A federal judge heard from attorneys Monday about the treatment of Salah Sarsour, the Palestinian president of Milwaukee’s Islamic Society and a legal U.S. permanent resident who is being held in an Indiana immigration detention facility.

Sarsour’s lawyers say that since arriving at the Clay County Detention Center in Brazil, Indiana, following his arrest by federal immigration agents in March Sarsour has lost 30 pounds, is not receiving appropriate care for his type 2 diabetes, and has been denied the ability to practice his religion. Separate from Sarsour’s immigration proceedings, Sarsour’s attorneys pushed in federal court for his release, arguing that his treatment at the detention center amounted to a First Amendment violation. 

Luna Droubi, an attorney who represents Sarsour, said that the judge listened closely and asked questions about the 53-year-old business owner, activist and grandfather’s experiences. The judge “addressed and directed the facility to take a look at Salah Sarsour’s medical guidance, and I do think he has real concerns about his treatment,” said Droubi, adding that Sarsour “really has been tormented for exercising his religious beliefs.” 

Initially, Droubi explained, “he wasn’t able to pray five times a day; they would disrupt his prayers at certain hours and tell him to stop doing it.” Sarsour’s requests for Halal meals, foods which are considered permissible in Islam, have been denied, and obtaining a makeshift prayer towel proved challenging as well. When he asked for food that would help him maintain balanced blood sugar levels because of his diabetes, Sarsour was offered pork rinds by detention facility staff according to his attorneys, in violation of his religious dietary requirements.

“It’s been a very difficult time for him,” Droubi told the Examiner. “He’s the president of the largest Islamic Center in Milwaukee. … He is a type 2 diabetic and he has very clear medical instructions that he requires daily glucose testing. At today’s hearing, they represented that they had started daily glucose testing and then somebody at the facility was instructed that they only need to do it once a month.” That goes directly against medical guidance, she added, since glucose levels can drop and rise on a daily basis, “and that can be incredibly dangerous.” 

At one point, Droubi said, Sarsour experienced severe abdominal pain and then was told “there’s nothing we can do for it. There’s no medical professional here. You’re going to have to wait until morning.” She stressed that “he couldn’t even stand up, and it’s only been two months. So he’s really, really struggled.”

Since Jan. 1 of this year, there have been 18 deaths of people detained in immigration detention facilities nationwide. This has outpaced the deaths reported last year –  the highest in two decades. This comes as Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced that it will stop reporting the deaths of people who’ve been recently released by detention, the AP reported.

Sarsour’s attorneys argued that there are numerous reasons why Sarsour needs to be immediately released, and that it’s within the federal court’s authority to do so. Droubi said that Sarsour is being held “because of his speech and associations,” and that the arrest was purely punitive for that speech.

Sarsour grew up in the West Bank and became an outspoken critic of the Israeli government and a supporter of Palestinian rights and freedoms as an adult. That activism continued after the militant arm of Hamas attacked Israel in late 2023, killing 1,200 people, followed by a large-scale Israeli assault on Palestinians living in Gaza which has killed at least 75,000 people while displacing thousands more. 

The Department of Homeland Security has repeatedly called Sarsour a “terrorist” who was convicted of throwing Molotov cocktails into the homes of Israeli forces.

“This was an Israeli military kangaroo court,” Othman Atta, executive director of Milwaukee’s Islamic Society, said of Sarsour’s conviction during a community gathering and press conference held in early April after Sarsour’s arrest. “Human rights groups will tell you that these claims are coerced under torture, under interrogation. So absolutely, that’s not true.” At the gathering Atta also said that Sarsour spent two years in Israeli detention as a teenager. “He would talk to us many times how for 80 straight days, he was interrogated, and brutalized, and tortured while he was in Israeli military custody.”

These experiences are widely reported by detained Palestinians. In 2024, United Nations experts found that due process rights for Palestinians in the West Bank, where Sarsour grew up and was detained, had been violated by Israeli authorities for the past 60 years. 

“He is also an illegal alien that lied on his green card application to fraudulently gain legal status in the U.S. under the Clinton Administration,” a DHS spokesperson said in an emailed statement to the Examiner. “Any accusation of discrimination by ICE agents is FALSE. All illegal aliens in ICE custody receive three meals a day and proper medical treatment. Sarsour is a criminal and a terrorist and will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.”

Droubi said that the federal judge is considering the argument for Sarsour’s release. Attorneys representing the government say that the federal court has no jurisdiction over a claim of unlawful detention. 

“He should be home with his family,” Droubi told the Examiner. “He really should.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security will allow states to access federal citizenship data by June 30 and plans to monitor the flow of mail ballots for signs of voter fraud, according to a court document.

Amid a series of lawsuits, President Donald Trump’s administration is now moving to carry out a March 31 executive order restricting voting by mail ahead of the November midterm elections.

Democrats and voting rights advocates oppose the directive as unconstitutional election meddling by Trump and have sued to stop him. The president, who has long attacked mail ballots but votes by mail himself, says the additional rules will fight noncitizen voting, a rare phenomenon.

“No president has the authority to unilaterally rewrite election rules or dictate how states administer their elections,” Marcia Johnson, chief of activation and justice at the League of Women Voters, said in a statement last week. The League of Women Voters filed one of at least five lawsuits challenging the order.

Potential disruptions

The order could carry major consequences for the midterm elections. Any new restrictions on mail ballots would risk disrupting how tens of millions of voters cast their ballots. About 30% of voters cast mail ballots in 2024, according to data gathered by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission.

But despite several legal challenges, the order remains in effect. 

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., in late May ruled against a request by Democratic groups to pause the order, finding that it was too soon to weigh in because federal officials hadn’t taken enough action yet. A second judge in Massachusetts held a hearing last week, but didn’t immediately issue a decision.

“The Trump Administration will continue fighting for the safety and security of American elections,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement shortly after the D.C. judge’s decision.

One portion of the order demands the postmaster general enact new restrictions on mailed ballots and not transmit ballots from states that refuse to provide the names of absentee voters. The U.S. Postal Service, despite its status as an independent corporation, has put forward a proposal in line with the order to require states to submit lists of voters before mailing ballots.

Now, Homeland Security is responding to another part of the order that requires the creation of lists of voting-age citizens in every state, which the Trump administration calls “state citizenship lists.” State election officials would receive the lists, which they could compare to their voter rolls in a search for noncitizen voters.

Homeland Security’s plans for the citizenship lists came into focus on June 5, when the U.S. Department of Justice filed a notice in federal court that briefly outlines the administration’s plans. The notice describes a two-part effort by Homeland Security and its subsidiary agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, to comply with the order.

First, Homeland Security will implement a “State Voter Roll Verification” that allows state election officials to submit their voter rolls to the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, system. 

SAVE is a powerful computer program that checks names against citizenship information held in a variety of government databases. It can flag registered voters as possible noncitizens, but faces criticism for incorrect identifications.

For the past year, states have already had the option to upload their voter rolls into SAVE. Some Republican-led states, such as Indiana, Texas and Wyoming, have used the system, while Democratic states have declined. It’s unclear how the State Voter Roll Verification would be different, if at all, from states’ current SAVE access. 

Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services didn’t respond to questions from States Newsroom.

Second, the Justice Department notice says Homeland Security will set up a registry for state election officials to securely access “citizenship-related data” from USCIS, the Social Security Administration and the State Department.

According to the notice, the “underlying data would remain in each agency’s respective system.” No other details were provided.

The notice also outlines Homeland Security’s intention to use the lists of voters that states provide to the Postal Service for investigations. It says DHS wants to “integrate” data on those voters “to monitor mail-in and absentee ballot flows, identify anomalies that may suggest voter fraud or misuse, and generate authorized investigative leads.”

California elections

The notice comes as Trump renews his attacks on mail-in voting. Last week he alleged, without evidence, voter fraud in California, which held primary elections last week. California relies heavily on mail ballots and often counts votes at a slow pace — meaning final results sometimes don’t match election night vote totals.

“Do you know why they’re doing that? Because they’re cheating on the election,” Trump said in an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

While the executive order already faces a slew of lawsuits, the NAACP on June 3 filed a motion in federal court seeking to specifically block the Postal Service’s proposed regulations of mail ballots. The NAACP alleges the regulations violate a 2021 settlement agreement that requires timely delivery of election mail to all voters. 

The Postal Service has until Thursday to respond.

The American Postal Workers Union in a statement on June 5 denounced the executive order, saying the Postal Service serves all Americans. It is “not a tool for politicians” to pick which Americans receive which benefits, the union said.

“The Executive Order is an unconstitutional attack on the millions of Americans who vote by mail,” the union said, “and another front in an ongoing assault on voting rights in the United States of America.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts Monday struck down the Trump administration’s efforts to require a $100,000 visa fee for highly skilled immigrant workers, finding the policy is an unlawful tax.

Judge Leo T. Sorokin found the hefty fee placed on the H-1B visa by President Donald Trump exceeded his authority by creating a tax, something that falls under Congress’ authority.  

“The President has no authority to levy a tax unless such a power is delegated by Congress through statute,” Sorokin, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, wrote. “For these reasons, the Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress.”

The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to hire a noncitizen worker in a specialty occupation for a maximum of six years, ranging from the technology industry to healthcare workers. At a minimum, visa applicants have to hold a bachelor’s degree.

A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said in a statement to States Newsroom that the agency disagrees “with this blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump’s historic efforts for immigration reform.”

“The recent changes to the H-1B visa program, including the increased fee, are intended to address concerns about program integrity and the impact on the U.S. workforce,” the spokesperson said. “The policy aims to ensure that employers prioritize hiring U.S. workers, particularly in high-skilled fields. The Trump Administration remains committed to safeguarding opportunities for American workers and maintaining the integrity of employment-based visa programs.”

The suit was brought by 20 states: California, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin. 

In September the Department of Homeland Security issued a proclamation requiring employers to pay a $100,000 fee for a noncitizen to enter the U.S. under a H-1B visa. 

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Rhode Island Friday struck down several Trump administration policies that halted processing for asylum seekers following a shooting in Washington, D.C., that left one West Virginia National Guard member dead and another seriously injured.

In a searing opinion, Judge John J. McConnell Jr. said the Trump administration “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo” when it directed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to pause asylum applications and green card paperwork for immigrants hailing from 39 African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries subject to the president’s travel ban. 

The policy was announced in November after the two National Guard members were shot. Authorities later charged Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan national who was granted asylum, with the shooting. He has pleaded not guilty in federal court. A status conference is set for June 10 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

McConnell, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, said the policy “violated the very immigration laws that Congress has charged it with administering.”

USCIS is an agency within the Department of Homeland Security that oversees processing of legal immigration, ranging from asylum seekers to work authorization forms.

“USCIS’s hold on adjudications cannot be attributed to anything that these individuals did wrong; rather, it arises solely by the happenstance of their birth,” McConnell wrote.

He added that “the Court is reminded of a line often repeated in discussions around immigration policy: If people wish to immigrate to the United States, they ought to ‘follow the law’ and ‘do things the right way.’ This case serves as a perfect example of immigrants doing just that.”

New policy paused processing 

Labor unions and immigration advocacy groups in Rhode Island sued the Trump administration over the policies. They brought the suit on behalf of their members, immigrants who had the processing of their work visas and travel documents paused after the new policy following last year’s shooting in Washington, D.C.

After the November shooting, on the eve of Thanksgiving, one guard member, U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died, and U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, was critically wounded, but recovered. 

One of the groups that sued, Democracy Forward, praised the decision. 

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate approved a nearly $70 billion package early Friday, moving Republicans one step closer to funding immigration and deportation activities for the next three years without negotiating new constraints on federal agents with Democrats. 

The 52-47 mostly party-line vote sends the measure to the House, where GOP lawmakers could send it to President Donald Trump for his signature as soon as next week. 

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski was the only Republican to vote no. Colorado Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, who participated in a debate in his bid to become his state’s next governor, did not vote. 

Murkowski said in a statement she opposed the legislation because it bypassed the annual government funding process that forces the two political parties to debate issues and find compromise. 

“By choosing to appropriate funding for three fiscal years instead of one, this measure weakens the normal budgeting process and sets another precedent for avoiding it when we find ourselves in disagreement,” she said. “In doing so, it reduces Congress’ ability to apply reasonable checks on immigration policy for the remainder of this administration and into the next.”

Murkowski added that she would have voted for the package had it “provided immigration funding for one year, included clear restrictions on what those funds can be used for, and eliminated any potential for taxpayer dollars to be allocated to the administration’s brazen ‘anti-weaponization’ fund.”

Majority Leader John Thune said during floor debate GOP leaders were forced to draft the package after Democrats “walked away” from negotiations that could have placed restrictions on federal immigration agents.  

“Republicans are going to continue to ensure that these agencies have the funding that they need to fulfill their national security responsibilities,” the South Dakota Republican said. 

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., argued the measure shows that Republicans are more focused on funding deportations than lowering the cost of living. 

“Apparently, Republicans think we cannot afford a single penny to help Americans cover the skyrocketing costs of gasoline, of healthcare, of housing, of food, of energy, you name it,” he said. “But somehow we can afford to give another $70 billion to Trump’s rogue agencies.”

Senate approval followed a marathon amendment voting session that stretched throughout Thursday and overnight as Democrats sought to challenge Republican senators on policy differences just months before the November midterm elections. No amendments were approved. 

Building on “big, beautiful” law

The bill would provide a second hefty cash infusion to the agencies carrying out the president’s immigration crackdown, building on the $170 billion Republicans included in their “big, beautiful” law. 

This legislation would appropriate: 

• $38.53 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement
• $26.02 billion for Customs and Border Protection
• $5 billion for the secretary of Homeland Security.

The money would be available through Sept. 30, 2029, the end of the fiscal year. Republicans decided not to place any new guardrails on immigration agents. 

The measure Republican senators approved was somewhat different from the original version released in early May, which included $1 billion for the Secret Service to make security upgrades associated with the president’s ballroom, dubbed the East Wing Modernization Project.

Republicans also removed $1.46 billion that would have increased funding for several Justice Department programs.

Additionally, GOP lawmakers bolstered ICE funding by $350 million compared to the earlier version of the bill. 

Republican leaders are moving the package through the complex budget reconciliation process, avoiding the need to secure Democratic votes in the Senate that would otherwise be required to end debate on the measure. 

GOP leaders opted to use the special legislative maneuver after they were unable to broker agreement with Democrats to place constraints on immigration officers. 

Democratic lawmakers said new guardrails, including body cameras and preventing the use of masks, were necessary after federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis in January. 

The impasse led to a 76-day shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security that didn’t end until late April, when Congress approved the annual spending bill without funding for ICE or the Border Patrol. 

June 1 deadline missed

The reconciliation process comes with several strict rules that require each section of the legislation to address revenue, spending, or the debt limit. Proposals also cannot be deemed “merely incidental” to the federal budget. 

Trump wanted Congress to approve the funding package ahead of a self-imposed June 1 deadline. But work on the measure ground to a halt after the administration announced plans to establish a $1.776 billion fund to pay people who believe they were wrongly prosecuted by the Justice Department. 

Floor debate on the bill resumed again this week after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified before a House subcommittee Tuesday the administration was “not moving forward with the fund, period.”

Trump, however, muddied the waters a bit Wednesday when asked during an Oval Office event whether the fund was “dead or on hold.”

“I’d have to ask my lawyers. I don’t know,” he said. “Are you talking about the weaponization fund? The weaponization fund, as far as I’m concerned, was a beautiful thing.”

Tough amendment votes

The Justice Department’s “anti-weaponization” account was one of many issues senators sought to address during a marathon voting session that began Thursday morning and lasted until just before sunrise Friday.  

Several Republicans, including those facing tough reelection bids, sided with Democrats on proposals and offered changes of their own, though none were added. 

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham tried unsuccessfully to include language that would have required people registering to vote provide proof of U.S. citizenship and later present a photo ID to cast a ballot. 

Senators voted 48-50 to reject Graham’s attempt to add the SAVE America Act, showing the legislation doesn’t have the votes to clear Congress, despite pressure from the president.  

Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Murkowski and Thom Tillis of North Carolina voted with Democrats. 

A majority of senators backed an attempt by Delaware’s Chris Coons that would have barred the DOJ from paying anyone convicted of assaulting police on Jan. 6, 2021, when Trump supporters attacked the Capitol. 

The 54-45 vote, however, wasn’t enough to add the provision to the package. It needed the support of at least 60 senators to move past a procedural hurdle since it didn’t address language in the immigration bill. Republican Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Collins, Jon Husted of Ohio, Ashley Moody of Florida, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Murkowski, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Tillis voted with Democrats. 

An amendment from Cassidy to compensate “law enforcement officers who defended the United States Capitol” on Jan. 6 was unable to reach the 60 votes it needed following a 52-47 vote. Cassidy as well as Collins, Husted, Murkowski, Sullivan and Tillis voted along with Democrats.

Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley proposed an amendment that would have required congressional authorization before construction could continue on the White House ballroom, but it wasn’t adopted following a 53-46 vote. 

Cassidy, Collins, Husted, Moran, Murkowski, Sullivan and Tillis voted with Democrats, but it needed at least 60 votes to move past an objection. 

Health insurance 

Georgia Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff tried to use a maneuver that would have sent the bill back to the Judiciary Committee in order to create “a task force to conduct investigations into health insurance companies that are found to routinely deny and delay patients’ access to medically necessary care.”

Ossoff told the story of a woman named Ellen from Atlanta who struggled with her insurance company after being diagnosed with a form of blood cancer known as multiple myeloma.

“As Ellen told me, quote, ‘for a corporation to have a finger on the button of your life is ridiculous. They have their minds on profit margins. I just want to be healthy and alive,’” he said. “Thankfully, Ellen’s cancer is now in remission. But across America, insurance companies continue to deny and delay medically necessary healthcare.”

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said the issue was “worthy of review” but disagreed with addressing it during debate on the immigration and deportation bill. 

“The Justice Department already performs investigations into healthcare insurance fraud. The Senate also confirmed a new assistant attorney general to fight fraud,” he said. “Further, sending the reconciliation bill back to the Judiciary Committee would essentially kill it.”

The Senate did not agree with Ossoff’s motion following a 47-50 vote. Collins was the sole Republican to vote with Democrats. 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Republicans fended off an attempt Thursday to block the Department of Justice from using an “anti-weaponization” fund to pay people who feel they were wrongly prosecuted, as well as another proposal that sought to require congressional authorization for a new White House ballroom. 

Debate on amendments and motions, by Democrats and Republicans, is a required part of the special process GOP leaders are using to approve nearly $70 billion for immigration enforcement and deportation activities, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol, through the end of President Donald Trump’s term.

Votes were expected to last into the evening and possibly overnight as Democrats look to challenge their Republican counterparts on policy while also making their case for control of Congress ahead of this year’s November midterm elections. The U.S. House adjourned for the week Thursday, meaning the measure will not head to the president’s desk until next week at the earliest.

Senators voted 49-50 to reject an amendment from Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., that would have prevented the Department of Justice from carrying out the “anti-weaponization” proposal by Trump to use $1.776 billion to pay people who feel they were wrongly prosecuted. 

Several Republicans facing tough reelection campaigns joined Democrats in voting for the amendment, including Alaska’s Dan Sullivan, Maine’s Susan Collins and Ohio’s Jon Husted.  

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche testified earlier this week the administration had scrapped plans for the “anti-weaponization” fund, following intense criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, but Trump later said he wasn’t sure and would have to check with his attorneys. 

“Trump won’t give Americans a penny to help offset the skyrocketing costs he brought on our country,” Schumer said. “But he’s more than happy to charge them nearly $2 billion to line the pockets of his families, his billionaire friends, and the criminals who mauled police officers on January 6. If Republicans truly oppose this corruption, then prove it.”

North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis then offered an amendment of his own that would have transferred the funding the administration had proposed for its so-called “anti-weaponization” fund to the Justice Department’s fraud division. 

“We heard over the last 48 hours that the acting attorney general said that this fund’s not moving forward,” Tillis said. “All this amendment does is codify what I believe the policy of the DOJ is.”

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham raised a procedural objection to Tillis’ amendment, arguing it didn’t comply with the strict rules of the process. 

Tillis tried to waive that maneuver, but a 15-84 vote didn’t achieve those goals and the amendment failed. 

White House ballroom construction

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley offered an amendment that would have required congressional authorization to proceed with Trump’s  White House ballroom renovations. 

“All of us here have a responsibility to follow the power of the purse responsibility in the Constitution. Let’s all support the idea that it must proceed, if it’s to proceed, with a congressional authorization,” the Democrat said. 

Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul called the amendment a “poison pill” and raised a procedural issue on the grounds that Merkley’s measure is not under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee.

“There is no money in this bill for a ballroom,” Paul said. 

Merkley tried to waive the procedural objection, but it failed in a 53-46 vote, which required at least 60 to agree in order to move forward. 

Attorneys squared off in federal court again Wednesday over the fate of former Milwaukee judge Hannah Dugan, who was convicted of obstructing immigration agents when they went to her courtroom to arrest a man last year. What was initially set to be a sentencing hearing for Dugan was postponed, replaced by oral arguments on a motion from Dugan’s attorneys to overturn her conviction.

A  jury found Dugan had obstructed a “proceeding” when she allowed a man living in the U.S. without legal documentation and his attorney to exit out of the courtroom into a non-public hallway. Prosecutors argued her action was to avoid immigration agents who waited in the hallway. 

Dugan’s attorneys argued that a recent appeals court ruling held that federal immigration enforcement actions are not “pending proceedings.” As a result, the attorneys argued Wednesday, improper instructions were given to the jury by U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman during the high-profile trial in December. 

Prosecutors countered that the jury instructions were correct, and that the case Dugan’s lawyers cited does not apply to Dugan. 

Adelman now must consider whether to rely on the original guilty verdict, or to overturn the jury’s decision. Adelman denied the defense’s request for a new trial or for Dugan to be acquitted in April, WPR reported. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In at least four states, migrants detained in ICE facilities have launched hunger strikes in recent weeks to protest the conditions in which they are being held.

An ongoing hunger and labor strike at the 1,000-bed Delaney Hall facility in Newark, New Jersey, reportedly involves roughly 300 people and has sparked daily protests outside the jail, which is owned and operated by the GEO Group, a private security company that provides security, maintenance, food and medical care under a 15-year contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Earlier this month, it was reported that at least 20 detainees at the 750-bed Desert View Annex in Adelanto, California, had launched a hunger strike to call attention to what they allege are substandard conditions at that facility, including a lack of medical care, unsafe drinking water, and mold.

And last month, hunger strikes reportedly erupted at the 1,800-bed North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin, Michigan, and at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania, which has a capacity of nearly 1,900. North Lake is the largest facility in the Midwest, and Moshannon Valley is the largest in the Northeast.

The GEO Group operates all of the facilities where the hunger strikes have taken place.

Families of migrants detained at Delaney Hall say their relatives  are being tear gassed and beaten by guards. Outside the facility, ICE agents have countered protesters with pepper spray, the New Jersey Monitor reported.

In a statement on Thursday, New Jersey Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherill said the New Jersey Department of Health tried to conduct a health inspection of Delaney Hall, but was denied access to all but a limited portion of the facility. Sherill said Delaney Hall should be shut down.

“Refusing to provide full access raises serious questions about what ICE is trying to hide from public view,” she said in the statement. “I am calling for ICE to immediately de-escalate the situation as I continue working to keep New Jersey residents safe.”

ICE issued a statement dismissing the accusations of substandard conditions at the facilities as a “hoax.”

“All detainees are provided with 3 meals a day, clean water, clothing, bedding, showers, soap, and toiletries. Illegal aliens also have access to phones to communicate with their family members and lawyers,” the statement says. “Certified dietitians evaluate meals. In fact, ICE has higher detention standards than most U.S. prisons that hold actual U.S. citizens.”

In a statement, the GEO Group asserted that its support services “are monitored by ICE, including by on-site agency personnel, and other organizations within the Department of Homeland Security to ensure compliance with ICE’s detention standards and contract requirements regarding the treatment and services ICE detainees receive.”

For the last few days, Gabriela Fuentes, 35, has protested outside Delaney Hall.  She said her husband, who came to the U.S. from Guatemala on a work visa, told her recently that the guards had beaten and tear gassed him and other detainees.

“We’re all human, we’re all people, just because we’re Hispanic does not mean that we need to be treated like this,” Fuentes said.

Haddy Gassama, senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, described the hunger strikes as “the natural consequence of a detention system that’s really falling apart at its seams.”

“Hunger strikes are a tool that people use when they are most desperate, where they feel that they have no other options,” Gassama said. “It’s really the natural consequence of what happens when you supersize a detention system that’s already rife with abuse so fast, with so much money, with so little accountability.”

Jasmine Rivera, executive director of the immigrant rights group Pennsylvania Immigration Coalition, said it’s hard to get a handle on the scope of the hunger strikes in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

“Upon the hunger strike, the detention center stopped communication lines to that particular unit, so it’s hard for us and for family members to stay up-to-date on what was happening,” Rivera said.

In Michigan, Ruby Robinson, an attorney at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, called for more state oversight of ICE detention facilities.

“It’s our understanding that they do not really have the means to adequately provide the oversight that’s needed, and outside of that, we don’t really see any other oversight, besides visits from members of Congress,” Robinson said.

“Because many immigrants are being detained in county jails, not just private detention facilities, there’s an opportunity to ensure that state law is followed. And if state law is insufficient, then it needs to be updated to basically reflect reality.”

This story was updated to include a statement from the GEO Group.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — Following a dismissal of criminal charges the Trump administration lodged against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the wrongly deported Maryland resident Thursday pressed a federal judge to prevent his removal to any country that is not Costa Rica, which has agreed to accept him as a refugee. 

The filing in the federal District Court for the District of Maryland comes after a federal judge in Nashville, Tennessee, on May 22 dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s criminal indictment charges of human smuggling that stemmed from a 2022 traffic stop. The judge called the prosecution “vindictive and selective.”

Abrego Garcia’s habeas petition before Maryland federal Judge Paula Xinis argues that the Trump administration did not make a genuine effort to remove him to a country where he would not be harmed, persecuted, or potentially sent back to his home country of El Salvador. He has had protections against deportation to El Salvador since 2019. 

The Trump administration is trying to again deport Abrego Garcia to the west African country of Liberia. 

Abrego Garcia, whose wrongful deportation to a brutal Salvadoran mega-prison known as CECOT cast a national spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation campaign, has agreed to be removed to Costa Rica because the Central American country will grant him protections and refugee status. 

But the Trump administration would only allow for his removal if he pleaded guilty to the Tennessee criminal indictment, which was dismissed last week. Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty and since then, the Trump administration has tried to remove him to the African nations of Eswatini and Uganda.

“Considered cumulatively, the Government’s message is clear: because Abrego Garcia successfully challenged his unlawful removal to CECOT, declined the Government’s plea offer, and has continued to prevail in courts, the Government would rather seek to unlawfully remove him to a distant third country than lawfully remove him to the country he has designated,” according to the filing. “That is not a removal policy. It is punishment.”

The new filing asks Xinis to make a final order to resolve Abrego Garcia’s habeas petition by barring the Trump administration from deporting him to Liberia, or any country that is not Costa Rica. The filing also asks for the Trump administration to be prevented from redetaining Abrego Garcia, unless he will be removed to Costa Rica. 

Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. from El Salvador to face the criminal indictment. Several courts, including the Supreme Court, found his removal to that country illegal, but the high court stopped short of requiring the Trump administration to return him to the United States.

America’s story cannot be told honestly without recognizing the extraordinary contributions of Muslims. Long before today’s political noise, fearmongering and divisive rhetoric, Muslims were helping build this nation with their labor, intellect, sacrifice, entrepreneurship, patriotism,and unwavering belief in the American dream. From medicine to business, from the military to science, from civil rights to community service, Muslim Americans have strengthened the soul and foundation of this country for generations.

At a time when some attempt to portray Muslims as outsiders or threats, Americans must remember a simple truth: Muslims are no strangers to America. They are part of America’s heartbeat. They did not come to weaken this nation; they helped build it.

Historians estimate that a significant number of enslaved Africans brought to America were Muslims. Though stripped of their freedom, language, names and identity, they carried with them traditions of scholarship, discipline, faith and resilience. Even under unimaginable cruelty, their labor helped build the economic foundations of early America. Their sacrifice became part of the nation’s rise.

Generation after generation, Muslim immigrants and Muslim Americans continued building America brick by brick. They opened grocery stores, restaurants, gas stations, factories, trucking companies, hotels and small businesses in neighborhoods many others had abandoned. They worked double shifts, sacrificed comfort and poured every dollar into educating their children and creating opportunities for future generations. Their journey reflects the very essence of the American dream: hard work, sacrifice, faith and hope.

Today, Muslims contribute enormously to America’s economy, innovation and global leadership. Thousands of Muslim physicians serve communities across the nation, including rural and underserved areas facing severe healthcare shortages. Muslim scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and researchers are helping drive technological breakthroughs, medical discoveries and economic growth. Muslim-owned businesses employ countless Americans and contribute billions to local economies every year.

One of the most powerful examples is Muhammad Ali. He was not only one of the greatest athletes in history, but also one of the bravest moral voices America has ever produced. Ali stood firmly for his beliefs even when it cost him his heavyweight title, public support and years of his career. History eventually vindicated his courage, and he became one of the most admired Americans of all time. 

Muslim Americans have also excelled in public service as members of Congress, judges, educators, police officers, military leaders and civic activists dedicated to strengthening democracy and improving their communities. Thousands have proudly worn the uniform of the United States military, fighting and sacrificing alongside fellow Americans to defend freedom and national security. Their patriotism is unquestionable and deserves respect, not suspicion.

In business and technology, immigrants continue to fuel American greatness. America has always advanced because dreamers from every corner of the world came here willing to work, innovate and take risks. Muslim entrepreneurs embody that same spirit every day , creating companies, generating jobs, investing in struggling neighborhoods and helping America remain globally competitive.

After the tragedy of September 11, many Muslims faced discrimination, hatred and painful suspicion. Mosques were vandalized. Families lived in fear. Innocent Americans were treated as if they had to constantly prove their loyalty. Yet instead of turning away from America, Muslim communities leaned even further into service, compassion and civic engagement. They organized interfaith initiatives, fed the homeless, supported charities, helped disaster victims and worked tirelessly to build bridges between communities. They answered hatred not with hatred, but with humanity.

One remarkable example is the story of Richard “Mac” McKinney, a former Marine and Army veteran who once planned to bomb a mosque before engaging with the Muslim community and discovering the truth about Islam. Instead, he became president of that very mosque. His transformation was documented in the Academy Award-nominated film Stranger at the Gate. Another powerful example is Dr. Abdul-Munim Sombat Jitmound, who publicly forgave the man who murdered his son, embracing him in court and declaring that Islam teaches forgiveness and mercy. Former anti-Muslim extremist and KKK leader Chris Buckley also abandoned hatred after forming a friendship with Kurdish refugee Dr. Heval Kelli, eventually dedicating himself to peace and understanding. These stories remind us that human connection and engagement are much stronger than fear mostly created by politicians and social media.

Here in Wisconsin, I founded We Are Many – United Against Hate, a non-profit, non-partisan movement dedicated to building unity in our classrooms and communities by empowering young people and sharing the real-life stories of former hate group members who chose compassion over division.

What began as a local effort has grown into a powerful grassroots movement. Inspired by its impact, high school students across Wisconsin have launched chapters of the movement in their own communities. One of the most extraordinary examples of healing came after the tragic attack on the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, when the founder of a former hate group and the son of the temple president who was killed became close family friends united in promoting peace. Today, both serve on the board of our movement and courageously share their remarkable story with students and communities across the country.

Since its founding in 2016, our movement has become a national voice for unity, understanding, and hope, earning recognition from Joe Biden at the White House. Through this work, I have witnessed the people of Milwaukee and communities across Wisconsin come together across faiths, races, and cultures to welcome immigrants, reject hate, and build a stronger and more compassionate future for all.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Muslim doctors, nurses, healthcare workers and volunteers stood courageously on the front lines risking their lives to save others. Mosques and Muslim charities distributed food, medical supplies and financial assistance to struggling families regardless of religion, race or background. That is the true spirit of America,  neighbors helping neighbors.

America has always been strongest when it embraces diversity rather than fearing it. The greatness of this nation does not come from one race, one religion or one culture. It comes from people of different backgrounds united by shared values: freedom, opportunity, hard work, sacrifice, compassion, and human dignity.

Muslims are woven into that American fabric. They are teachers, veterans, scientists, truck drivers, entrepreneurs, engineers, police officers, nurses, students and public servants. They are raising families, paying taxes, healing the sick, creating jobs, serving communities and strengthening America every single day.

The attempt to marginalize Muslims or portray them as less American betrays the very ideals upon which this nation was built.

Muslims are not a burden on America. Muslims are part of America’s strength. They have helped make this nation more compassionate, more innovative, more resilient and more prosperous.

Muslims are not on the sidelines of the American story.  They are part of the lifeblood that keeps America strong. God Bless the Muslims and God Bless the United States of America. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In its latest effort to narrow pathways to immigration to the United States, the Trump administration says it will crack down on attorneys who file fraudulent asylum claims for their clients.

The U.S. has long granted asylum to people who are unable or unwilling to return to their home countries because they have been persecuted, or fear persecution, based on their race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinions.

In a directive it issued on Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security instructed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to develop anti-fraud policies and to take action against immigration attorneys who file false asylum claims in an immigration court.

James Percival, Homeland Security’s general counsel, said “it is standard practice for immigration attorneys representing illegal aliens to assert that virtually every illegal alien is going to be persecuted or tortured in his or her home country.”

“Historically, ICE has depended on the discipline of immigration judges and the enforcement of criminal fraud laws to deter this conduct, but ICE has its own tools,” Percival said in a statement. “Now, thanks to this directive, ICE attorneys have greater authority to enforce the law and stop the abuse of our asylum system by illegal aliens and attorneys.”

The limited available data suggests that asylum fraud is extremely rare. A 2015 report by the Government Accountability Office found that as asylum applications increased during the early 2010s, the terminations of asylum status due to discovered fraud declined, from 103 in 2010 to 34 in 2014.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services granted asylum to a total of 76,122 people during that period and terminated asylum status for 374 of them because of fraud.

The administration’s new anti-fraud directive comes one month after a federal appeals court struck down an executive order by President Donald Trump that sought to close the U.S. border to asylum-seekers.

A panel of the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s executive order, which he issued on the first day of his second term, and subsequent administration guidance to turn back asylum-seekers without a court hearing were “unlawful” and “cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

A surge in voluntary departure agreements in immigration courts is raising concerns that Trump administration tactics are unfairly pressuring immigrants into leaving the United States, even if they have a legal right to stay.

Voluntary departures during the second Trump administration reached 89,494 cases as of May 1, according to a Stateline analysis of immigration court data processed by the Deportation Data Project, an academic research initiative. That’s more than seven times the number recorded in the last 16 months of the Biden administration (11,977).

A 10-month-old policy of mandatory detention without bond, now being challenged in appeals courts and likely to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, increases the pressure on immigrants to leave. Mandatory detention for immigrants who crossed a border illegally to get into the United States was upheld by an appeals court for Texas and Louisiana, which are the most common locations for voluntary departure cases, according to Stateline’s analysis.

“Conditions in some detention facilities are dire and, especially in the locations where bond is unavailable, individuals may feel voluntary departure is their best option in those circumstances,” said Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst at the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

Voluntary departure is a court agreement that requires an immigrant to pay for the trip out of the country and face fines for any delay. A possible benefit for the immigrant is avoiding a court order of removal that could make it all but impossible to return to the U.S. and live here legally.

Voluntary departure doesn’t include people who used a government app to leave with a federally paid plane ticket and a cash incentive, now $2,600.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is pushing to quickly build and open new detention centers, with human rights groups describing crowded, often unsanitary conditions. Since President Donald Trump’s inauguration, 51 people have died in the facilities, ICE reported.

The Department of Homeland Security wants to reach 1 million deportations a year.

“We see people choosing to take voluntary departure, not because they don’t have a right to stay in the United States, but because they can’t handle being in these really inhumane conditions in detention any longer,” said Shayna Kessler, director of the Vera Institute of Justice’s Advancing Universal Representation Initiative, which advocates for a system like public defenders for immigration court.

Voluntary departure could be the best option, Kessler acknowledged, but “without consulting an attorney it’s impossible to know.”

Indefinite incarceration

Under the Trump policy, people who crossed the border illegally and were later arrested by immigration enforcement are incarcerated without bond. The Laken Riley Act, signed into law last year, had extended mandatory detention to immigrants arrested on suspicion of crimes as minor as shoplifting, even if the charges are later dropped.

The newer policy — which was described in the Project 2025 blueprint before Trump was elected in 2024 — would affect millions of people, no matter how long ago they came to the U.S. and even if they legally applied for asylum.

Three federal appeals courts have put the mandatory detention requirement on hold but two have let it stand, meaning the policy’s constitutionality likely will be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Oregon accused immigration authorities of using the threat of extended detention to “win the numbers game at the cost of debasing the rule of law.”

“For the one detainee who has the audacity to challenge the legality of her detention and gains release, several more remain detained or succumb to the threat of lengthy detention, and then instead ‘voluntarily’ deport,” U.S. District Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai wrote in a February opinion. He was referring to an agricultural worker arrested en route to the fields who won release after resisting pressure to sign voluntary departure papers.

One long-time immigrant in the same lawsuit, called Victor C.G. in court papers, said he was pressured to sign papers agreeing to leave for Mexico during a three-week detention after being arrested on his way home from work. He refused to sign and was released on bond after an attorney intervened; the man has lived in the United States for 26 years and had legal work authorization based on a pending visa for cooperating crime victims.

Similarly, an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit in Illinois filed in October accused immigration authorities of “coercing and threatening detainees” to sign voluntary departure agreements while held in squalid, crowded conditions at a detention center, giving up their right to fight deportation cases in court.

A November restraining order in that case required immigration authorities at the Broadview facility near Chicago to hold immigrants in sanitary conditions with access to attorneys, and to give them enough time and language help to understand paperwork such as voluntary departure agreements. The restraining order is still in place during settlement negotiations, according to court papers.

Pressure from judges

Immigration judges can also apply pressure for voluntary departure, said Jacquelyn Pavilon, coauthor of a report on voluntary departure for the Vera Institute of Justice, a New York City-based nonprofit with a mission to limit mass incarceration.

Notes from court observers, shared with the Vera Institute, show a pattern of judges suggesting voluntary departure, especially Republican-appointed judges speaking to immigrants without attorneys, Pavilon said. The Trump administration has fired immigration judges seen as too lenient and hired new ones, most recently 82 new judges announced May 21.

In a Newark, New Jersey, immigration court observed by Stateline on May 21, one Trump-appointed judge suggested voluntary departure to a family from Colombia after denying their asylum claim. “This would at least avoid a removal order,” said the judge, Leila McNeill Mullican.

The family, a married couple from Bridgeton, New Jersey, with a 20-year-old son who arrived in 2023, did not have an attorney. They chose to appeal McNeill Mullican’s decision instead of taking voluntary departure, saying they feared crime and Venezuelan-based gangs when they left in 2023. They told Stateline they would consider hiring an attorney for the appeal.

There were similar immigrant complaints about unfair pressure for voluntary departure during the first Trump administration and also under the Obama administration. Numbers peaked at around 3,000 a month under Obama and the first Trump administration, but reached more than 9,000 a month recently, according to the Stateline analysis.

One partner of an immigrant told Stateline in a chat message that signing the agreement seemed like the safest way to preserve an application for a green card. The couple left Los Angeles for Costa Rica last year through voluntary departure.

“Thankfully my partner was not detained but they were on basically weekly surveillance and being monitored with a Smart Link app,” the person wrote. “I think we just felt the pressure of what could happen if they remained in the U.S. and continued in removal proceedings. I would like to think that it’s working out for us.”

The Department of Homeland Security replied to Stateline questions with an unattributed statement: “We encourage all illegal aliens to take control of their departure with the CBP Home App.

“The United States is offering illegal aliens $2,600 and a free flight to self-deport now. We encourage every person here illegally to take advantage of this offer and reserve the chance to come back to the U.S. the right legal way to live the American dream. If not, you will be arrested and deported without a chance to return.”

In the past, DHS has said “tens of thousands” have used the app, which is not the same as a voluntary departure outcome in court that requires travel at the immigrant’s expense.

The department did not offer a new estimate in response to Stateline’s questions, but maintained that “more than 3 million illegal aliens have left the U.S. because of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration including an estimated 2.2 million self-deportations” and that there had been 900,000 arrests and 900,000 deportations during the administration as of May 17.

It’s true that the noncitizen population has dropped sharply in government surveys — a Stateline analysis of the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey shows it dropped by 2.3 million to about 25 million between January 2025 and April 2026. But many experts such as those at the Center for Migration Studies see the reported drop as being caused not by self-deportations, but rather by fear of responding to government surveys in an atmosphere of hostility to immigrants.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

Budget constraints are forcing liberal-leaning states that spend their own money on healthcare for noncitizens to scale back that aid, as they grapple with federal Medicaid cuts and the expiration of federal subsidies that helped people buy Obamacare plans.

Under federal law, immigrants who are in the country illegally are not eligible for federally funded health coverage.

But as of last month, six states — California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Washington — plus the District of Columbia were spending state dollars to cover some income-eligible noncitizen adults regardless of their immigration status. A total of 14 states plus the district provide state-funded coverage to noncitizen children whether they are here legally or not. And three states — Colorado, New Jersey and Vermont — cover pregnant women regardless of their immigration status.

In addition, 40 states have taken up options in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, to provide coverage to lawfully present children and/or pregnant women who are not citizens.

But the sweeping tax and spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law last summer cuts federal spending on Medicaid, the joint federal-state health insurance program for low-income people. It also places new eligibility restrictions on lawfully present immigrants, including refugees and asylees, who are enrolled in a variety of government-subsidized health programs, including Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare and plans available on the insurance marketplaces created under the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

And Congress at the end of last year failed to renew federal subsidies that helped people buy Obamacare plans.

With less federal money to provide health benefits, at least five states (California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and Washington) plus the District of Columbia have already scaled back or announced plans to scale back state-funded health benefits for immigrants. Other states also may have to pull back as budget pressures continue.

“The federal government shifted much more of the financial burden of providing those services to states. And so states are taking a holistic view at their healthcare budgets and trying to figure out where they can cut,” said Medha Makhlouf, a law professor and the founding director of the Medical-Legal Partnership Clinic at Penn State Dickinson Law, who studies immigrants’ access to healthcare.

“Historically and currently, as we’re seeing, immigrants are going to be the first to be cut, for a variety of reasons. They don’t have political power in the same way citizens do.”

Drishti Pillai, director of immigrant health policy at KFF, a health policy research group, warned that the state cuts, combined with the federal changes, “will likely increase uninsured rates and reduce access to care among immigrants and their children, most of whom are U.S. citizens.

“Over the long-term, these changes could lead to worse health outcomes that could be more complex and expensive to treat,” Pillai said.

But Cooper Smith, director of homeland security and immigration at the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank that has worked on policy development with the current Trump administration, said that when budgets tighten, policymakers should prioritize U.S. citizens.

“Taxpayers pay into a system,” Smith said. “I think it’s reasonable to expect that those who have paid into the system should be the primary beneficiaries of public benefit.”

California has traditionally provided some of the most generous benefits. But last June, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a state budget that barred immigrants who are here illegally from newly enrolling in the state’s Medicaid program, known as Medi-Cal. In addition, current enrollees between the ages of 19 and 59 will have to pay a new $30 monthly premium beginning in July 2027. And this July, the state will eliminate dental care for noncitizens.

Newsom’s budget plan for next year proposes scaling back Medi-Cal coverage for some immigrants living in the country lawfully, including an estimated 200,000 asylees, refugees, and others with certain immigration statuses.

California Democratic state Sen. María Elena Durazo is pushing legislation this session that would undo the enrollment freeze and restore access to full-scope Medi-Cal coverage for adults living in the U.S. illegally.

“California immigrants are not going to go away,” Durazo said. “We need them. They’re agricultural workers, they’re food workers, they’re construction workers.

“Are we going to not provide the minimal basic healthcare coverage and think that somehow it’s not going to come back to haunt us through emergency rooms and other counties and public hospitals?”

Hannah Orbach-Mandel, a policy analyst at the nonprofit California Budget and Policy Center, said the state should find alternatives to the cuts, such as raising corporate taxes. She said scaling back coverage puts immigrants “in a really vulnerable position that ultimately can result in people dying.”

Colorado made a similar choice.

Using state money, Colorado’s SilverEnhanced Savings program allows immigrants who are here illegally to buy Obamacare plans with zero premiums. But budget constraints prompted the state to lower the enrollment cap for the program to 6,700 from 12,000.

Now the state is poised to downsize another program. Last year, the state launched Cover All Coloradans to provide state-funded health coverage for low-income children and pregnant women who would be eligible for CHIP or Medicaid if not for their immigration status. But a bill the legislature sent last month to Democratic Gov. Jared Polis would scale back some of the benefits available under the program and cap enrollment to help close a roughly $1 billion state budget gap driven in part by ballooning Medicaid costs.

When the law creating the program was enacted in 2022, financial analysts estimated it would cost $14.7 million this fiscal year and cover almost 3,700 children and pregnant women. Instead, the program ended up serving almost 28,000 people at an estimated cost of $104.5 million.

Colorado Republican state Rep. Rick Taggart, a member of the Joint Budget Committee, called the changes to the program “a painful compromise.”

“It’s impossible to separate the human side from the financial side in this area,” Taggart said in a phone interview. “We are talking about children, and we’re talking about pregnant women, and they have very real needs … the children, in most cases, didn’t have anything to do with the decision about immigrating to the U.S. and to Colorado.”

But other Colorado lawmakers said providing services to children who are here illegally ends up depriving the children of legal residents.

“When we come up here compassionately talking about kids, let’s talk about all the kids in our state,” Republican state Rep. Brandi Bradley said during debate on the House floor last month. “There’s plenty of kids whose parents are working a ton of jobs to just keep up with inflation and the price of groceries in the state, while we continue to grow programs like this.”

According to a 2001 court ruling, the New York Constitution bars the state from distinguishing between citizens and legal immigrants in providing Medicaid. Legal immigrants include people who have temporary and humanitarian status or might be here under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, and would be income-eligible for Medicaid.

But even New York has had to make changes. Because of federal funding cuts, the state says, it is narrowing the income eligibility rules for its state-run Essential Plan, which provides zero-premium coverage for people who are here legally but do not qualify for Medicaid.

Beginning in July, the program will no longer cover households making between 200% and 250% of the federal poverty level. The change will end coverage for an estimated 450,000 New Yorkers.

“Our priority continues to be protecting coverage for as many New Yorkers as possible and ensuring people have information and assistance during this transition,” said Danielle De Souza, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health.

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org

Immigrants seeking green cards will have to return first to their home countries and wait despite years of potential backlogs, the Trump administration announced Friday. 

“An alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply,” Zach Kahler, a spokesperson for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said in a statement. 

The change would apply to workers on temporary visas, as well as to people living here illegally but hoping for legal status through sponsorship by relatives such as spouses or children who are U.S. citizens.

The immigration advocacy group FWD.us said the new policy “will create chaos and impose massive costs on immigrants who have lived and worked legally in the United States for many years” in a statement to Stateline. 

Business leaders said the move is disruptive to tech industries that rely on foreign workers who have temporary visas and sometimes hope for a green card and eventual citizenship.  

Andrew Ng, co-founder of Coursera and an adjunct professor of computer science at Stanford University, in an X post called the change “a capricious attack on legal immigration” that will “hurt families, leave us with fewer doctors, teachers and scientists, and hurt American competitiveness in AI.” 

“This is the worst imaginable way to disrupt important work for the country and pretend you’re fighting some loophole,” Silicon Valley venture capitalist Nick Davidov wrote on X, saying at least three large startups in his portfolio would be hurt by the policy. 

The so-called green cards represent a status called lawful permanent residence, a legal immigration status that can lead to citizenship. 

The administration’s intent, Kahler said in the statement, is to prevent temporary visitors from seeking permanent legal status while they’re in the United States. 

“Nonimmigrants, like students, temporary workers, or people on tourist visas, come to the U.S. for a short time and for a specific purpose,” Kahler wrote. “Our system is designed for them to leave when their visit is over. Their visit should not function as the first step in the Green Card process.”

Those affected include many tech workers on temporary visas that might lead to green cards. 

“This includes top scientists in our universities, founders of billion dollar companies,” Davidov wrote in his post, referring to temporary visas such as O-1 (extraordinary ability) and H-1B (highly skilled specialties) visas that can lead to citizenship with employer sponsorship. FWD.us estimates H-1B visa holders and their families in the United States number about 1.3 million. 

People from India would have to wait through years of backlogs if they stopped working and went home to apply for green cards, and people from Russia would be unable to apply at all because there’s no U.S. embassy there, he noted. 

The USCIS announcement did refer to “extraordinary” circumstances that might allow continued processing of green cards in the United States but did not elaborate. 

According to a policy memo issued Friday, USCIS agents “must consider and weigh all the relevant evidence” and determine “if approval of the alien’s adjustment of status application is in the best interest of the United States.” 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

WASHINGTON — A multibillion-dollar package to fund immigration enforcement for the rest of President Donald Trump’s term faced new delays Thursday as Senate Republicans showed a rare split with the president over his new “anti-weaponization” fund.

The administration dispatched Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to Capitol Hill to meet with Senate Republicans as many fought to add restrictions to Trump’s $1.776 billion fund as a condition for passing a proposed $72 billion for the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said the hourslong closed-door meeting with Blanche included “spirited discussion.”

The Department of Justice announced Monday the fund for “victims of lawfare” in exchange for Trump dropping his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS. Both agencies are under his purview.

“It’s unprecedented to see a settlement between two parties that seem to be the same person,” Paul said.

Ultimately, senators left their meeting with Blanche with no immediate path forward for the budget reconciliation bill that requires a simple majority to pass. Senate Majority Leader John Thune can only afford to lose a handful of votes in the GOP-led Senate that is split 53-47, as all Democrats vow to oppose the package.

“We’re going home,” Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said as he made flight arrangements with his staff while standing outside the meeting room. 

Thune told reporters “we will pick up where we left off.” 

Asked whether he thinks a resolution can be reached, the South Dakota Republican said “that’s what I’m counting on.” 

The Senate has adjourned except for pro forma sessions until the afternoon of June 1, the date Trump set to have the finished bill on his desk.

Among the sticking points in the Blanche meeting: whether Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot defendants who assaulted police officers would qualify for the financial relief.

“I did raise that issue,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. “But we haven’t seen (bill) language yet.”

The administration maintains the fund will be nonpartisan, and not only open to Trump supporters. A five-seat commission — four to be appointed by Blanche and the fifth in consultation with Congress — will issue decisions on financial claims.

Further details emerged Tuesday from the Department of Justice, revealing that Trump and his family will be forever immune from tax audits as part of the settlement.

Ballroom battle

Before debate erupted over Trump’s “anti-weaponization” fund, Republicans had already fractured over a $1 billion Secret Service security earmark in the bill, $220 million of which was set to be used to “harden” Trump’s White House ballroom project.

The funds for the “East Wing Modernization Project” would have paid for bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies and filtration systems designed to detect chemical or other contaminants. 

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., who lost his primary Saturday after Trump supported another candidate, told reporters he would not vote for ballroom funds.

Democrats claimed credit for getting the $1 billion tossed from the bill after challenging whether the provision fit within the strict parameters of reconciliation. Ultimately, the Senate parliamentarian ruled it out, sparking a social media attack from Trump Tuesday.

Trump told reporters Thursday if Senate Republicans didn’t find a way to pass the extra security money, “Then the White House won’t be a very secure place.”

Senate Dems vow to stop ‘slush fund’

Democrats pounced on the opportunity to spotlight the Republican division.

“This afternoon, Republicans — so divided, so dysfunctional, so disorganized — are fleeing Washington,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters at a press conference after movement on the package stalled. 

“Republicans are divided over things that Americans don’t want, but Democrats are united around things that the people do want — for us to lower their costs, rein in the chaos, fight the corruption that is endemic to this administration,” the New York Democrat added. 

Schumer added that “we’ll do everything we can to stop this slush fund, whether it’s in the courts, whether it’s legislative, whether it’s through reconciliation, or any other legislative means.”

Senate Democrats still plan to offer up a handful of painful amendments for GOP senators to vote on during a marathon voting session when and if the bill finally reaches the floor. 

War powers vote postponed

On the other side of the Capitol, House Republicans abruptly delayed an Iran War Powers Resolution vote moments before it was scheduled to open on the floor.

This would have been the fourth time Democrats brought the privileged motion to the floor. The 1970s-era War Powers Resolution sets reporting procedures and limitations on a president’s military campaigns abroad.

An effort to curtail Trump’s campaign in Iran failed in a tied House vote just one week ago.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., shouted on the floor as the presiding officer moved procedures forward, skipping the War Powers Resolution.

“Are we not voting on it because the American people are sick and tired of this illegal war that’s costing tens of billions of dollars? Gas prices are through the roof. People can’t afford their groceries,” McGovern said, alleging the Republicans lacked the “guts” to vote on it.

The House now also leaves for the Memorial Day break and will not return until June 1.

House Speaker Mike Johnson’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Jennifer Shutt contributed to this report.

Democratic U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin, Bernie Sanders, and Chris Van Hollen have sent a joint letter to the secretary of  the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), condemning the arrest and detention of Salah Sarsour, the president of Milwaukee’s Islamic Society, and charging that Sarsour has received inadequate medical care Sarsour at an Indiana immigration detention center where he’s being held. 

Sarsour has been detained since late March.  His family and supporters say that Sarsour, a man of Palestinian descent, was targeted for his criticism of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians and the mass slaughter in Gaza. DHS has accused the father and business owner of lying on his green card application more than 30 years ago. 

The federal government has called Sarsour a terrorist who was detained as a teenager for attempting to possess weapons or ammunition. As a boy Sarsour was detained by Israeli forces in the West Bank, where torture and abuse of Palestinian prisoners have been reported for decades, something Sarsour said had happened to him as well. 

In their letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Baldwin, Sanders, and Van Hollen called Sarsour a business owner, father, grandfather and a “respected leader in the Milwaukee community.” He has lived in the United States as a legal permanent resident since 1993 and has not acquired a criminal record in that time. 

“We are deeply concerned that Mr. Sarsour was targeted in retaliation for his activism,” the senators wrote. “Through his work with the Islamic Society of Milwaukee and American Muslims for Palestine, Mr. Sarsour has spoken out passionately against the war in Gaza and on issues impacting the Islamic Society. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees everyone in our country, including lawful permanent residents, the right to speak freely without fear of retribution from the government.”

The senators added that they are concerned about Sarour’s health in detention. “Those in federal custody must be treated humanely and receive the level of care required,” the senators wrote. “Mr. Sarsour is a diabetic and we are concerned that he does not have appropriate access to healthcare, medical supplies, and a healthy diet required to properly manage that chronic condition, including by regularly testing blood glucose.” 

Sarsour has also not been provided “reasonable religious accommodations, such as a prayer mat,” the senators wrote. “He had been using a facility-issued bath towel to perform his prayers, but this was recently confiscated without explanation and Mr. Sarsour has been forced to pray on the facility’s barren floors. This treatment is unacceptable.”

Baldwin, Sanders, and Van Hollen demanded answers to several questions by May 31. They asked DHS to provide documentation that immigration officers relied on when they decided to arrest Sarsour and requested communications with the White House or Office of Budget and Management regarding Sarsour’s detention. 

They also asked whether Sarsour has access to proper healthcare and nutrition, what protocols immigration detention centers have regarding detainees with hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia, whether those protocols are being followed with Sarsour, and what protocols exist for providing detainees with reasonable religious accommodations. 

“Our nation’s founders realized that democracy cannot exist in a nation with a government that restricts or limits the speech and expression of its people,” they wrote. “The Constitution protects an individual’s right to express their political views and have their voice heard. We condemn any attempts by this Administration to use the power of the United States government to unfairly target and punish people for simply disagreeing with it.”

Members of Congress, including U.S. Reps. Gwen Moore, Mark Pocan, Greg Cesar of Texas, and Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, have also called for Sarsour’s release, joining a list of supporters   including Gov. Tony Evers, Milwaukee elected leaders, former elected officials  and numerous local activist and advocacy groups. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

 

Large, immigrant-rich cities saw population fall back between mid-2024 and mid-2025 after nation-leading increases the year before. 

Mid-sized cities led the pack in U.S. Census Bureau estimates to be released May 14. The largest numeric increases for the year were in Charlotte, North Carolina (up 20,731); Fort Worth, Texas (up 19,512); the Dallas suburb of Celina, Texas (up 12,710); and Seattle (up 11,572). 

Charlotte has been emphasizing affordable housing in recent years, including a city-sponsored 72-unit building on the site of a former mall, opening in late 2024. It was designed for older adults, people with incomes from 30% to 80% of the area’s median income, about $82,000 at the time. 

Morgan Dunn, 26, moved to Charlotte in 2024 for a banking job after growing up in California and living in Georgia and Utah. He and his wife are expecting their first child in September, and he said he likes having an affordable house with a half-acre lot where his four dogs can run.

“It’s a great city for the younger generations for the sake of job opportunities combined with the cost of living,” Dunn said in a message to Stateline.

New York City, which led the nation in growth between mid-2023 and mid-2024 with 162,991 more people, fell to dead last in population change — a decrease of 12,196 last year.  

Also near the bottom were Memphis, Tennessee (losing 4,575 people); Los Angeles, down 3,621; St. Louis, down 2,301, and Albuquerque, New Mexico, down 2,290. Like New York City, Los Angeles ranked high the year before with an increase of 24,421, seventh-highest in the nation before falling to third-to-last.

Part of the reason for New York City’s fast-changing population shifts is that population growth was revised up for 2022-2024 to reflect more immigration, especially from asylum seekers, some of whom were bused from Texas. Parts of Queens had some of the largest influxes in the nation from asylum seekers, especially from Ecuador, according to a Stateline analysis. 

But immigration fell off in late 2024 and early 2025 as both the Biden and Trump administrations sought to put a lid on asylum seekers. Between 2024 and 2024 immigration “retreated from recent historical highs to more typical levels experienced before the pandemic,” according to a March report by New York City. Of the city’s five boroughs, only the Bronx and Staten Island gained population. 

“Big-city growth slowed significantly between 2024 and 2025, with some major hubs even seeing small declines,” Matt Erickson, a statistician in the Census Bureau’s Population Division, said in a statement. “In contrast, midsized cities found a ‘Goldilocks zone’ where domestic and international migration, paired with new housing, helped prevent the sluggish growth seen in small towns and larger metropolitan centers.”

In some states smaller cities had the big increases, such as the contrast between New York City’s decline and an increase of 2,933 in suburban Kiryas Joel village, a Hasidic Jewish enclave in Orange County, or New Mexico, where Albuquerque lost population but its suburb Rio Rancho gained 1,972. 

Louisiana’s Baton Rouge gained while New Orleans lost, as did Everett, Massachusetts, a Boston suburb that grew as the city lost population.

Some urban areas did well anyway: Atlanta had the biggest increase in Georgia, as did Chicago in Illinois, Detroit in Michigan, Kansas City in Missouri, and Newark in New Jersey. 

Other milestones: Austin, Texas, became the 12th city with more than a million residents, and Raleigh, North Carolina, became the 39th city of more than 500,000. The South had 11 of the top 12 numeric gains. 

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

An increasing number of conservative states are mandating that state and local social service providers verify and report the immigration status of the people they serve — in some cases threatening stiff penalties for public employees who fail to comply.

Under federal law, immigrants who are in the United States illegally are generally barred from receiving public benefits such as nonemergency health care, food aid and housing help, though a handful of left-leaning states use their own money to provide such benefits.

Supporters of the new verification and reporting laws say they will help curb illegal immigration by making it more difficult for people who aren’t eligible for public aid to receive it.

Government-funded health care, housing aid and the right to have a driver’s license are a “pull factor that encourages illegal immigration,” said Cooper Smith, director of homeland security and immigration at the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank that has worked on policy development with the current Trump administration.

Government benefits, Smith said, are “an incentive for (immigrants) to come here and cross the border and make this their home, and we don’t want to see that.”

In Tennessee, legislators this week sent a bill to Republican Gov. Bill Lee that would require all state and local agencies to verify the immigration status of people who apply for federal, state or local government benefits, and to report those who are here illegally to the legislature and the state’s new immigration enforcement agency.

The measure, which the governor is expected to sign, authorizes the state attorney general to investigate possible violations, and threatens jail time or a loss of state funding for workers or agencies that fail to comply.

The potential penalties in Tennessee’s law are especially strict, but this year Indiana, Utah, and Wyoming also enacted laws requiring state and local agencies to verify the immigration status of people applying for certain benefits. In Indiana and Wyoming, agencies also must report immigrants who are here illegally to federal authorities. Louisiana enacted a similar verification and reporting law last year.

The Indiana and Wyoming laws go beyond the specific individuals applying for aid.

In considering an application for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Indiana law requires agencies to notify federal authorities if they cannot verify the immigration status of any member of an applicant’s household. Similarly, the Wyoming law requires the state health department and the state department of family services to notify federal immigration authorities if they determine that anyone applying for public benefits resides in a household that includes a person who is here illegally.

Critics say the new state laws will dissuade many people who are eligible for benefits — especially those with family members who are here illegally — from getting help they are entitled to, and force state and local officials to perform an immigration enforcement role for which they are ill equipped.

“They have to do this verification process for everybody that walks in the door. This is something that slows down services for every Tennessean in the name of collecting data and trying to make assessments that folks are not trained to make,” Democratic state Sen. Jeff Yarbro said last month during the floor debate on the bill.

“There’s probably no one who understands enough of the rules to make that determination,” he said. “But we are forcing that decision upon every single government office in the state of Tennessee — it’s just a little bit insane.”

Tanya Broder, an attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, which advocates for immigrants, said the new laws represent an escalation of state anti-immigration efforts. She said the measures demonstrate that conservative states are moving in lockstep with the Trump administration.

“There are many, many states that impose restrictions on access to public to state and local public benefits, but some of these reporting requirements that states are proposing now likely do violate the law,” Broder said. “I think they are sowing a campaign of fear and misinformation.”

Broder added that the fear of penalties might prompt agency workers in Tennessee to overreport and potentially engage in racial profiling.

The Tennessee bill is part of a sweeping package of immigration enforcement measures the state legislature approved this year. Tennessee’s broad immigration agenda was crafted in coordination with the White House, specifically with Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the architect of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

Earlier this month, Lee signed a measure that requires state judges to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. And last month, the governor signed a bill that makes it a crime under Tennessee law for an adult to refuse or fail to leave the state within 90 days of a final order of removal. The law also makes it a crime for immigrants to try to enter the state if they have an outstanding deportation order.

Other bills that would require local sheriffs to cooperate with federal immigration agents and make it illegal for people who are living in the U.S. illegally to operate a commercial vehicle or truck in the state are on Lee’s desk awaiting his signature.

Smith, of the America First Policy Institute, said Tennessee is “serving as a model for other states to follow.”

Republicans struggled this year to secure funding for the Department of Homeland Security, Smith noted, “so they know that their ability to get meaningful legal immigration reform, through both houses of Congress and signed by the president, is very, very unlikely,” he said. “So the next step is to do as much as you can at the state level.”

Julia Gelatt, an associate director at the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank, agreed with Smith’s assessment of the political situation.

“There are things that the federal government can’t control, or that may be harder to achieve at the federal level, particularly with a Congress that isn’t passing bills,” Gelatt said.

“We know that Stephen Miller advised Tennessee on their immigration bills, and I think that his philosophy is that the federal government and state governments should make life in the United States so hard for people who don’t have legal status that they decide to go home.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.

As appeals courts split on the constitutionality of mandatory detention for millions of immigrants, the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to decide the matter.

A Trump administration policy threatening imprisonment without bond has been struck down by three appeals courts, which could soon be joined by a fourth, but upheld by two others. The conflicting orders mean the Supreme Court must straighten out the situation as immigrants now could face different fates in different states.

The new detention policy, implemented in a July 2025 memo, threatens millions of immigrants with imprisonment without bond if they crossed a border illegally to get into the United States, no matter how long ago or whether they’ve applied for asylum. Without bond means they must be detained while awaiting court action.

The policy is a key part of the Trump administration’s stated goal to get 1 million removals a year, including deportations and voluntary returns.

So far the pace is about half that, or roughly 460,000 for the current fiscal year, if the daily rate as of mid-April continues, according to an analysis by Austin Kocher, a research assistant professor at Syracuse University.

This spring’s mixed appeals court rulings mean that in some states, detainees may be offered bond hearings and a chance to be released pending new court dates. In other states, people can now be held indefinitely.

Most recently, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee,  struck down the policy Monday, saying it “strains reason” to suggest Congress intended to put millions of people into immigration detention. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Alabama, Florida and Georgia, also struck it down last week, saying the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does not give President Donald Trump “unfettered authority to detain, without the possibility of bond, every unadmitted alien present in the country.”

In April, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Connecticut, New York and Vermont, also struck down the policy, calling it “the broadest mass-detention-without-bond mandate in our Nation’s history for millions of noncitizens.”

Judges in another appeals court covering New England states, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, appeared skeptical of the policy in a hearing this month but have not yet ruled.

Meanwhile the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, encompassing Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, upheld the new policy, saying the status quo gives people living here illegally more rights than those at the border seeking legal admission.

“It seems strange to suggest that Congress would have preserved bond hearings exclusively for unlawful entrants,” the 5th Circuit ruling said. Those states have some of the largest detention centers in the country, often accepting transfers from other states. The cross-state transfers complicate legal cases attempting to free those detained there.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, covering Arkansas and several Midwestern states, also upheld the Trump policy.

Conflicting appeals rulings like these, known as “circuit splits,” generally lead to a Supreme Court ruling to settle them, experts say.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a Stateline request for comment. Last July, a department spokesperson told The Associated Press that “President (Donald) Trump and Secretary (Kristi) Noem are now enforcing this law as it was actually written to keep America safe.”

The Trump administration policy flies in the face of decades of federal practice that let many immigrants stay free on bond while they pursue their court cases, said Vanessa Dojaquez-Torres, practice and policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, a trade group.

“This has done a lot of damage to people who are caught in detention with a very low amount of due process,” Dojaquez-Torres said.

The policy has also flooded federal courts with petitions for release by people denied bond under the policy, she added. Thousands were filed each week from January through late April, compared with a few dozen a week last year before the policy was enacted, according to a ProPublica report.

The threat of indefinite detention can be an incentive for immigrants who have been arrested to agree to the administration’s option of “voluntary departure.”

Hannia Ortega, who left Oklahoma for her native Mexico at age 22 last fall to avoid the threat of detention, said the policy has “helped me not to regret leaving.”

“I’ve had the opportunity to meet people here who were deported and were not given the chance to fight their cases in front of a judge. One of the people I met was an Uber driver who was deported after 36 years in the states,” Ortega wrote in an email to Stateline.

Ortega won an award for leadership and good grades in a Tulsa high school, and said she also earned a community college degree there with the help of a private scholarship for students living in the country illegally.

She decided staying in the U.S. was too risky. Her parents brought her illegally as a 6-year-old and she did not qualify for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA, a program with some deportation protections.

“It is scary and just speaks to how dangerous it has gotten for every single immigrant in the United States. I pray that better days are ahead for all but it seems unlikely any time soon,” Ortega wrote.

It’s hard to tell exactly how many immigrants are threatened with indefinite detention, but of about 14.6 million undocumented residents, the Center for Migration Studies estimates, something like 5.5 million could have entered the country illegally, making them subject to the detention policy.

There are no recent estimates for the percentage, said Robert Warren, senior visiting fellow at the Center for Migration Studies of New York. But in 2017 the center estimated 38% of unauthorized immigrants crossed the border illegally either by evading border patrol officers or surrendering to them and getting a court notice to fight deportation proceedings. Others overstayed legal visas and would not be subject to the new policy.

Mustafa Cetin, a New Jersey immigration attorney, said two of his clients from Turkey were denied bond despite a clean criminal record and active asylum cases in court. Both were arrested in October during routine check-ins with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, he said.

Both won release on bond through federal court decisions, and one has already won an asylum case, he said. Both followed a familiar pattern of seeking asylum in 2023 and 2024.

“They say, ‘Don’t come in,’ but if you come in, they will process you (with a court appearance ticket),” Cetin said. “We’ve seen this play out for hundreds of thousands of people. Then, this administration, instead of trying to deal with those who come to the border, they decided to scare people away.”

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org.

As former Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan approaches sentencing after being convicted of obstructing federal agents during an immigration arrest last year, attorneys on both sides of the case are battling over whether new precedents around federal statutes should apply to the former Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge. 

The FBI arrested Dugan last year on charges she helped a man who was making a routine appearance in her court evade immigration officers who were waiting for him in the public hallway outside the courtroom. 

Court staff initially noticed the agents and informed Dugan, who approached them and told the agents to go check in with the chief judge. 

While the agents waited to talk to Chief Judge Carl Ashley, Dugan went back to her courtroom and quickly called 30-year-old Mexican-born Eduardo Flores Ruiz and his attorney, set a date for them to come back, and then allowed them to exit the courtroom through a non-public hallway, at the end of which was a door back into the hallway where the agents waited. After going out that door, Flores-Ruiz and his attorney unknowingly rode the elevator down with one of the undercover agents. Flores Ruiz was arrested outside after a brief foot pursuit. 

Dugan was charged with obstructing federal agents and concealing Flores Ruiz. After a trial in December, a federal jury found Dugan guilty of felony obstruction but not guilty of misdemeanor concealment. Dugan’s attorneys highlighted the split verdict and moved for U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman to overturn the conviction. 

In April, Urban Milwaukee reported, Dugan’s legal team filed a motion arguing that a recent U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision changed the precedent governing the legal interpretation of the federal statute under which Dugan was convicted. The decision, in United States v. Hernandez, held that immigration proceedings do not include deportation operations, relevant since Dugan, who resigned shortly after her trial, was convicted of obstructing an immigration “proceeding.” 

Federal prosecutors have countered that the appeals court decision “is neither binding nor persuasive, and it does nothing to call into question this Court’s reasoning.” They argue that the jury instructions crafted by prosecutors and provided to the jury by Judge Adelman over instructions crafted by the defense team were sound. Adelman had previously denied a request from Dugan’s legal team for acquittal and a new trial.

Dugan faces up to five years in prison and $350,000 in fines. Her sentencing is scheduled for June 3. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE