Law and Justice

Appeals Court Rejects ICE 

Policy of Mandatory 

Detention Without Bond

    DENVER — (ACLU) -- 7/5/26 -- The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Trump administration policy on Tuesday, June 30, that mandated the detention of Rigoberto Santillan-Quiroz, a longtime U.S. resident, without bond. The court ordered a bond hearing for Santillan-Quiroz, who, after eight months of detention, will finally have an opportunity to demonstrate that there is no justification for his continued detention. The Tenth Circuit’s ruling joins three appeals courts and decisions from over 450 district court judges across the country. Judges have mandated that the Trump administration release many of these immigrants from detention, routinely finding that their categorical detention without a bond hearing is unlawful.

    “Every person has rights protected by the Constitution, no matter the color of our skin, the languages we speak, or our immigration status,” said Travis Handler, ACLU of Oklahoma legal fellow. “With this order, the court unanimously found that all people residing within the Tenth Circuit who are detained by ICE are entitled to a bond hearing and, absent special circumstances, are eligible for release on bond. This is a huge step toward ending the mass deportation machine. We will continue to hold this administration accountable and fight for the safety of our communities.”

    Santillan-Quiroz has lived in the U.S. for about twenty years, is married to a legal permanent resident, and has a U.S. citizen stepdaughter. He was detained in November 2025 after a traffic stop and held without bond per the Trump administration’s new policy, despite not being a flight risk nor a danger to public safety. Santillan-Quiroz filed a habeas petition seeking his release. A magistrate judge recommended a bond hearing and his release, but an Oklahoma district court ultimately denied his habeas petition. Santillan-Quiroz, with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, ACLU of Oklahoma, ACLU of Colorado, and immigration attorney Kelli Stump appealed the district court’s decision in January 2026.

    "This is a huge victory for thousands of people currently being held without access to bond in immigration detention centers across Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. These individuals are now entitled to have the bond hearings that should result in release for many after months of being wrongfully held by ICE,” said Tim Macdonald, ACLU of Colorado legal director. “This ruling from the Tenth Circuit sends a message that the Trump administration cannot unilaterally change the law and create unlawful policies that violate the rights of immigrants in our country and deny them fundamental fairness and due process.”

    In July 2025, the Trump administration issued new guidance that denies bond to people in detention while their immigration cases proceed in court, impacting millions of people in the country. This new guidance defies longstanding Department of Homeland Security (DHS) practices, federal law, and fundamental due process protections. It also exacerbates longstanding problems with immigration detention, including overcrowding, medical neglect, inadequate nutrition, and more.

    “The courts have once again correctly rejected the government’s attempt at rewriting our immigration laws to categorically deny immigrants like Mr. Santillan-Quiroz their right to basic review of their detention,” said My Khanh Ngo, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the appeal. “This order checks that executive overreach and we are thrilled that our client will finally have the chance to be reunited with his family.”

    "Immigration detention is intended to ensure appearance at proceedings — not to impose punishment before a case is decided," said Kelli Stump, Santillan-Quiroz' initial habeas attorney and co-immigration counsel. "The Tenth Circuit's decision recognizes that liberty cannot depend on a blanket policy. Every person deserves an individualized determination based on the law and the facts, and that is exactly what Congress required."

Reconciliation Bill

ACLU Issues Statement on 

Senate Vote to Add $70 Billion to 

ICE and Border Patrol's Bloated Budget

    WASHINGTON – (ACLU) -- 7/5/26 -- The Senate passed a reconciliation bill today that would provide an additional $70 billion in taxpayer funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol without any meaningful reforms to limit violent and abusive tactics by federal agents.

    The vote comes after a months-long standoff between members of Congress over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), prompting Republicans in Congress to bypass normal Congressional procedures and use an obscure hyper partisan process called reconciliation. In July 2025, Congress also used the reconciliation process to give DHS over $170 billion in immigration enforcement funding – $150 billion of which remains unused, according to a recent analysis.

    In response to this news, Kate Voigt, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, had the following reaction:

    “Once again, President Trump’s allies in Congress are bypassing normal Congressional procedures to strong-arm billions more in taxpayer dollars to fuel ICE and Border Patrol’s assault on our communities. Instead of passing commonsense reforms to rein in ICE abuses or funding programs that would actually help American families, the Senate is choosing to add $70 billion to ICE and Border Patrol’s already bloated budget.

    “Make no mistake: a vote in favor of more ICE and Border Patrol funding is a vote to prioritize President Trump’s cruel mass deportation agenda. We now call on our House Representatives to hold the line and say no to any more funding for these abusive agencies that have killed and attacked our neighbors, demanded people show their papers based on the color of their skin, and tear thousands of families apart. The safety of our communities and our freedom depend on it.”

Voting Rights

Voting Rights Group Seeks Ruling

to Prevent Federal Interference

Before 2026 Midterms

    Washington, D.C. — (Common Cause) -- 5/21/2026 -- The group Common Cause and four individual voters have filed a motion for partial summary judgment in their federal lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from attempting to compile voters’ personal data and take over elections from the states. With just months before the midterm elections and primaries already underway, the plaintiffs are asking the court to block the Department of Justice (DOJ) from unlawfully creating a national voter database for surveilling voters and revoking voter registrations.

    There is no doubt that the DOJ’s actions are as illegal as they are dangerous. The law is clear that the DOJ does not have the authority to amass voters’ sensitive data and purge them from their state voter lists. Simultaneously, the DOJ is violating numerous federal laws meant to protect voters’ privacy and ensure government transparency. The plaintiffs argue that the court can and should move quickly to stop the DOJ’s ongoing unlawful attempts to destabilize the democratic process and trample on fundamental rights.

    The motion emphasizes that voters deserve to know immediately that their personal information is protected, their registrations are secure, and the federal government will not attempt to interfere with the administration of free and fair elections this November. The lawsuit seeks to stop the Trump administration’s efforts to create widespread confusion among eligible voters—or worse, prevent them from voting altogether.

    “I’ve been a U.S. citizen for over a decade and a voter for nearly as long,” said Anthony Nel, a plaintiff from Texas who was removed from voter rolls 30 days after the SAVE system flagged him as a potential noncitizen. “I found out my voter registration was canceled because the government is using a system it knows doesn’t work correctly for people like me. The DOJ should not be building a national database out of our most sensitive, personal information when it can’t even get this right.”

    On April 21, the group—represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia (ACLU-D.C.), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the Democracy and Rule of Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, and Protect Democracy—sued the DOJ over its demands that states hand over confidential voter information, including home addresses, partial social security numbers, and past voting history.

    In 2025, the DOJ demanded that states provide their unredacted voter rolls. The agency plans to compare state voter lists with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) notoriously inaccurate Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system in an effort to identify suspected noncitizens on state voter rolls. As the lawsuit explains, however, the SAVE system has often mistakenly flagged lawful citizens as ineligible to vote. Nevertheless, the DOJ is claiming authority to demand that states remove any flagged voters within 45 days of informing states.

    At least eighteen states (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming) have voluntarily complied with the DOJ’s demands for their unredacted state voter rolls, putting their voters’ data at risk of misuse and security breaches.

    “The Constitution gives states the authority to administer elections, and Congress has passed laws to protect voters against exactly this kind of abuse of power,” said Sara Chimene-Weiss, Counsel with Protect Democracy’s Free & Fair Elections program. “Here, this administration has brazenly ignored all of these legal guardrails. We’re moving for partial summary judgment because the legal violations are plain and the ongoing harm is serious: the government is invading voters’ privacy and putting their sacred right to vote at risk, all while baselessly casting doubt on our elections, which are secure.”

    Since 2025, the DOJ has sued 30 states to force them to turn over their non-public voter files. Common Cause has taken action in 16 of these states plus D.C., and judges in six states—Arizona, Michigan, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island—have dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuits, holding that the DOJ cannot collect this confidential voter data.

Law and Liberty

Event Criticized as Shocking

Mix of Church and State

    (FFRF) -- May 13, 2026 -- The White House’s “Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving” on May 17 is an unprecedented and shocking mix of church and state.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is sounding the alarm over the prayer fest’s sponsor, “Freedom 250,” a public/private initiative aligned with the White House to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary with explicitly Christian nationalist programming.
    President Trump promoted the all-day prayer fest on the National Mall during his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast: “On May 17, 2026, we are inviting Americans from all across the country to come together on our National Mall to pray, to give thanks, and to rededicate America as one nation under God.”
    The all-day spectacle of prayer, testimony, Scripture and worship calls on Americans to gather for “Scripture, testimony, prayer, and rededication of our country as One Nation to God.” The overtly sectarian gathering is dominated by Christian nationalist figures and promoted with government involvement. FFRF’s Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on public funding is on appeal, so financial details are murky.
    The event overwhelmingly features Christian leaders and activists, including those among the Trump cabinet, with token non-Christian representation. Besides House Speaker Mike Johnson and cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Mark Rubio, they include a long list of pastors and religious figures, including Rev. Franklin Graham, Eric Metaxas (a vocal proponent of Christian nationalist ideology), White House Faith Adviser Paula White and Rev. Robert Jeffress, who has repeatedly argued that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. All but one of the 15 religious leaders are Christian.
    Military and other governmental bands will perform alongside religious choirs, such as with the extremist Christian Hillsdale College.
    “This is not a celebration of America’s founding principles — but an overtly sectarian, exclusionary event catering to evangelicals and other conservative Christians, with participation and the full blessing of the federal government,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Our Constitution is godless by design. The government has no authority to organize religious revivals, much less use them to promote a Christian nationalist agenda.”
    FFRF Co-President Dan Barker adds, “This isn’t subtle. They are openly declaring a goal of redefining America as a Christian nation and using the machinery of government to do it.”
    Major corporations — including Mastercard, Deloitte, SAP and Lockheed Martin — have signed on as sponsors of Freedom 250, even as questions mount about the initiative’s sectarian agenda and lack of transparency. Critics have called out the companies for potentially enabling what amounts to a government-backed religious campaign.
    The United States belongs to all of us — not just conservative Christians, FFRF points out. Our government was founded on secular principles to ensure freedom of conscience for everyone.
    FFRF is calling on federal officials to immediately cease any involvement in sectarian events, and on corporate sponsors to reconsider their support.
    “The 250th anniversary of our nation should celebrate liberty, equality and the constitutional separation of church and state,” Gaylor concludes. “Anything less betrays the very ideals the Declaration of Independence set in motion.”

    Original date of release: May 5/26