March, 24 2021, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Peggy Morton, Austin Sanctuary Network, (512) 751-6415, peggy@austinsanctuarynetwork.org
Joan M. Gregory, First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, (801) 949-2906, joanmzg@gmail.com
Jen Nessel, Center for Constitutional Rights, (212) 614-6449, jnessel@ccrjustice.org
Church Joins Lawsuit Against ICE with Religious Discrimination Claims
WASHINGTON
Today, the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City joined a lawsuit, brought by four sanctuary leaders and immigrant rights advocacy groups, suing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and various officials for targeting the women with retaliatory and excessive civil fines. For several years, one of the women and her young daughters have been living in the church, which offered them sanctuary when they faced deportation orders and feared persecution and violence if they returned to their home country. The other women took sanctuary in churches in Austin, TX, Columbus, OH, and Charlottesville, VA. The lawsuit alleges that ICE targeted the sanctuary leaders with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines in an attempt to stop the women from speaking out and participating in the sanctuary movement.
"The members of First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City voted to join the lawsuit because these fines are not only unconscionable, but illegal," said Rev. Tom Goldsmith. "As a faith community, we cannot remain passive. We must advocate for those who have been marginalized in the humane effort to right the tyranny of injustice."
"It was an act of faith of the First Unitarian Church to offer sanctuary to me and my daughters, and an act of faith for me to accept," said Vicky Chavez, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. "I have been fighting for almost 38 months to keep my daughters safe, and the First Unitarian Church in Salt Lake City has been our home--a safe place for us. These have not been easy months for me but I have faith that with the help of the Biden administration, we will be free. I will continue to raise my voice to fight against this broken immigration system that has affected and separated so many families in this country. I am a refugee, but thanks to God and the church, I can be with my daughters without being separated from them."
Each of the women who sought sanctuary fled persecution in her country of origin and became a leader in the sanctuary movement. In the summer of 2019, ICE targeted the women with notices of intent to seek up to $500,000 in fines from each of them. The notices were abruptly withdrawn, only to be re-issued several months later, in 2020. Today, each woman faces the possibility of fines of approximately $60,000.
Edith Espinal said, "I have finally been able to leave sanctuary, but I will continue fighting these unjust fines from my home with my family."
Records obtained through Freedom of Information Act litigation confirm that these fines were part of a years-long effort by high-level Trump administration officials and ICE to target sanctuary leaders. In addition to the lawsuit challenging the fines and seeking accountability for the retaliation, advocates have called on President Biden to drop egregious fines and grant the rest of the sanctuary leaders stays of removal so they can leave their houses of worship safely.
Hilda Ramirez said, "Although the immigration authorities continue to threaten me and I'm suffering from great anxiety and fear, I will continue fighting for my son and myself."
Maria Chavalan-Sut added, "ICE wants to charge you for keeping yourself safe, but in this place, in these lands, life is sacred. I ask ICE for more humane treatment, no fines, and freedom for everyone."
Those bringing the lawsuit say that targeting people taking sanctuary in churches violates religious freedom, and the lawsuit includes claims of religious discrimination. Churches began offering sanctuary to refugees in the 1980s, during a crackdown on those seeking asylum, and in recent years churches across the country have opened their doors to immigrants and asylum seekers facing deportation orders. Hospitals, schools, churches, and other places of worship require prior authorization before ICE can conduct raids and arrests.
Said David Bennion, Executive Director of Free Migration Project, "It is inexcusable that the Biden administration has not dropped the egregious civil fines against the women who took sanctuary in churches around the country under the Trump administration. More than two months into the Biden presidency, some people are still living in sanctuary churches out of fear of arrest and deportation by ICE. So far, the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress have failed these brave sanctuary leaders."
The lawsuit is on behalf of four sanctuary leaders - Vicky Chavez, Maria Chavalan Sut, Edith Espinal, and Hilda Ramirez - as well as Austin Sanctuary Network, Free Migration Project, and now the First Unitarian Church of Salt Lake City, all represented by Just Futures Law, the NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic, and the Center for Constitutional Rights. It includes claims against ICE and various officials, under the First and Eighth Amendments and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, alleging that the levying of these fines is discriminatory retaliation and infringes upon the plaintiffs' rights of free speech, association, and religion, as well as the right to be free from excessive fines.
Katie Matejcak of the NYU Law Immigrant Rights Clinic said, "ICE's retaliation has caused immeasurable harm to sanctuary leaders and the congregations that fight alongside them." Elena Hodges, also from the clinic, added, "President Biden has a choice: he can either double down on the punitive and unjust immigration policies of his predecessor, or start to set things right by cancelling the fines and providing lasting relief to sanctuary leaders."
For more information on the case, visit the Center for Constitutional Rights' case page.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
A Secretive Program Has Let Cops Spend Hundreds of Millions on Weapons of War, Report Shows
“Our tax dollars are being weaponized against us,” said the head of the Center for International Policy.
Oct 31, 2025
State and local governments have spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars helping cops wage “war” against their own residents under a secretive and opaque program that allows the police to purchase discounted military-style equipment from the federal government.
Over the past three decades, the obscure 1122 Program has let states and cities equip local cops with everything from armored vehicles to military grade rifles to video surveillance tech, according to a report published Thursday by Women for Weapons Trade Transparency, part of the Center for International Policy.
Using open records requests, which were necessary due to the lack of any standardized auditing or record-keeping system for the program, the group obtained over $126 million worth of purchasing data across 13 states, four cities, and two counties since the program's creation in 1994. Based on these figures, they projected the total spending across all 50 states was likely in the "upper hundreds of millions of dollars."
“The 1122 Program diverts public money from essential community needs and public goods into military-style equipment for local police,” said Rosie Khan, the co-founder of Women for Weapons Trade Transparency. “The $126.87 million spent on militarized police equipment and surveillance technology could have instead provided housing support for 10,000+ people for a year, supplied 43 million school meals, or repaired roads and bridges in dozens of communities.”
Congress created the 1122 Program at the height of the War on Drugs, authorizing it under the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act to provide police departments with equipment to carry out counter-drug operations. It was not the first program of its kind, but followed in the footsteps of the more widely known 1033 Program, which has funneled over $7 billion of excess military equipment to police departments.
But there are a few critical differences: 1033 is subject to rigorous federal record-keeping, while 1122 has no such requirement. And unlike 1033, which transfers equipment that was already purchased but not needed, 1122 allows states and cities to spend money to purchase new equipment.
The program's scope ballooned dramatically in 2009 after another NDAA added "homeland security" and "emergency response" missions to its purview. As the report explains, "no regulatory mechanisms are ensuring that equipment is used for counter-drug, homeland security, or emergency response purposes. In fact, the scope of these missions was never defined."
Increasingly, it has been used to provide police with equipment that has often been deployed against protesters, including $6.2 million for weapons, weapons training, and riot gear. Among the equipment purchased in this category was pepper spray, batons, gas masks, and riot shields.
By far, the largest expenditures under the program have been the more than $85 million spent on various armored trucks, vans, and sedans.
Police departments have spent an additional $6 million to purchase at least 16 Lenco BearCats, which cost around $300,000 apiece. These were among the military vehicles used by police to suppress the racial justice protests following the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police in 2020.
As recently as October 3, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were documented aboard a Bearcat in full military garb and menacing protesters with sniper rifles outside the notorious immigrant detention facility in Broadview, Illinois.
In July, Los Angeles ICE agents were filmed using a vehicle to run over multiple protesters who attempted to block their path.
Another $9.6 million was spent on surveillance equipment, including license plate readers, video and audio recording devices, and subscriptions to spying software that uses sophisticated facial recognition and social media monitoring technology to track people's movements and associations.
The report highlights the increasing use of this technology by college police departments, like Northern Virginia Community College, which spent over $2.7 million on surveillance tech through 1122. College police departments have used this sort of technology to go after student protesters and activists, especially amid last year's nationwide explosion of pro-Palestine demonstrations across campuses.
At Yale, which has made "surveillance cameras, drones, and social media tracking... standard tools in the police department's arsenal," one student was apprehended last year and charged with a felony for removing an American flag from its pole using the school's surveillance system.
The report's authors call for Congress to sunset the 1122 Program and direct its funding toward "a version of public safety that prioritizes care, accountability, and community well-being rather than militarized force."
“Lawmakers, including federal and state legislators and city council representatives," it says, "must act with the urgency that this moment requires to prevent a catastrophically violent takeover of civil society by police, federal agents, and corporations profiting from exponentially increasing surveillance, criminalization, and brute force.”
They note the increasing urgency to end the program under President Donald Trump, who—on the first day of his second term—reversed an executive order from former President Joe Biden that restricted the sale of some of the most aggressive weaponry to local police forces.
“Local police have been given more avenues to arm themselves with military-style equipment during an era of heightened arrests, forced removals, and crackdowns on free speech. These disturbing political shifts have undermined the crucial work of coalitions for police accountability," the report says.
Nancy Okail, president and CEO of the Center for International Policy said: "Our tax dollars are being weaponized against us under the guise of ‘domestic terrorism.'”
"As talk of a ‘war from within’ grows louder," she says, the new report "exposes how this rhetoric fuels real assaults on democracy and civil rights.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Scarier Than Halloween Costumes’: Trump Policies Blamed for Jacking Up Candy Prices
"From the grocery aisles to the doctor’s office, Trump’s economic circus keeps jacking up costs and squeezing household budgets."
Oct 31, 2025
President Donald Trump's economic policies have put a damper on this year's Halloween festivities, as his tariffs on imported chocolate in particular have helped jack up the price of candy.
CNBC reported on Friday that data from research firm Circana and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics show that chocolate prices in the US have jumped by 30% over the last year since Trump began slapping hefty tariffs on foreign goods, including staple products such as cocoa, coffee, and bananas that cannot be grown at sufficient scale in the US.
The increased cost of chocolate has now been passed on to consumers in the form of higher candy prices, according to a joint study released this week by The Century Foundation and Groundwork Collaborative.
According to the organizations' analysis, candy prices as a whole have gone up by just under 11% over the last year, which is more than triple the current overall rate of inflation.
Unsurprisingly, the analysis showed that these increases were particularly severe in candies that had significant chocolate inputs, as it found that "variety packs from Hershey’s (maker of KitKats, Twizzlers, Reeses, and Heath bars) are up 22%, while variety packs from Mars (maker of Milky Way, M&Ms, Three Musketeers, and Skittles) are up 12%."
The analysis also cited recent quotes from the CEOs of retail giants Target and Walmart indicating the president's tariffs were having a major impact on US consumers. Target CEO Brian Cornell, for instance, said on a recent earnings call that the tariffs had created a "challenging and highly uncertain" environment, while Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said that "costs increase each week" thanks to Trump's trade wars.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) used the organizations' study to rip the president for raising the price of Halloween candy in a video posted on social media.
"Do you remember when Donald Trump told American families to cut back on buying kids' dolls?" she asked, in reference to Trump earlier this year suggesting parents buy fewer toys for their children after his tariffs on imports raised their costs. "Well now he's making candy more expensive too, just in time for Halloween."
Donald Trump's jacked up candy prices — just in time for Halloween. pic.twitter.com/f3glomQbUK
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) October 31, 2025
The American Federation of Teachers, whose members have likely experienced the increased cost candy first hand, also took a shot at Trump's economic policies while posting a graph illustrating The Century Foundation and Groundwork Collaborative's study.
"The only thing scarier than Halloween costumes? The rising price of candy from Trump's tariffs," the union wrote on X.
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at Groundwork Collaborative, said that the increase in Halloween candy prices was just one source of pressure facing US families as a result of Trump's economic policies.
In particular, Jacquez pointed to the cuts to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid in the Republican Party's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as well as the GOP's inaction on extending tax credits for buying health insurance, as major pain points.
"While inflation eats through paychecks and House Republicans hide in plain sight, working families are slammed by soaring healthcare premiums, frozen food assistance, and rising bills," he said. "From the grocery aisles to the doctor’s office, Trump’s economic circus keeps jacking up costs and squeezing household budgets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Classified US Report Finds 'Many Hundreds' of Alleged Israeli Human Rights Violations in Gaza
The long backlog and a reporting protocol developed especially for Israel are likely to keep Israeli forces from being held accountable, said officials.
Oct 31, 2025
Progressive lawmakers and rights groups have long warned that by arming the Israel Defense Forces and providing the IDF with more than $21 billion, the US has violated its own laws barring the government from sending military aid to countries accused of human rights abuses and of blocking humanitarian relief.
On Thursday, a classified report by the US State Department detailed for the first time the federal government's own acknowledgment of the scale of alleged human rights abuses that the IDF has committed in Gaza since it began bombarding the exclave in October 2023.
The Office of the Inspector General's document, reported on by the Washington Post, which spoke to US officials about it, also detailed how allegations of human rights abuses against the Israeli military are made harder to prove by a vetting process that is only afforded to Israel—not other countries accused of violations.
The US officials said the long backlog of "many hundreds" of possible violations of the Leahy Laws, which bar US military assistance from going to units credibly accused of human rights abuses, would likely take years to review—calling into question whether the IDF will ever be held accountable for them.
"The lesson here is that if you commit genocide and war crimes, do as much as possible because then it becomes difficult to investigate everything," said journalist and Northwestern University professor Marc Owen Jones grimly in response to the Post's report.
The government report was described by the Post days after the State Department dismantled a website used to report human rights violations by foreign militaries that receive US aid, which was established in 2022 to ensure the US was in compliance with the Leahy Laws.
The Biden administration flagged at least two 2024 attacks by Israeli forces—one that killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers and one known as the "flour massacre," in which more than 100 Palestinians were killed and nearly 800 were injured as they tried to get flour from aid trucks—as ones that may have used US weapons, signaling that continuing US aid to Israel would break the Leahy Laws.
“To date, the US has not withheld any assistance to any Israeli unit despite clear evidence."
A report by Amnesty International last year focused on several IDF attacks on civilian infrastructure—which killed nearly 100 people including 42 children—in which Israel used bombs and other weapons made by US companies such as Boeing.But just a week after the Amnesty analysis, the Biden administration told Congress in a mandated report that it was "not able to reach definitive conclusions" on whether Israel had used US-supplied weapons in attacks such as the one on the World Central Kitchen workers.
After the report of the new analysis, said University of Maryland professor Shibley Telhami, former President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Antony Blinken "cannot hide from responsibility" after they persistently defended and funded Israel's attacks on Gaza.
But along with the long backlog of potential human rights abuses, the so-called Israel Leahy Vetting Forum, which dates back to 2020, is likely to prevent the State Department from reviewing the allegations against the IDF.
The government's protocol for reviewing allegations against Israel differs from that of other countries; a US working group is required to “come to a consensus on whether a gross violation of human rights has occurred," with representatives of the US Embassy in Jerusalem among those who participate in the working group.
“To date, the US has not withheld any assistance to any Israeli unit despite clear evidence,” Josh Paul, a former State Department official who resigned in the early weeks of Israel's war on Gaza over the Biden administration's military support, told the Post.
Shahed Ghoreishi, a former State Department communications official who was fired earlier this year after pushing for the agency to condemn ethnic cleansing and other abuses in Gaza, said it was "predictable" that the State Department declined to answer questions from the Post about the inspector general's report.
"There may be nothing that can excuse the brushing of crimes under the rug," said Ghoreishi, "but ducking questions and hoping it goes away (including no more State Department press briefings) is an abdication of responsibility to the American people."
The inspector general's report was compiled days before Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire agreement earlier this month; the deal is still formally in place, but Israel has continued carrying out strikes, killing more than 800 Palestinians since it was signed.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular