Immigrants' Rights

Regardless of your immigration status, you have guaranteed rights.

No one should be above the law, including federal law enforcement. Yet when federal agents violate people’s constitutional rights, holding them accountable can be extraordinarily difficult. In this episode of A More Perfect District, ACLU-DC Paralegal & Intake Coordinator Ameerah Adetoro talks with Legal Director Scott Michelman about the barriers that can make it difficult to hold federal officers accountable, why accountability matters for protecting all of our rights, and what we can do to push for change.

Mais vos droits ne changent PAS lorsque vous franchissez ces frontières.

ነገር ግን እነዚህን ድንበሮች ሲያቋርጡ መብቶችዎ አይለወጡም።

When the government obtains someone’s property, it must return those items when its interest in them expires, even if it initially took control of the items lawfully. This means that if the government seizes a person’s property incident to an arrest, it must return the items that are not contraband, not evidence, and not needed for some other legitimate governmental purpose. The Fourth Amendment requires nothing less. And, when it’s the federal government that obtains someone’s property, the Administrative Procedure Act’s ban on arbitrary and capricious conduct imposes the same mandate. ICE routinely flouts this obligation. It has adopted what amounts to a de facto policy of failing to return property seized from people it detained for civil immigration purposes long after any plausible governmental interest in the items expired. This case challenges ICE’s conduct on behalf of seven people and a class of similarly situated individuals. The named plaintiffs were all detained in ICE custody, stripped of important property, and still have not received all their items at least four months after their release. ICE failed to return Employment Authorization Documents and other important documents, along with items such as cell phones and car keys. As a result, the plaintiffs have lost work opportunities, feared going out in public (because they don’t have identification, which could lead ICE to detain them again), and suffered other forms of personal and economic hardship. The plaintiffs bring this case to regain the items ICE withheld from them and ensure that the agency comports with its legal duties when handling property in the future.

Soon after the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump’s Executive Order seeking to do away with birthright citizenship was unconstitutional, he tried again, with a new Executive Order, issued on August 6, 2026, that directs executive agencies not to recognize the citizenship of an individual “when neither parent of that person is a citizen” and: a) “either parent of that person is an alien enemy, defined to include” a member of certain designated terrorist organizations; b) “either parent of that person is a foreign government employee,” including not only foreign ministers with full diplomatic immunity but also various other employees of foreign governments or international organizations; c) “either parent of that person engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship for the person, or engaged in fraudulent activity to obtain citizenship”; or d) “the person is born in a territory or territorial waters of the United States where citizenship is not conferred by Federal statute.” On September 28, 2026, we and the National ACLU filed a new lawsuit challenging the new Executive Order. We allege that it is unconstitutional for the same reasons the first one was, and that it also violates the federal immigration statute, as Justice Kavanaugh opined was true of the first order. The plaintiffs are: “Clara,” a citizen of France; she and her husband work for international organizations in Washington, DC, and their son “Nathan,” who was born after the issuance of the new Executive Order. “Patricia” and her husband, European citizens who also work for international organizations in the United States, and who are expecting a child in spring 2027. “Edward,” a citizen of Australia; he and his Australian wife are expecting a child through surrogacy to be born in the United States in October 2026. We will soon file a motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to prevent executive agencies from refusing to recognize the citizenship of our clients’ children and others similarly situated.

This case challenges the Trump administration’s secretive elimination of bedrock safeguards from the expedited removal process, a fast-track deportation procedure. Since 1997, when the expedited removal system was first put into practice, immigration officials were required to advise all noncitizens of their right to seek protection from persecution and torture and to ask all noncitizens if they fear being removed. These requirements reflected the United States’ non-refoulment treaty obligations not to remove noncitizens to countries where they could fear persecution or torture, and were reflected in specific forms immigration officials use during expedited removal, Forms I-867A and I-867B (collectively, “Form I-867”). Given the importance of these safeguards, courts have invalidated prior attempts by the government to summarily deport noncitizens without providing them notice and an opportunity to seek protection. Yet in February 2025, the Trump administration adopted a Revised Form I-867 that eliminated the fear advisal and questions. It adopted this revised form without any public notice or announcement at the time. It was not until January 29, 2026 that the government first announced in a court filing that it had quietly adopted this revised version of the Form nearly a year earlier. Together with the National ACLU, we filed this case in the federal district court in D.C. on behalf of non-profit organizations that have noncitizens as members and individual noncitizens seeking relief from Revised Form I-867. We allege that the Revised Form is unlawful because it violates the Due Process Clause under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution and various provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. We are asking the court to, among other things, vacate the Revised Form I-867, enjoin the government from employing the Revised Form, and order the government to return the individual noncitizen plaintiffs who were summarily removed pursuant to the unlawful Revised Form to the United States, parole them into the country, and allow them the opportunity to seek immigration relief.  

Among other things, ACLU-D.C. urges the Council to put pressure on MPD to implement all recommendations from the Office of the D.C. Auditor (Auditor) and Office of Police Complaints (OPC); pass legislation prohibiting all District government entities, including all entities designated as law enforcement, from collaborating with any federal agency for the purpose of carrying out immigration enforcement; and taking a more compassionate approach to concerns about youth misbehavior, by investing in proven crime prevention strategies, rather than punitive ones, like the youth curfew.