend against unjust deportation, and many people who would otherwise be eligible for asylum or other legal status in the United States will never have the opportunity to pursue protection under our laws."

According to the filings, the IFR was issued without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking period and fundamentally restructures appellate review in removal proceedings. Plaintiffs argue that by requiring summary dismissal unless the full Board acts within 10 days — before transcripts are created — the rule makes meaningful review functionally impossible in most cases.

Plaintiffs argue the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Fifth Amendment, which protects people from deprivation of liberty without due process of law. They are asking the court to block the rule's effective date and prevent implementation while the case proceeds. The organizations are seeking preliminary relief to prevent the rule from taking effect and to keep it blocked while the litigation proceeds.

The case is Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR.

View the complaint here. View the stay motion here.

The post Legal Groups Sue to Block Rule Gutting Immigration Appeals appeared first on American Immigration Council.

---

Dear Immigrant ◆ YEAR IN KENYA SERIES

This essay is part of the Year in Kenya series — twelve months in Nairobi, April 2025 to April 2026. The analytical home for the series is gabrielmahia.com, where Gabriel writes on power, institutions, and what holds under pressure. The full reading order — 34 essays across 5 properties — is at the Year in Kenya series page.

Read the Series → gabrielmahia.com

Report: Immigration Detention Is Bigger, Harsher, and Less Accountable Than Ever

Trump Administration Targets People with No Criminal Record and Uses Detention to Pressure Them to Give Up Their Cases 

Washington DC, Jan. 14 Wednesday — A new report released today by the American Immigration Council shows that the Trump administration is locking up hundreds of thousands of people— most with no criminal record—into a harsh immigration detention system that makes it near impossible to fight their cases or secure release.  

READ THE REPORT HERE.

The report, Immigration Detention Expansion in Trump’s Second Term, reveals how historic funding increases and aggressive enforcement tactics have pushed immigration detention to the highest level in U.S. history. Rather than addressing serious public safety threats, the government is spending billions on mass detention to pressure people who pose no threat to give up their cases and accept deportation. 

As the Trump administration expands its mass deportation agenda, the consequences extend far beyond detention centers. DHS’s aggressive tactics during large-scale enforcement actions in American neighborhoods around the country have already led to tragic, preventable deaths, revealing the human cost of an immigration enforcement system that operates with little oversight or accountability. 

“This has absolutely nothing to do with law and order. Under mass deportation, we’re seeing the construction of a mass immigration detention system on a scale the United States has never seen, in which people with no criminal record are routinely locked up with no clear path to release,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. “Over the next three years, billions of more dollars will be poured into a detention system that is on track to rival the entire federal criminal prison system. The goal is not public safety, but to pressure people into giving up their rights and accepting deportation.” 

READ THE REPORT HERE.

According to the report, the number of people held in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention rose nearly 75 percent in 2025, climbing from roughly 40,000 at the start of the year to 66,000 by the start of December, the highest level ever recorded. And with Congress authorizing $45 billion dollars in new detention funding, the report warns that the system could more than triple in size over the next four years. 

Major findings of the report include: 

• There is a dramatic shift in who is being detained. Arrests of people with no criminal record surged by 2,450 percent in Trump’s first year, driven by increases in tactics like “at-large” arrests, roving patrols, worksite raids, and re-arrests of people attending immigration court hearings or ICE check-ins. The percent of people arrested by ICE and held in detention with no criminal record rose from 6 percent in January to 41 percent by December. 

• The detention system has expanded so rapidly that already deleterious conditions have worsened. Through the start of December, ICE was using over 100 more facilities to detain immigrants than at the start of the year. For the first time ever, thousands of immigrants arrested in the interior are being detained in hastily-constructed tent camps, where conditions are brutal. More people died in ICE detention in 2025 than in the last four years combined. 

• People are stripped of their chance to ask a judge for release. New policies have made prolonged, indefinite detention the norm. The Trump administration is pursuing policies that strip millions of people, if they are detained, of the right to have a bond hearing where they can make a case to be released into their community while their immigration case is under review, including for those with decades of life in the United States.  

• The administration is using detention to drive up deportations. By November 2025, for every person released from ICE detention, more than fourteen were deported directly from custody. This is compared to an approximate one-to-two ratio from a year earlier.   

• As the administration expands detention, it is simultaneously gutting oversight. The rapid growth of detention has been paired with deep cuts to internal watchdogs and new restrictions on congressional inspections. This erosion of oversight has consequences that extend beyond detention facilities themselves: as ICE is operating with fewer checks on its authority, aggressive interior enforcement in cities has led to preventable harm and deaths, underscoring how a lack of accountability is putting lives at risk.  

“The Trump administration continues to falsely claim it’s going after the ‘worst of the worst,’ but public safety is just a pretext for locking up immigrants and pushing them to abdicate their cases.,” said Nayna Gupta, policy director at the American Immigration Council. “Horrific conditions inside detention facilities break people into accepting deportation which fuels the administration’s inhumane deportation quotas and goals.” 

The report profiles three people whose experiences illustrate the real-world impact of this historic expansion of detention: 

• A permanent residency holder and father of two, detained by ICE at an airport because of a past conviction he was told would not jeopardize his legal status. ICE then neglected his medical issues for months while he was detained. 

• An asylum seeker who was granted humanitarian protection by an immigration judge, yet remains detained months later, without explanation, as ICE seeks to deport her to a third country, and who says she was treated better in federal prison when serving time for an immigration offense.  

• A DACA recipient, detained following a criminal arrest, who was transferred repeatedly across the country as ICE searched for available bed space and witnessed consistently poor conditions across multiple different detention centers. 

With billions of additional dollars already approved, the report warns that immigration detention is poised to grow even larger, deepening the human, legal, and financial costs for families, communities, and the country as a whole. 

“This is a system built to produce deportations, not justice,” said Reichlin-Melnick. “When detention becomes the default response to immigration cases, the costs are borne by everyone. Families are torn apart, due process is set aside, and billions of taxpayer dollars are wasted on these unnecessary and cruel policies that do nothing to increase public safety.”

The post Report: Immigration Detention Is Bigger, Harsher, and Less Accountable Than Ever  appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/zKdeWlT
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

◆ YEAR IN KENYA SERIES

This essay is part of the Year in Kenya series — twelve months in Nairobi, April 2025 to April 2026.

The analytical home for the series is gabrielmahia.com, where Gabriel writes on power, institutions, and what holds under pressure. The full reading order — 34 essays across 5 properties — is at the Year in Kenya series page.

Read the Series →gabrielmahia.com

Can Renee Good’s Family Sue ICE in the Aftermath of Her Killing? The Answer Is Complicated

On the snowy streets of Minneapolis in the early days of January 2026, an ICE officer shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good—a U.S. citizen and mother driving a Honda Pilot with stuffed animals hanging out of the glove compartment. She had reportedly just dropped off her six-year-old child at school. Multiple bystander videos captured the shooting and the distressing aftermath, which included ICE agents preventing a doctor from reaching Good. These images compound what the U.S. has experienced since the start of the second Trump administration – social media feeds filled with videos of ICE and Border Patrol agents smashing car windows during enforcement and firing pepper spray projectiles and tear gas canisters at those who showed up to witness the human toll of immigration enforcement in their communities. In the wake of Good's killing, many have naturally asked how her family might hold the individual officer or federal government accountable for her death. The answer is complicated, and any legal fight is riddled with pitfalls.

The well-known legal defense of qualified immunity shields law enforcement agents from having to defend against civil rights lawsuits for monetary compensation (called "damages") unless the right was "clearly established" such that a "reasonable officer" would understand his conduct violated the law. What is less well understood is that—thanks to the Supreme Court—there is virtually no way left to sue individual federal officers for monetary damages for violating individuals' constitutional rights. Local and state law enforcement who violate people's rights can be sued under a Reconstruction-era law, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. No similar statute exists for federal agents. Instead, the Supreme Court in 1971 ruled in a case called Bivens v. Six Unnamed Known Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics that an individual could sue federal drug agents for violating his Fourth Amendment rights in conducting an unlawful search and arrest. But since that time—and especially under the Roberts Court—the Supreme Court has eviscerated Bivens. From Border Patrol agents fatally shooting a Mexican teenager across the U.S.-Mexico border to agents on the U.S.-Canada border allegedly throwing the owner of a bed and breakfast to the ground and later retaliating against him, the Supreme Court made clear that it will not allow suits against federal officers in any circumstances beyond the facts of Bivens itself and two (now very dated) additional cases. While the Court has not overruled Bivens, it has severely weakened its utility.

Vice President J.D. Vance wrongly claimed that the ICE officer who shot Renee Good is entitled to "absolute immunity." That is patently incorrect—federal agents acting under color of law can potentially be prosecuted criminally for willfully depriving an individual of their civil rights. A state prosecution is also theoretically possible. In addition, individuals can still sue the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries committed at the hands of federal employees. Indeed, the federal government paid nearly $5 million to settle an FTCA case brought by the family of Ashli Babbitt, a woman killed by a Capitol Police officer while storming the Capitol. But the reality is that obtaining legal accountability for actions like the killing of Renee Good through civil lawsuits is challenging by design.

DHS agents have committed excessive force before this administration. During an ICE/IRS raid on a meatpacking plant in East Tennessee in 2018, surveillance video captured an ICE agent putting his boot on the neck of a worker who was lying face down on the floor for 25 seconds—a dangerous practice that could result in serious injury or death. That same agent was accused of punching a different worker in the face during the raid. The only reason the "boot to the neck" incident came to light at all was because of a civil lawsuit against the individual agents. If courts rule that individuals cannot sue federal agents for rights violations or DHS agents successfully assert qualified immunity in such cases, such evidence may never be revealed.

With the ubiquity of smartphone cameras and the growing brazenness of DHS' violence on the streets of U.S. cities, growing public awareness of law enforcement abuse has the potential to lead to policy change. Efforts to enact federal statutes to codify Bivens have not progressed in Congress, but could gain momentum as people from across the ideological spectrum push back against federal law enforcement overreach. No amount of money will bring back people killed by federal agents, but money damages are an important part of the U.S. legal system, promoting accountability and serving as a deterrent against future rights abuses. A right without a remedy is a hollow promise—all but ensuring that federal agents will continue to engage in actions that endanger and kill people.