

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Isabel Alegria, ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, 415-343-0785, 646-438-4146; media@aclu.org
Steve Kilar, ACLU of Arizona, 602-492-8540; skilar@acluaz.org
The American Civil Liberties Union has initiated a second legal claim against the Tucson Police Department (TPD) after finding that the implementation of the "show me your papers" provision of SB 1070 continues to result in the violation of people's constitutional rights. The provision of the controversial anti-immigrant law went into effect in Arizona in September 2012. The claim filed today stems from a traffic stop this past January in which police conducted an "SB-1070 check," as described in the police report against an Hispanic man named Jesus Reyes Sepulveda, and then detained him only so Border Patrol could pick him up.
After three days in ICE detention, Reyes Sepulveda was released.
"Unfortunately, incidents like this one further prove that implementation of this unconstitutional provision of SB 1070 ultimately relies on unlawful immigration enforcement," said Christine P. Sun, ACLU attorney. "The police report shows that officers use SB 1070 to hold people solely to turn them over to Border Patrol even without a request -- a practice that must stop."
With this claim, the ACLU has now formally filed three complaints in Arizona concerning implementation of SB 1070's Section 2(B). Last year, in its first claim, the ACLU took action against the South Tucson Police Department (STPD) on behalf of a man who was unlawfully detained by officers and turned over to the Border Patrol. That claim charged false arrest and imprisonment, unreasonable search and seizure and violation of his equal protection under the law. A settlement was announced in May that resulted in a complete overhaul of STPD department policies with respect to immigration enforcement. Among the policy provisions adopted by the STPD was a data collection requirement to help ensure adequate oversight of officers' conduct, and an agreement that police officers could not prolong stops for the purpose of checking a person's immigration status.
The ACLU also filed a similar claim against the Tucson Police Department in April of this year, which is still pending. In that incident, similar to the one here, TPD officers pulled over two Hispanic men and held them solely to call Border Patrol and to have those agents pick them up. The incident sparked a large community protest against TPD for its immigration enforcement policies. Advocates in Tucson have been calling on Chief Villasenor to reform the police department's treatment of immigrants ever since Section 2(B) went into effect nearly two years ago.
"Tucson has declared itself an immigrant welcoming city, but the reality is that local law enforcement's entanglement with the Border Patrol has been allowed to persist for far too long," said James Lyall of the ACLU of Arizona. "The City of Tucson and other Arizona municipalities can and should follow the lead of South Tucson and take steps to mitigate the harm SB 1070 has done to our communities."
In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down most of the law's key provisions, and while the justices declined to enjoin Section 2(B) of SB 1070, they did determine that detaining people "solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns." Monitoring of law enforcement's implementation of the "show me your papers" provision has shown that--just as the ACLU and other civil rights groups have argued--the law unconstitutionally authorizes and encourages illegal police practices, including racial profiling and unlawful immigration enforcement.
Other abuses documented by the ACLU that have occurred because of Section 2(B) include:
Mesa Police Department's jailing of a 67-year-old Latino citizen after he picked a water bottle out of a trash can at a convenience store;
Casa Grande Police Department's jailing and transporting to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement a passenger of a car that was stopped for having a burnt-out taillight;
Tucson Police Department's questioning of a woman about her immigration status after she called on them to assist her in a domestic violence situation; and
Phoenix Police Department's unconstitutional search and detention of a legal resident who was questioned about his immigration status while picking up his car from an impound lot.
In addition to the filing of legal claims against police departments in Tucson and South Tucson, the ACLU and its partners have been talking with law enforcement and local governments throughout Arizona to inform them about the law's basic failings, explaining that the provision of the law that was allowed to go into effect does not provide an excuse for discriminatory police practices.
Click here for a copy of the NOC filed by the ACLU today.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666"It’s a raw deal for working people: higher costs and less coverage, or no coverage at all," said Democratic Rep. Brendan Boyle.
The Republican bill that's set for a vote in the US House on Wednesday would leave around 100,000 more Americans uninsured per year over the next decade, according to a new analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The analysis published late Tuesday examines each major section of the legislation, which experts have characterized as an assortment of GOP healthcare ideas that—in combination—would do little to achieve its stated goal of "lower healthcare premiums for all."
The CBO estimates that the Republican bill, which stands no chance of passing the Senate even if it clears the House on Wednesday, would lower gross benchmark premiums by 11% on average between 2027 and 2035.
But the legislation does not extend enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that expire at the end of the year, meaning premiums overall are poised to more than double on average in the coming year. Many Americans are expected to forgo insurance coverage entirely in the face of unaffordable premium increases.
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said Tuesday that the CBO analysis "makes clear that the bill Republican leadership wants to pass tomorrow would make a bad situation even worse," compounding the widespread damage caused by the Medicaid cuts the party approved over the summer.
"It’s a raw deal for working people: higher costs and less coverage, or no coverage at all," said Boyle. "If Republicans were serious about fixing the healthcare crisis they created, they’d work with Democrats to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits and prevent costs from rising for tens of millions of Americans.”
"While Congress heads home for the holidays, it’s leaving millions of families behind to wonder how they will make ends meet in the new year."
The CBO analysis came hours after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) shot down a bipartisan push for a vote to extend the expiring ACA tax credits, which more than 20 million Americans relied on to afford health coverage.
But on Wednesday, four swing-district House Republicans—Brian Fitzpatrick, Rob Bresnahan, and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania and Mike Lawler of New York—revolted against the GOP leadership and signed onto a Democratic discharge petition aimed at forcing a floor vote on a proposed three-year extension of the enhanced ACA subsidies.
"The only policy that is worse than a clean three-year extension without any reforms, is a policy of complete expiration without any bridge," Fitzpatrick said in a statement. "Unfortunately, it is House leadership themselves that have forced this outcome."
It's unclear when the House will vote on the extension, as lawmakers are leaving town for a two-week holiday recess on Friday. The House is set to return to session on January 6, 2026—after the official expiration of the ACA subsidies.
“While Congress heads home for the holidays, it’s leaving millions of families behind to wonder how they will make ends meet in the new year,” Ailen Arreaza, executive director of the advocacy group ParentsTogether, said in a statement Wednesday. “By refusing to fix this healthcare crisis, Republicans are choosing political games over families’ health and financial security."
"These subsidies have been a lifeline for millions, and letting them expire will force millions to make impossible choices or even go without coverage altogether," said Arreaza. "Make no mistake: Families around the country will pay the price for Congress’ inaction."
"Alfred Nobel's endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Wednesday filed a complaint against the Nobel Foundation to stop its planned payouts to Venezuelan opposition leader and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado, who has backed US President Donald Trump's campaign of military aggression against her own country.
According to a press release that WikiLeaks posted to X, Assange's lawsuit seeks to block Machado from obtaining over USD $1 million she's due to receive from the Nobel Foundation as winner of this year's Peace Prize.
The complaint notes that Alfred Nobel's will states that the Peace Prize named after him should only be awarded to those who have "conferred the greatest benefit to humankind” by doing “the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
In an interview that aired on Sunday on CBS News’ “Face the Nation,” Machado praised Trump’s policies of tightening economic sanctions and seizing Venezuelan oil tankers, acts of aggression that appear to go against Nobel's stated declaration that the Peace Prize winner must promote "fraternity between nations."
“Look, I absolutely support President Trump’s strategy, and we, the Venezuelan people, are very grateful to him and to his administration, because I believe he is a champion of freedom in this hemisphere,” Machado told CBS News.
Trump’s campaign against Venezuela has not only included sanctions and the seizing of an oil tanker, but a series of bombings of purported drug trafficking vessels that many legal experts consider to be acts of murder.
In his complaint, Assange claims that Machado's gushing praise of Trump in the wake of his illegal boat-bombing campaign is enough to justify the Nobel Foundation freezing its disbursements to the Venezuelan politician.
"Alfred Nobel's endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war," Assange states, adding that "Machado has continued to incite the Trump Administration to pursue its escalatory path" against her own country.
The complaint also argues that there's a risk that funds awarded to Machado will be "diverted from their charitable purpose to facilitate aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes."
Were this to happen, the complaint alleges, it would violate Sweden's obligations under Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute, which states that anyone who "aids, abets, or otherwise assists" in the commission of a war crime shall be subject to prosecution under the International Criminal Court.
Trump in recent days has ramped up his aggressive actions against Venezuela, and on Tuesday night he announced a "total and complete blockade" of all "sanctioned oil tankers" seeking to enter and leave the country.
“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. “It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before.”
"I will give," said the Republican mega-donor with a smile.
Billionaire Miram Adelson on Tuesday night suggested the legal obstacles for President Donald Trump to serve an additional term in office after 2028 are not insurmountable as the far-right Republican megadonor vowed another $250 million to bolster a run that experts say would be unlawful and unconstitutional on its face.
Adelson, a hardline Zionist who, along with her now deceased husband, Sheldon Adelson, has given hundreds of millions to US lawmakers who back a strong relationship between the US and Israeli governments, was sharing the podium with Trump during a Hanukkah candlelighting event at the White House when she made the remarks.
With a reference to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, Adelson said they had discussed "the legal thing of four more years"—something Trump has repeatedly gestured toward and many of his backers have called for—and told Trump, “So, we can do it, think about it.”
A chant in the crowd then broke out for "For four more years!" as Adelson whispered something in Trump's ear.
“She said, ‘Think about it, I’ll give you another $250 million,’” Trump then said into the microphone. "I will give," Adelson said with a smile.
Watch the exchange:
Adelson: I met Alan Dershowitz.. he said.. four more years. We can do it. Think about it.
Crowd: *chants four more years*
Trump: She said think about it, I’ll give you another 250 million pic.twitter.com/eOc7Zazyns
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 17, 2025
For Trump's 2024 presidential campaign alone, Adelson gave at least $100 million to support the Republican candidate with Super PAC she established, according to federal filings.
In his remarks on Tuesday, Trump credited Adelson with providing him $250 million overall—"directly and indirectly"—during his 2024 bid.
"When someone can you $250 million, I think that we should give her the opportunity to say hello," Trump said, when introducing her. "And Miriam, make it quick, because $250 million is not what it used to be."