|
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
The Disappeared: Lessons from LATIN AMERICA
Saturday, May 03, 2025
Federal Judge Restricts Border Patrol in California
A federal court on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction forbidding the Border Patrol from conducting warrantless immigration stops throughout a wide swath of California.
The ruling came in response to an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit filed after the El Centro Border Patrol traveled to Kern County to conduct a three-day sweep in January, detaining day laborers, farm workers and others in a Home Depot parking lot, outside a convenience store and along a highway between orchards.
The ruling prohibits Border Patrol agents from taking similar actions, restricting them from stopping people unless they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in violation of U.S. immigration law. It also bars agents from carrying out warrantless arrests unless they have probable cause that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
“You just can’t walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers,’” U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer L. Thurston said during a Monday hearing in Fresno that featured moments of heated exchange between government attorneys and the judge.
The ACLU filed suit on behalf of United Farm Workers, arguing that the stops violated the Fourth Amendment. The judge has not decided on the totality of the case, but on Tuesday granted the ACLU’s motion to stop the Border Patrol from conducting similar operations while the case moved through the courts.
“I think that it’s pretty clear that half of a century of really established law is being upheld. It’s unfortunate that this is a cause for celebration. It’s not legal to snatch people off the street for looking like farm workers or day laborers,” said Elizabeth Strater, vice president of United Farm Workers.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta agreed. “That’s existing law, and the judge’s order reflects existing law.”
“You can’t just indiscriminately stop people and search them without any appropriate reasonable suspicion or probable cause or without a warrant,” Bonta said at a news conference in San Diego on Monday about conditions in ICE detention. “So, it sounds like the judge had seen enough and wanted to issue an order. “
The injunction is in effect in the jurisdiction of California’s Eastern District, which spans the Central Valley from Redding to Bakersfield.
After the January sweep, the man who led it, Chief Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino, said his agents specifically targeted people with criminal and immigration histories. However, a CalMatters investigation revealed that the Border Patrol had no criminal or immigration history on 77 of the 78 people it arrested.
Tuesday, April 29, 2025
Trump; Sus padres fueron deportados, pero la niña de 2 años sigue en EE. UU.
Sus padres fueron deportados, pero la niña de 2 años sigue en EE. UU.
El gobierno de Trump envió a la madre a Venezuela y al padre a una prisión en El Salvador, mientras que la hija permanece en algún lugar de Estados Unidos.
Una familia venezolana pide que una niña de dos años sea devuelta a su madre luego de que el viernes las autoridades estadounidenses deportaran a la madre a Venezuela sin la niña.
El padre de la niña fue enviado a una prisión de El Salvador en marzo.
Thursday, April 24, 2025
LULAC Protects Voters" Rights
LULAC SECURES SWEEPING FEDERAL COURT VICTORY IN DEFENSE OF VOTERS' RIGHTS
Nation's Oldest and Largest Latino Civil Rights Organization Wins Injunction Halting Anti-Voter Executive Order That Threatened to Disenfranchise Millions
Washington, D.C. — The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) today hailed a landmark federal court ruling that strikes down key provisions of a controversial executive order seeking to impose documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration—an effort that posed a direct threat to millions of eligible voters across the country, especially in Latino, Black, Indigenous, student, and military communities.
U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) from enforcing Section 2(a) of Executive Order 14248, which had instructed the EAC to alter the federal voter registration form to include new, burdensome documentation requirements. The Court also blocked Section 2(d), which would have permitted federal agencies to deny voters access to the federal registration form unless they could verify citizenship, effectively rolling back decades of hard-fought voting protections.
"This decision is a crucial win for voting rights and a direct strike against efforts to intimidate and disenfranchise Latino voters and communities of color," said Roman Palomares, LULAC National President and Chairman of the Board. "LULAC joined this legal challenge because the stakes were too high. This was a blatant attempt to override federal law, bypass Congress, and deter lawful voters from participating in our democracy. The Court rightly upheld the principle that voting is a right—not a privilege reserved for a select few."
The Court's decision affirms that the president does not possess unilateral authority to impose conditions on voter registration governed by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), a statute enacted by Congress to streamline and expand voter participation. Under this law, the EAC—not the Executive Branch—has exclusive authority to determine the content of the federal voter registration form. Any attempt by the president to dictate changes outside of that process is unlawful and unconstitutional.
"This is not just a victory for LULAC, but for every eligible American voter," said Juan Proaño, LULAC Chief Executive Officer. "The Court sent a clear and powerful message: no president can unilaterally rewrite election law to suppress the vote. This ruling ensures our elections remain accessible, lawful, and free from undue interference. It safeguards the voices of millions who depend on the integrity of our democratic system."
Had the executive order been enforced, it would have placed an unlawful burden on marginalized voters, many of whom do not possess the narrow forms of identification that would have been required. The order also threatened to eliminate the use of mail-in ballots in 17 states, disenfranchising voters with disabilities, active-duty military personnel, and overseas citizens. Further, it would have imposed harsh penalties on states that refused to comply, including withholding essential federal funding.
"This executive order was an attempt—without any legal authority—to upend our voter registration and mail-in voting processes," added Palomares. "The impact would have been devastating, particularly for voters already facing barriers. This ruling restores confidence in our democratic system. It reminds us that our courts remain a vital defense against executive overreach."
LULAC served as lead plaintiff in the case, joined by its partners, the Secure Families Initiative and the Arizona Students' Association, with legal representation from the Campaign Legal Center and the State Democracy Defenders Fund. Plaintiffs included college students, Latino voters, and members of the military—all communities historically at higher risk of being disenfranchised.
"This ruling reaffirms the separation of powers and the checks and balances that protect our freedoms," said Proaño. "It is a reminder that no one—not even a former president—can stand above the Constitution. The rule of law prevailed."
LULAC has long been at the forefront of protecting the voting rights of underrepresented communities and will continue to lead the fight against voter suppression, intimidation, and any form of discrimination aimed at silencing the voice of the American people.
# # #
About LULAC
The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is the nation's oldest and largest Latino civil rights organization. Founded in 1929, LULAC is committed to advancing the rights and opportunities of Latino Americans through advocacy, community building, and education. With a growing network of councils nationwide, LULAC remains steadfast in its mission to protect and empower millions of Latinos, contributing daily to America's prosperity. For more information about LULAC and its initiatives, please visit www.LULAC.org.
Monday, April 14, 2025
Trump, Migrants and the Insurrection Act
What is the Insurrection Act?
The Insurrection Act authorizes the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. The statute implements Congress’s authority under the Constitution to “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” It is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities.
The Insurrection Act, in principle, only allows the American president to use the armed forces to assist civilian authorities to enforce some law in the presence of an insurrection. But the language of the law is quite vague. Trump makes it clear that he has in mind invoking the Insurrection Act to very broad purposes, essentially to change the regime.
- What does it do? Invoking the Insurrection Act would allow Trump to deploy the military (including federalized National Guard) anywhere in the US. Trump may claim it’s to protect the border, but he could deploy these forces anywhere.
- Why April 20? On his first day in office, Trump directed the Department of Homeland Security to take 90 days to come up with a recommendation on whether he should invoke the Insurrection Act to solve the non-existent immigration crisis. 90 days after January 20 is April 20. It could come earlier, or it could never come.
- How bad could it get? We don’t know! Maybe Trump doesn’t invoke it at all -- he didn’t in his first term. Or maybe he does, and he further militarizes the border. Or maybe he uses it to implement his promised nationwide deportation force and crack down on peaceful protest. Last week, his ICE Director described their vision of creating a deportation system “like [Amazon] Prime, but with human beings.” Maybe that’s mere bluster, or maybe that’s the plan. Nobody knows -- which means we should neither freak out prematurely nor ignore the warning signs.
So what do we do about it? The courts are unlikely to save us here -- the Insurrection Act gives fairly wide authorities to the President and the courts have historically been fairly deferential regarding those powers. This is more of a political question than a legal question: Does Trump look strong and decisive, and does his support grow by virtue of invoking the Act? As he militarizes the border and beyond, do his approval numbers increase? Does his coalition hold strong? Or is there widespread backlash, defiance, opposition, and ridicule? In the latter case, Trump may call it off and claim that was his plan all along.