WASHINGTON — Customs and Border Patrol today photos of travelers leaving and entering the country were recently compromised in a data breach. Neema Singh Guliani, senior legislative counsel at the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ, had the following reaction:
“This breach comes just as CBP seeks to expand its massive face recognition apparatus and collection of sensitive information from travelers, including license plate information and social media identifiers. This incident further underscores the need to put the brakes on these efforts and for Congress to investigate the agency’s data practices. The best way to avoid breaches of sensitive personal data is not to collect and retain such data in the first place.”
Learn More Ířşě±¬ÁĎ the Issues in This Press Release
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseJul 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Court Blocks Trump Birthright Citizenship Order, Certifies Nationwide Class Protecting All Impacted Babies
CONCORD, N.H. — A federal court in New Hampshire today blocked President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship and certified a nationwide class that protects the citizenship rights of all children born on U.S. soil. The case is Barbara v. Donald J. Trump. The ruling stems from a nationwide class-action lawsuit filed June 27, immediately after a Supreme Court ruling that potentially opened the door for partial enforcement of the executive order. The Ířşě±¬ÁĎ, Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of New Hampshire, Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of Maine, Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and Democracy Defenders Fund brought the challenge on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to the executive order. It seeks to protect all impacted families in the country in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Trump v. CASA, which directed courts to consider narrowing nationwide protection that had been provided in the first round of challenges to the executive order attacking birthright citizenship. The groups were in court today successfully arguing for a preliminary injunction and nationwide class certification. The ruling was made from the bench. In granting the request, the court provided for a 7-day delay so that the government — which argued to the Supreme Court that a nationwide class was the appropriate way to seek nationwide protection in the birthright cases — could nevertheless try to get the First Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the relief, if it decides to pursue that option. Even with a 7-day delay, the ruling will go into effect well before July 27, when partial implementation of the unconstitutional order might otherwise have begun. “This ruling is a huge victory and will help protect the citizenship of all children born in the United States, as the Constitution intended,” said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ’s Immigrant’s Rights Project, who argued the case. “We are fighting to ensure President Trump doesn’t trample on the citizenship rights of one single child.” “This morning, the federal court in New Hampshire agreed once again that President Trump's executive order to restrict birthright citizenship is a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution. The executive order, which is now temporarily blocked nationwide in this class action lawsuit and blocked regionally in our January lawsuit, stands in flagrant opposition to our constitutional rights, values, and history. Our Constitution ensures that no politician can decide who among those born in this country is worthy of citizenship — a principle that continues to be ardently reinforced in court across the country and here in the Granite State,” said Devon Chaffee, executive director of the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of New Hampshire. “Today’s decision is a powerful affirmation of the 14th Amendment and the enduring principle that citizenship in the United States is a right by birth, not a privilege granted by politics. By granting nationwide class certification and blocking the executive order from taking effect, the court has sent a clear message: all children born on U.S. soil are entitled to the full rights and protections of citizenship. This is a critical victory for families across the country, and we will continue to defend the constitutional promise of equal protection under the law,” said Morenike Fajana, senior counsel of the Legal Defense Fund. “Since the Supreme Court’s decision, parents have lived in fear and uncertainty, wondering whether they should give birth in a different state, whether their newborns would be subject to deportation, and what kind of future awaits their children,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of Asian Law Caucus. “This court’s injunction protecting birthright citizenship for all affected children is a major victory for families across this country and for all Americans. This ruling reaffirms that constitutional rights cannot be stripped away by executive decree.” “Today’s decision is a victory for our plaintiffs, and millions of families across this country, who deserve clarity, and stability,” said Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund. “The fight to uphold the guarantee of birthright citizenship is far from over and we will continue to advocate to ensure we keep that promise.” “For the second time, this court has affirmed the constitutional commitment that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, regardless of their parents’ background. The U.S. has always been a nation of immigrants, and we are thrilled to be moving forward with this critically important case at a time when immigrant families across the country face increasing hostility, threats, and harm,” said Molly Curren Rowles, executive director of the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of Maine. “Yet another court ruling affirms that the U.S. Constitution gives citizenship equally to all babies born in the United States — not only to those who can prove their parents’ citizenship or permanent status,” said Carol Rose, executive director of the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of Massachusetts. “Birthright citizenship makes our country strong and vibrant, and denying citizenship to babies born in the U.S. is simply un-American. This ruling is a crucial step in stopping this attack on newborn babies and on the very fabric of our nation.” The PI order is here. The class certification order is here.Court Case: Barbara v. Donald J. TrumpAffiliates: New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Mahmoud Khalil Seeks to Challenge Government’s Retaliatory, Post-Facto Charges Against Him in Federal Court
Following Mahmoud Khalil’s historic release on June 20, 2025, his legal team today filed a preliminary injunction motion challenging the government's attempts to detain and deport him based on a second immigration charge regarding alleged misrepresentations on his green card application as unconstitutional. The new motion argues that the government’s post-hoc charge, which it levied one week after Mr. Khalil filed his habeas petition, was retaliatory and violated Mr. Khalil’s First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process rights. This action follows a couple significant rulings in June. First, the Court held that the original charges the government brought against Mr. Khalil — the “foreign policy ground” — were likely unconstitutional and blocked his detention on that basis. The government then shifted its justification for detention to the post-hoc charges. The following week, Judge Michael E. Farbiarz ordered Mr. Khalil's release, emphasizing that detention on such charges is extremely rare and affirming that he posed no danger or threat to the public. (The government has appealed both rulings, and is seeking to pause the release order in the appellate court.) The court has not yet formally blocked the second misrepresentation charge, as the motion now asks the court to do. Mr. Khalil, who the Trump administration detained for his speech in support of Palestinian rights, suffered in a remote detention facility in Jena, Louisiana for over three months — more than 1,400 miles from his legal team, wife, and newborn son. Before the government issued these late-filed allegations against Mr. Khalil, their immigration case rested entirely on Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s foreign policy “determination,” which the federal court has now blocked. Below are quotes from Mr. Khalil’s legal team: “The Trump administration’s baseless, after-the-fact charges against Mahmoud Khalil are nothing more than further retaliation for his outspoken advocacy for Palestinian human rights,” said Amy Belsher, Director of Immigrants’ Rights Litigation at the NYCLU. “These flimsy accusations only reveal the targeted nature of his arrest and the ongoing attempts to silence and remove him. It’s past time the government gave up its unlawful attacks on Mahmoud and his family.” “The government has gone to extraordinary and outrageous lengths in its attempt to silence Mahmoud Khalil, including leveling unsubstantiated and retaliatory charges against him,” said Liza Weisberg, Ířşě±¬ÁĎ-NJ Senior Staff Attorney. “We will continue to defend Mr. Khalil’s freedom as he is targeted for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights, and we are confident he will ultimately prevail." "The government is using these trumped up charges to continue punishing Mahmoud Khalil for his political beliefs," said Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. "This is textbook retaliation. The First Amendment squarely prohibits the government from abusing its powers to suppress dissent." Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of New Jersey, the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of Louisiana, and the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ (Ířşě±¬ÁĎ).Court Case: Khalil v. TrumpAffiliates: New York, New Jersey -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
Immigrants' Rights
U.S. Supreme Court Denies Florida’s Request to Enforce Unconstitutional Anti-Immigrant Law
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the United States Supreme Court rejected Florida’s request to enforce its state immigration law, Senate Bill 4-C. The law criminalizes the movement of undocumented individuals into the state, attempting to wrest control of the immigration system from the federal government and allow local police officers to make arrests based on immigration status. The result would be inevitable profiling and discrimination–as highlighted by the illegal arrest of a U.S. citizen under the provision. Today’s decision extends a long and unbroken string of defeats that the courts have dealt to SB 4-C and related laws in Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Iowa. This now includes appellate decisions from the Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. The Justices did not provide reasoning, and no Justices noted any dissent. The federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against the law in April. In response, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier asked the 11th U.S. Circuit Court to put the order on hold. The unanimous three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit refused, and the Supreme Court has upheld this block as the case continues. The original challenge was brought on behalf of the Florida Immigrant Coalition, the Farmworker Association of Florida, and several impacted individuals on behalf of a class of all people subject to the law. “This denial reaffirms a bedrock principle that dates back 150 years: States may not regulate immigration,” said Cody Wofsy, Deputy Director of the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ Immigrants’ Rights Project. “It is past time for states to get the message.” “This ruling affirms what the Constitution demands — that immigration enforcement is a federal matter and that no one should be stripped of their liberty without due process,” said Bacardi Jackson, Executive Director of the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of Florida. “Florida’s attempt to bypass federal authority and weaponize local law enforcement to police immigration status was not only unlawful, but it also put thousands of people at risk of unjust detention, separation, and abuse. We are grateful the Court upheld the block, and we remain committed to defending the rights and humanity of all Floridians.” “Florida’s attempt to wrest control of immigration enforcement from the federal government flies in the face of well-established precedent from the Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, and every other court to have considered a law similar to SB 4-C,” said Paul R. Chavez, Director of Litigation & Advocacy at Americans for Immigrant Justice. “In attempting to adopt its own immigration enforcement regime, Florida’s SB 4-C risked increased racial profiling, civil rights violations, isolation of immigrant communities and unjust deportations. When local policing is entangled with immigration enforcement, it inevitably undermines any trust the local police have built with the immigrant community, which ultimately undermines public safety for all Floridians. Plaintiffs are pleased to see the dominoes continue to fall in holding SB 4-C wholly unconstitutional.” SB 4-C made it a felony for certain immigrants to enter Florida and mandated pretrial detention without bond. The law created new state crimes that infringed on federal law, as well as the constitutional right to move freely across state lines. The fight against this illegal state law will continue, and in the meantime the preliminary injunction the Supreme Court left in place today will continue to prevent state authorities from targeting neighbors across Florida with cruel punishments they would not face under federal law.Court Case: FLORIDA IMMIGRANT COALITION v. UTHMEIERAffiliate: Florida -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
Immigrants' Rights
Ířşě±¬ÁĎ FOIA Litigation Reveals New Information Ířşě±¬ÁĎ Plans to Expand ICE Detention in Colorado Â
NEW YORK — New documents obtained by the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ and Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of Colorado reveal further details about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) plans to expand ICE detention facilities in Colorado. The records, obtained as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ and Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of Colorado in April 2025, identify facilities under consideration as potential ICE detention sites in response to a Request for Information issued by ICE for facilities in the Denver area. The documents are released on the heels of congressional passage of a reconciliation bill that has allocated $45 billion to ICE to expand its immigration detention infrastructure nationwide. This amount is larger than the budget for the entire federal prison system and is estimated to allow for the detention of over 100,000 people daily. “ICE’s planned expansion of immigration detention will only serve to endanger the lives of immigrants held in dangerous and inhumane conditions, while enriching prison profiteers,” said Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney at the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ’s National Prison Project. “ICE’s ability to expand immigration detention has been supercharged by recent congressional appropriations, placing immigrants in our communities at even greater risk.” The 115 pages disclosed by ICE identify six potential locations for ICE detention facilities in Colorado and also provide information regarding the history of facility use; available transport; and proximity to local hospitals, immigration courts, and legal services. Notably, many of these facilities have not been operational for several years. The facilities include: Huerfano County Correctional Center in Walsenburg, owned by CoreCivic, a private prison corporation. The facility formerly held Colorado and Arizona state prisoners, but closed in 2010, and has a capacity to hold 752 people. Cheyenne Mountain Center in Colorado Springs, owned by the GEO Group, Inc., a private prison corporation. GEO lost its contract with the facility, leading to its closure in March 2020. Hudson Correctional Facility in Hudson, owned by real estate investment trust Highlands REIT. This facility is a prison formerly leased to GEO, which incarcerated Alaska state prisoners under contract, and was shut down in 2014. The Baptiste Migrant Detention Facility in La Junta, owned by the Baptiste Group, formerly a Boys’ Ranch facility last used in 2023. The Baptiste Group has operated other migrant children’s facilities, including one at Homestead, Florida. In 2021, Tennessee suspended the Baptiste Group’s license due to arrests of workers on charges of sexual battery and child abuse at a migrant children’s facility. The Colorado Springs Migrant Detention Facility in Colorado Springs, also owned by the Baptiste Group, is a former skilled nursing facility. Apex Site Services, a provider of temporary structures and modular buildings, proposed a soft-sided detention facility in Walsenberg, and BHPE LLC (Begini Howard Private Equity), a private equity firm, also submitted proposals. “Current immigration detention sites, including the GEO detention facility in Aurora, are already notorious for their inhumane conditions, including persistent medical negligence, inadequate nutrition, and routine rights violations,” said Tim Macdonald, legal director at Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of Colorado. “It is unconscionable to go on to expand this cruel, for-profit detention machine.” These FOIA documents follow several other similar disclosures released by ICE as the result of the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ’s litigation that detail proposals to expand immigration detention nationwide. In 2019, Ířşě±¬ÁĎ of Colorado released “Cashing in on Cruelty,” a report detailing death, abuse, and neglect at Aurora Contract Detention Facility, operated by the GEO Group, Inc. In 2024, the family of Melvin Ariel Calero Mendoza, a 39-year-old Nicaraguan asylum seeker, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the facility and its medical director. The lawsuit alleged the facility failed to diagnose and treat a blood clot in Mendoza’s leg. As the Ířşě±¬ÁĎ has previously documented, the federal government’s immigration detention system overwhelmingly relies on private prison corporations. The FOIA documents are available here.Court Case: Ířşě±¬ÁĎ Foundation v. U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementAffiliate: Colorado