UPDATE (6/1/2016): Six years after Anastasio Hernández Rojas’ death, there sadly remains no accountability for his brutal killing. In November 2015, the Department of Justice declined to bring criminal charges against any of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection personnel involved in his death. More than six months later, CBP has not announced any administrative findings or discipline. Anastasio’s family and memory continue to be mistreated by the federal government’s failure to bring justice to his case. The ACLU, Southern Border Communities Coalition, and allies are holding a vigil today at CBP Headquarters in Washington, D.C., calling on CBP to address past use-of-force cases and commit to respect for all individuals’ human and civil rights. CBP has introduced an improved use-of-force policy, but needs to act with much greater urgency on other badly needed reforms like body-worn cameras and a transparent, responsive complaint process.
When faced with government brutality and, in its aftermath, a total lack of justice for victims we have two choices: we can despair, or we can fight back.
On May 28, 2010, a 42-year-old undocumented immigrant, Anastasio Hernández Rojas, was killed by Customs and Border Protection personnel. He left behind a widow and five children whose home is in San Diego.
PBS broadcast eyewitness video, and it is shocking. The tapes show a man handcuffed and surrounded by about a dozen agents, as CBP personnel administer what appear to be five Taser shocks. One officer has his knee on Anastasio’s neck; the words “quit resisting” are heard over the prone man.
The San Diego coroner’s office classified Anastasio’s death as a homicide, recording in addition to a heart attack: “several loose teeth; bruising to his chest, stomach, hips, knees, back, lips, head and eyelids; five broken ribs; and a damaged spine.”
Sixteen members of Congress wrote DHS, concerned that “this incident is part of a larger cultural problem at the Department.” Indeed, as the Arizona Republic has reported, of at least 42 CBP-involved deaths since February 2005, no CBP employee has been known to face criminal or civil charges or disciplinary action.
For the last four years, Anastasio’s family has been denied justice in two key ways: First, as far as they know there have been no criminal or civil consequences for the CBP agents involved. It’s long past time for the Department of Justice to bring appropriate criminal charges.
Second, CBP has not yet changed its use-of-force policies – on paper or in practice. CBP has refused to release an external review it commissioned, and the ACLU has sued. The ACLU has criticized CBP’s policies for years, and we developed our own use-of-force recommendations for CBP based on best law enforcement practices.
There are immediate steps CBP should take to avoid more tragedies like Anastasio’s.
CBP needs to join police departments across the United States in using body-worn cameras, as it has promised, along with appropriate privacy protections. Such cameras are a win-win: Officers are protected from false complaints and an objective account of events is preserved. (The true circumstances of Anastasio’s death might never have come to light if a courageous passerby hadn’t filmed the horror.) CBP must also reform its complaint process. A scathing recent report found no action in response to 97 percent of CBP complaints in which a formal decision was issued. A troubled agency like CBP needs to take complaints seriously and address internal misconduct whenever it arises.
Four years without justice for Anastasio’s family is a disgrace. Without system-wide overhaul, abuses continue to occur on CBP’s watch. Tragedies like the death of Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez – a 16-year-old shot across the border fence in October 2012. As his grieving mother commented: “Ten shots is not an accident.”
The new leadership of DHS and CBP must enact rapid and thorough reform to address a crisis of confidence in the nation’s largest law enforcement agency.
Watch the videos at Border Communities Under Siege.
Learn more about Customs and Border Protection and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
National Security
Where Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil LibertiesWhere Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil Liberties
The ACLU has more than 100 years’ experience holding power accountable. As President-elect Donald Trump rolls out his cabinet picks, we analyze how his nominee for secretary of defense will impact civil liberties. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions.