At Liberty Live with W. Kamau Bell: Detroit’s Activist Roots - Engaging Communities in the Fight for Justice

BURLINGTON – In court documents filed on April 10, attorneys for Tufts University Ph.D. student Rümeysa Öztürk argued for Vermont district court Judge William K. Sessions III to confirm that Vermont has jurisdiction in this case and order her immediate release from an ICE detention center in Louisiana. Ms. Öztürk was taken into federal custody by six ICE agents in Somerville, MA, on March 25. That evening, she was driven to Methuen, MA; then, to Lebanon, NH; and, ultimately, to St. Albans, VT, where she spent the night in an ICE detention cell. In the early hours of the next morning, she was transported to Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport and flown to Louisiana. Because her habeas petition was filed while she was physically in the state of Vermont, a district court judge in Massachusetts ruled on April 4 that Vermont district court was the most appropriate venue for the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for Monday, April 14, at 9:30 AM and will take place in the U.S. District Court building in Burlington, VT. Remote access is also available via Zoom, please see details additional below. Lia Ernst, Legal Director, ACLU of Vermont: “Arguing against human rights violations or criticizing a university for its response to student activism is neither illegal nor a reason for detention. The Trump administration cannot order ICE to silence people who hold political opinions they disagree with. We are urging the court to intervene on Ms. Öztürk’s behalf as soon as possible so she can return to her community in Somerville.” Footage of Ozturk’s abduction by ICE agents raised significant alarm throughout the country in the 18 days since her arrest. Six plainclothes agents—some of whom wore hooded sweatshirts or face coverings, and most of whom had obscured identification badges—quickly closed in on her near her apartment in Somerville before she attended an iftar dinner. According to all available evidence, the government inflicted this ordeal on Ms. Öztürk solely because of an op-ed that she wrote for a student newspaper last spring regarding the university’s response to activism on campus. Jessie Rossman, Legal Director, ACLU of Massachusetts: “Everyone should read the op-ed that Rümeysa co-authored in her student newspaper and then watch the footage of her abduction by ICE agents. The stark contrast between the two is shocking. That single op-ed is the only basis for Rümeysa’s continued detention. She has now been imprisoned in Louisiana for over two weeks without any reasonable justification. Rümeysa’s arrest, transport, and detention are appalling and unlawful violations of her constitutional rights, and we are therefore urging the court to order her immediate release.” In a letter of support submitted to the Court, the president of Tufts University notes that Öztürk’s op-ed was within the bounds of the school’s code of conduct and describes her as a respected and valued member of the campus community whose detention has deeply shaken international students, staff, and faculty at Tufts. A coalition of Jewish organizations represented by David Wright Tremaine LLP, including J Street, Bend the Arc, JALSA, and Temple Emanu-El, has also come to Ms. Öztürk’s defense, submitting a proposed amicus brief on her behalf to the Court. Mahsa Khanbabai, Khanbabai Immigration Law: “Rumeysa’s case is about whether a person in this country is allowed to speak out in support of human rights for all and oppose war crimes against children. Rumeysa is a vehement advocate for children; she has always been and she will always be. We will fight every single day until she is rightfully returned to her home in Massachusetts so she can continue her research and her work for all children, everywhere. Noor Zafar, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project: “Deportation and detention cannot be based on dissent. The federal government’s efforts strip the rights and humanity of those whose speech they disagree with have reached new heights over the last several weeks. No matter where, when, or how the federal government seeks to deny our freedom, the ACLU and our allies will be there to fight back.” Naz Ahmad, Co-director, CLEAR, CUNY School of Law: “The government has confirmed that the sole basis for any of its actions against Ms. Ozturk is her co-authorship of an op-ed. A single minute in detention on this basis is an affront to us all, let alone the near three weeks she has spent in a facility far from any of her community.” Sonya Levitova, Associate, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP: “To be clear, the government is trying to punish and deport Rümeysa for co-authoring an op-ed espousing a view the administration doesn’t like, and she’s now been locked in a Louisiana detention center for over two weeks for saying what she thinks. The government cannot be allowed to play hopscotch with Rümeysa’s freedom. She must be released immediately.” Rümeysa is represented by Mahsa Khanbabai, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP.

WASHINGTON – New documents obtained by the ACLU this week reveal further details about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) plans to expand ICE detention facilities in 10 states across the country. The documents signal a massive expansion of ICE detention capacity – including at facilities notorious for misconduct and abuse – which echo reports earlier this week that the Trump administration has sought proposals for up to $45 billion to expand immigrant detention. The discovery also comes on the heels of a “strategic sourcing vehicle” released by ICE earlier this month, which called for government contractors to submit proposals for immigration detention and related services. “The documents received provide important details regarding what we have long feared – a massive expansion of ICE detention facilities nationwide in an effort to further the Trump administration’s dystopian plans to deport our immigrant neighbors and loved ones,” said Eunice Cho, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s National Prison Project. “This expansion is a disastrous waste of billions of taxpayer dollars that will only line the coffers of the private prison industry.” The more than 250 pages of documents disclosed this week include information regarding facility capacity, history of facility use, available local transport, proximity to local hospitals, immigration courts, and transport, as well as access to local consulates and pro bono legal services. Specifically, the documents reveal that Geo Group, Inc. (GEO) and CoreCivic submitted proposals for a variety of facilities not currently in use by ICE, including: Facilities in California, such as McFarland Detention center in McFarland, CA, as well as California City Correctional Center in California City, CA. ICE recently issued a sole source justification and approval notice for use of the California City, CA facility. Facilities across the Midwest, including North Lake Correctional Center in Baldwin, MI and Midwest Regional Reception Center in Leavenworth, KS. Notably, the Leavenworth facility has come under challenge by the city of Leavenworth, Kansas, which has filed suit to prevent CoreCivic from reopening the facility without a city permit. GEO recently announced a new contract with ICE for the Baldwin, MI facility. Facilities across the Southwest, including Lea County Detention Center in Hobbs, NM and South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley, TX. CoreCivic has announced a new contract with ICE to reopen the Dilley, TX facility. GEO, CoreCivic, and MTC also sought to renew contracts at current ICE detention facilities, including: Facilities across the Southwest, including Cibola County Correctional Center in Milan, NM; Torrance County Correctional Center in Estancia, NM; Nevada Southern Detention Center in Pahrump, NV; Rio Grande Processing Center in Laredo, TX; and expanded use of El Valle Detention Facility in Raymondville, TX. Facilities across California, including Central Valley Annex in McFarland, CA; Golden State Annex in McFarland, CA; and Mesa Verde ICE Processing Center in Bakersfield, CA. The Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, WA. Sabot Consulting also submitted a proposal to construct new facilities in Utah and Wyoming. Although a large portion of the document is redacted, the proposal cites to “potentially problematic statutory requirements” in Utah state law that would pose challenges to the construction of a new facility absent a contract with the state department of corrections. The proposal also includes a map of the geographic boundaries of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. Meanwhile, Target Hospitality submitted a proposal for use of temporary buildings for use as detention facilities at Carrizo Springs, TX, previously used to hold unaccompanied immigrant minors in the custody of the Office of Refugee Settlement. Active Deployment Systems also submitted a proposal including “proposed camp layout[s]” to “utiliz[e] available land to construct a comprehensive using modular units” for ICE detention in sites near Harlingen, TX; Kansas City, MO; and in Montana. ICE previously released these documents in an earlier production, subject to significant redactions, and secured as part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit first filed by the ACLU in September 2024. The lawsuit sought records related to ICE’s contract solicitations to “identify possible detention facilities” in 17 states covered by the Chicago, Harlingen, Newark, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Seattle, San Francisco, and El Paso ICE Field Offices. Notably, information regarding the availability of medical care, pricing, and potential staffing challenges remains redacted in most proposals. Details regarding potential impediments to facility operation – including pending or expected legal issues, and political opposition to ICE’s mission within the local community – were also omitted from the latest production of FOIA documents obtained via the ACLU’s litigation. The FOIA documents are available here.

NEW YORK — A federal court in New York issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) tonight halting removals under the Alien Enemies Act for people within that court’s judicial district. The ruling stems from an emergency lawsuit filed yesterday by the American Civil Liberties Union and New York Civil Liberties Union, in partnership with The Legal Aid Society, whose clients are plaintiffs in the litigation. The case results from a U.S. Supreme Court decision on Monday lifting a nationwide TRO in a challenge to President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime act the administration is trying to use to bypass immigration law. But the Supreme Court also ordered that people targeted for removal under the act are entitled to challenge that and must have meaningful notice and opportunity to do so. The parties were in federal court in New York today successfully seeking the TRO, and a preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled for April 22. “Just as the Supreme Court stressed, the court in New York properly recognized that the right to judicial review is of no value without notice. The court was correct to block any more removals to a notorious foreign prison without due process,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead counsel. “Today, the Southern District rightly blocked Donald Trump's attempts to invoke a wartime act to justify the removal of people without due process in New York. The Alien Enemies Act occupies a deeply shameful place in history, and we will fight to ensure the government does not ensnare any more New Yorkers in its reckless abuse of power,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “This ruling is a powerful affirmation of due process and the rule of law and a vital victory for our clients who are survivors rightfully seeking protection under our asylum laws,” said Sayoni Maitra, supervising attorney in the Immigration Law Unit at The Legal Aid Society. The ruling is here. Case background is here.