The American Civil Liberties Union took the Trump administration to federal court Saturday night over its new restrictions on immigrants and refugees coming to the U.S. — a policy many have linked to President Donald Trump’s promised Muslim ban.
After about an hour of arguments in a New York City court, a judge granted a stay effectively blocking Trump’s executive order and barring customs officials from detaining immigrants and refugees at U.S. airports, according to Dale Ho, an ACLU representative. Read more
A federal judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., has temporarily blocked part of President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration by ordering that refugees, visa holders and others impacted by the Jan. 27 executive order not be deported. In her order, Judge Ann Donnelly cited “substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals” from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen, as well as a strong likelihood that deporting these individuals would violate “their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” This stay will last until a court hearing is held on the merits of this case brought by the ACLU and other legal organizations. It applies to “all people stranded in U.S. airports,” according to a statement by the ACLU.
I was in the courtroom tonight at the Federal Court of Brooklyn. I am not a lawyer or anything, but I took notes, and here’s what it was like.
We happened to see the call on twitter asking for people to arrive at the Cadman Plaza out front of the courthouse by 7:30 pm. We were near enough to make it, so we hopped on a subway and rode a few stops to arrive by 7:20 or so. There were about 100 people already in the plaza, chanting, making signs, and singing. Around 8 they started to let people into the building in small groups of 10 to go through security and make sure they didn’t overflow the courtroom. I didn’t think we’d make it in, but after the first few groups of ten they opened a second door right next to us. I’d estimate 60-70 people actually got into the audience of the courtroom, which was as much as it could hold. We were pretty squished on the bench trying to make more room.
In the courtroom itself, there was one lawyer for the ACLU and two present for the government: a black woman from the Attorney General and a Jewish man from the Department of Immigration (I have no idea what their personal views were on the situation). There was an additional government lawyer on the phone.
The ACLU had filed on behalf of two named people, both of whom had arrived in JFK and been detained, and the larger class of all people affected by the Executive Order. The government pointed out that both of the named people had in fact already been released and so the case was moot, but the ACLU insisted that they had only named two people because the government was refusing to release the names of any others. The ACLU and the judge (Ann M. Donnelly) insisted that they needed to deal with the larger class, even if these two specific people were no longer being detained.
The ACLU asked for an assurance that “future plaintives” wouldn’t be removed from the country. The government said they couldn’t make those assurances without knowing specifics about the “arriving aliens”.
The judge said that she was following Supreme Court precedent, which depended on the “four factor test”, the most important of which in this situation was the potential for irreparable harm to the people being detained. (The others were the likelihood of injury to the petitioner, the public good, and a fourth I didn’t catch.) She asked the government specifically, “What is your argument that there won’t be irreparable injury?”
The government replied that they couldn’t say without named petitioners.
The judge pointed out that all the people being detained have been through an extensive vetting process already, some for years. Again she said, “Explain to me how it is that members of this class will not suffer irreparable injury.”
The government lawyers said that was an “overly broad request”.
The judge said that she saw no likelihood of injury to the opposing party (ie, the government), because all of these people would have been allowed in the country two days ago without problem. She said given that, and the “likelihood of success on the merits of the case” that she granted the stay (that is, no people currently being detained under the executive order could be sent out of the US). She also said, “I think the government hasn’t had a full chance to think about this.” And that was very obviously true, as the government’s lawyers repeatedly weren’t able to answer questions or predict what would happen next.
They began to set a date for the next hearing, and the government lawyers said they would need at least two weeks to prepare. The ACLU lawyer said that two weeks was a long time to keep people in detention without knowing what would happen to them. The government lawyers agreed, but couldn’t say if it was likely they would continue to keep people in detention or not.
The ACLU lawyer asked for a list of everyone currently being detained, since they didn’t even have accurate numbers of how many people it was (though he guessed 100-200 people).
The government lawyers replied that was “more difficult that it sounds”. !!!!
The judge said, “Why don’t you work it out.” You could hear her trying hard to suppress her eye roll. She then said that the whole point of this stay was to maintain the status quo, and that “it was not unduly burdensome to identify the people in the stated class”.
The eventual dates they settled on for the future was: Feb 10 for the government to file papers. The ACLU said they could respond within 48 hours. The government asked for a further seven days to prepare a respond to that, with the next hearing to take place on Feb 21.
(And what we saw when we came out of the courthouse)
TL;DR – the stay was granted! No one is being kicked out of the US right now! It applies nationwide! :D
Unfortunately only temporary and the ultimate fate of this people is yet to be decided. It also only covers people already in the US or who were in transit at the time of the ruling. :(
Part of the drive for the sum was a campaign by celebrities and influencers to match donations, occasionally for wild sums. Investor and Shark Tank star Chris Sacca tweeted that he would match up to $150,000 in donations. Celebrities, including Sia, Rosie O'Donnell, and Jack Antonoff followed suit. Here’s what the ACLU has said it will immediately do with the money.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.”
The American Civil Liberties Union is launching an extraordinary effort against Jeff Sessions, over deeply held concerns he will not equally uphold the rights of all Americans under the law.
In a statement, the ACLU explained its position:
The ACLU is nonpartisan, and as a matter of longstanding policy does not support or oppose nominees for federal office. As a result, the ACLU rarely testifies in confirmation hearings.
However, the organization is taking the extraordinary step of testifying in this hearing because Sen. Sessions’ record raises significant, serious questions about his hostility to civil rights and civil liberties.
The ACLU believes he must satisfactorily answer questions on these issues before a confirmation vote proceeds.
The nearly 100-year-old rights group’s executive director, Anthony Romero, also put together a lengthy web piece outlining questions about Sessions’s views on mass incarceration, police reform and militarization, immigration rights, religious liberty for Muslims, LGBT rights, mass surveillance and abortion rights.
Ride-sharing service Lyft has pledged to donate $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Its number one competitor, Uber, came under fire for not halting service to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York in solidarity with striking taxi workers.
The hashtag #DeleteUber trended Saturday night as users
upset Uber did not suspend service to the terminals affected by the New
York Taxi Workers Alliance work stoppage said
they would end their accounts.
The controversy grew after Uber tweeted
it had turned off surge pricing at the airport, only clarifying hours
later it had not intended to break the strike. Read more