

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.
"This fight is far from over," said one campaigner. "We won’t rest until Big Bend’s environmental protections are fully restored and the illegal waiver that allowed so much destruction is gone for good.”
A federal judge in El Paso on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from continuing construction of border barriers, roads, and other infrastructure across the Big Bend region, a win for environmentalists, landowners, and other Texans from across the political spectrum who are united in their opposition to the project.
US District Judge Kathleen Cardone—who was appointed by former President George W. Bush—granted a preliminary injunction sought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and other plaintiffs.
"The court finds that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of at least one of the claims in [their] suit, that there is a likelihood that they will suffer serious, irreparable harm without an injunction, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in their favor," Cardone wrote in her two-page decision.
BIG WIN FOR BIG BEND!! A federal judge just issued an emergency injunction to block border barrier and road construction across the #BigBend region. The injunction will remain in place while the court considers a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s waiver to fast-track construction.
— Center for Biological Diversity (@biologicaldiversity.org) October 2, 2026 at 2:18 PM
Cardone's order immediately prohibits the Department of Homeland Security and its agencies from building “border barrier or related infrastructure” or engaging in “any construction or ground-disturbing activities” in the Big Bend Sector until they comply with applicable laws. It also stays the effect of three Trump administration waivers that had allowed officials to bypass numerous federal protections.
“This is a historic victory for Big Bend and everyone who loves this wild corner of Texas,” said Laiken Jordahl, CBD's national public lands advocate. “No administration has the right to destroy a crown-jewel national park for political theater."
"With a federal court ordering the bulldozers to stop, Big Bend gets to breathe," Jordahl added. "But this fight is far from over. We won’t rest until Big Bend’s environmental protections are fully restored and the illegal waiver that allowed so much destruction is gone for good.”
Clara Bensen, director of communications for No Big Bend Wall and a board member of Conserve Big Bend, also welcomed the ruling.
"For months we've watched the federal government send bulldozers into a national park that belongs to all of us. Today a federal judge told them to stop," she said in a statement.
"Since we learned the Trump administration planned to seize public and private land and destroy the Big Bend region as we know it, this community has come together across the political aisle to fight back," Bensen added. "The government tried to ignore the law to build unnecessary border infrastructure, and the court made clear it can't. This is a victory, but we are not letting our guard down."
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: A federal judge just HALTED the destruction of Big Bend.This is a massive victory for the landowners, local communities, and everyday Texans who stood up to protect one of our state's greatest treasures.The fight isn't over, but today, the people won.
[image or embed]
— Clayton Tucker (@claytontuckertx.com) October 2, 2026 at 2:16 PM
The ruling comes after contractors began bulldozing roads and building other infrastructure in and around Big Bend National Park in August, including near Santa Elena Canyon and Mariscal Mountain. US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) temporarily halted construction on August 17, but that pause expired earlier this week.
The Trump administration has argued that the project—which initially included plans for a 30-foot-high reinforced steel wall—is necessary to achieve what it calls “operational control” of the border. Plaintiffs in the case challenged the administration's determination under Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that the region is an area of “high illegal entry,” noting that the government's claim is contradicted by its own statistics.
The Big Bend Sector is among the least-trafficked portions of the southern border, accounting for roughly a quarter of the international boundary's length, but no more than 3% of annual migrant apprehensions. The sector recorded just 1.3% of total border apprehensions in 2025, according to CBP data.
Plaintiffs in the case argued that the administration unlawfully used extraordinary powers to waive environmental and other laws, including the Endangered Species Act, National Park Service Organic Act, and National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Indigenous groups alleged violations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act.
At Friday's hearing, Rio Grande river guide and landowner Danny William Miller described the prospect of a barrier cutting across his property and blocking access to the river as “a bullet to the head," according to The Big Bend Sentinel.
Miller testified that once the landscape is altered, it cannot simply be restored. His guide work, he said, would become “a tour of the military-industrial complex, rather than a tour of the wilderness.”
Another local resident, Bill Guerra-Addington, told the court, “They’re taking the river away from us, and it’s devastating.”
Friday's injunction is temporary. The underlying lawsuit will continue, and the broader legal battle over Trump's Big Bend border project—and the administration's legally dubious waivers—remains unresolved. On Wednesday, US District Judge Orlando Garcia, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, rejected a request from an Indigenous group and business owners for a temporary restraining order in one of several separate cases seeking to halt work on the project.
Still, National Parks Conservation Association president and CEO Tiernan Sittenfeld called Cardone's order “a victory for Big Bend and for all of America’s national parks.”
"While national park advocates are grateful for this halt to border construction in Big Bend, the devastating toll it has already taken on this national park must be studied and remediated," she said. "The administration must repair the damage it has done to the beautiful, fragile desert ecosystems that make Big Bend National Park one of America’s most iconic places."
“The administration’s border plan at Big Bend has faced strong bipartisan opposition from local landowners, experienced local borderland sheriffs, and conservationists alike," Sittenfeld added. "Big Bend is no place for border barriers. It’s time for the administration to come to the table with the border communities that know Big Bend best, repair the damage from this ill-conceived project, and find new solutions.”
s
"It doesn’t have to be this way. ICE doesn’t have to traumatize children, tear families apart, and treat people like this," said one Austin, Texas official.
Since Republicans in the US Senate this week blocked a bill to make school bus stops off-limits for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, community members in Pennsylvania and Austin, Texas have expressed outrage by arrests made in front of children—in at least one reported case, leaving a child abandoned as officers detained his mother.
"It doesn’t have to be this way. ICE doesn’t have to traumatize children, tear families apart, and treat people like this," said José "Chito" Vela III, the mayor pro tempore of Austin, on social media late Thursday.
Vela made the comments as he posted a video that he said shows the aftermath of an ICE arrest at a school bus stop, with officers driving away with the mother of a 9-year-old boy who was left with other community members.
"They fucking took her," said one woman angrily as the child sat on the ground crying. "What the fuck are they going to do with the child now? ... Y'all have no fucking shame."
ICE arrested the mom of a 9-year-old at a school bus stop in Austin, leaving him alone and crying. The video has profanity and is heartbreaking to watch, but it shows the fear/pain of what happened.
This is evil. This is wrong. And it has to stop.
Video: Leonardo Pelaez on FB pic.twitter.com/F52rCjZwIF
— Mayor Pro Tem Chito Vela, III (@chitoforatx) October 2, 2026
Vela posted the video a day after Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) introduced a bill aimed at stopping ICE and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies from conducting enforcement operations at school bus stops.
In August, Murphy and many of his constituents were outraged when ICE arrested parents at school bus stops in Danbury, Connecticut—detaining them after their children boarded buses, leaving them without anyone to pick them up after school let out and giving the family no time to ensure their children would be cared for.
Murphy said on the Senate floor Wednesday that the bus stop arrests were part of an operation in which 118 people were detained in Connecticut. Federal data has shown that a majority of people being arrested by ICE, which is carrying out President Donald Trump's mass deportation agenda, have no criminal convictions.
“For parents in this body, you know how anxious that first day of school is, how kids are just brimming with nervous anxiety about that first day, and you know what that feels like to watch your kid walk onto that school bus," said Murphy. "Well, what do you think it does to those kids on that first and second day of school to see ICE officers at the school bus stop? Imagine that 6-year-old who boarded the school bus, and when he got back from school that day and got off, his parent wasn't there. A 6-year-old feeling like he had been abandoned. In this case, he may or may not have seen the arrest because it happened almost immediately after he got on.”
The senator added that ICE has "blatantly lied" about its practice of carrying out arrests at school bus stops.
"When they were presented with these stories from Danbury, DHS doubled down and said any claim that ICE targeted parents at a school bus stop is false," he said. "Then just days afterwards, we had the video evidence. This often happens—ICE says something didn't happen, and then we have the video proving that it did."
Also on Wednesday, about 75 community members gathered at the corner of Tremont Avenue and East Fornance Street in Norristown, Pennsylvania, where ICE reportedly detained three people in front of a group of children who were waiting for the school bus.
They called on Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and local officials to pass legislation to bar law enforcement from cooperating with ICE.
“When enforcement happens in places where families live their everyday lives, at bus stops, on streets, near schools, or in neighborhoods, the effects can reach beyond the person who is detained,” Jorge Liborio, 16, told WHYY. “It can affect children, parents, coworkers, friends, and entire communities.”
Jay Lee, an advocacy and civic engagement manager at the Woori Center, which provides resources for the area's large immigrant population, said that "attendance is falling" in local schools. Immigrants make up about 18% of Norristown's population.
Chalkbeat reported this week that nearly two years after Trump rescinded a policy that barred immigration enforcement in sensitive areas like schools and hospitals, school attendance dropped below 40% at one Indianapolis school when ICE was conducting operations in the city.
Two federal lawsuits challenging Trump's termination of the sensitive locations policy are ongoing.
On Wednesday, Murphy denounced Republicans for blocking his bill, pointing to Sen. Jim Banks' (R-Ind.) claim that it would create "sanctuary bus stops"—safe havens for immigrants who commit crimes.
"If we prohibit ICE from operating at school bus stops, you know what will happen?" said Banks. "All the illegals in the country will just hide out at bus stops, knowing that ICE isn’t allowed to touch them! Bus stops will become the most unsafe places in the country."
Murphy called Banks' objection "bizarre" and "dishonest."
"I did not anticipate that one of the arguments against this bill would be that it would lead to the development of ‘sanctuary bus stops,'" said the senator. "But what do we imagine here? People are going to live at bus stops? We're going to have encampments around bus stops of people who are here without documentation? I just think it's an example of how this whole debate has gone way off the rails. It is just fundamentally detached from the reality.”
In Austin, Vela said that "families pay the price" when ICE "chooses to use these tactics."
"This is evil. This is wrong. And it has to stop," said Vela. "We must demand accountability. We must demand better. Our children deserve better."
"I stand here with fierce determination to do what is right for my sister, for her children, and for our country—and that is to insist on accountability," her brother said.
Relatives of Renee Good filed a pair of lawsuits against the federal government and immigration officials on Thursday over both the US citizen's killing at the hands of an immigration agent and an alleged conspiracy to interfere with civil rights in Minnesota's Twin Cities.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross fatally shot Good, a 37-year-old writer, poet, and mother of three, in Minneapolis on January 7, while ICE was deployed there as part of President Donald Trump's "Operation Metro Surge."
Filed in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of her partner, Becca Good, and brother, Brent Ganger—the trustee for next of kin, including her children—the complaint against the United States lays out the details of the shooting and what followed, alleging wrongful death, battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
The suit notes that Renee Good had primary custody of her 6-year-old son and provided primary care for her 12- and 15-year-olds. In addition to highlighting the "immense physical, mental, and emotional pain" she suffered in her final moments, it stresses that "Renee's children, parents, and siblings have been forever deprived of the economic support, services, advice, comfort, assistance, protection, and companionship of someone who was monumentally important to them and who cared for them deeply."
Becca Good, who was in the vehicle with her partner and their dog during the shooting, shared in a Thursday statement that "every morning, she is my first thought. I think about how the kids are growing up without their mama, and how I will grow old without the love of my life. I think about how we should have had 40 more years together. But I also think about what she would have wanted after all of this."
"As we have tried to navigate our own massive loss, I am also devastated by how many other lives have been destroyed in this darkest of times," said Good, whose partner's death was shortly followed by immigration agents' fatal shooting of Alex Pretti on January 24, also in Minneapolis. "So many other families are dealing with the loss of their loved ones; to everyone who has had to witness it—the pain of this moment extends far beyond our family."
"What happened to us should never happen to any family," she stressed. "No child should grow up without a parent because of it. No one should lose their sister or their daughter. No one should have to live without their soulmate. Accountability—real accountability—is the only way to make sure that no other family has to go through what we have."
That's where the second complaint comes in. It names not only Ross but also Trump Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller, former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and her adviser Corey Lewandowski, "border czar" Tom Homan, former acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, former Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Greg Bovino, and 10 other federal agents.
"These two civil complaints seek to remedy two distinct, but related wrongs. We seek accountability for the unconscionable and unconstitutional use of force by a federal agent that killed Renee on January 7th. But we also seek accountability for the discriminatory and violent operation that placed Jonathan Ross on Portland Avenue that day," explained Benjamin Berkman, senior attorney at Romanucci & Blandin, the firm representing the family.
"Those in the highest rungs of power authorized armed, masked men to terrorize Minnesotans on the basis of their perceived race or national origin," the lawyer said. "To achieve that goal, they also sought to silence community members who refused to look away. Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act to hold accountable those who conspire to deny the equal protection of the laws. Today's filings intend to do just that."
While Trump has sent ICE into various US communities since returning to office last year after running on a promise to pursue mass detention and deportations, the invasion of the Twin Cities followed a series of his racist statements directed at the area's Somali immigrants and their families. The filing alleges that "Operation Metro Surge was conceived, ordered, and carried out to satisfy the president's expressed animus toward people of Somali origin and Hispanic people."
In practice, the operation involved "masked agents roving public streets and targeting people of Somali descent and origin and Hispanic individuals without regard to immigration status," the complaint says. It highlights that "like many members of their community," Becca and Renee Good, two white women, "were concerned about ICE's conduct and its effect on their friends and neighbors."
As with the first filing, the second also lays out the details of the shooting and its aftermath: "Renee was driving the couple's Honda Pilot" and stopped on Portland Avenue, the document says. "Exercising her First Amendment rights, Becca exited the vehicle and began filming ICE activity while Renee remained in the car and honked her horn to warn her neighbors."
It details the confrontation with masked agents, including one who "turned away the aid offered to her as she lay dying," and attempts by the Department of Homeland Security, ICE's parent agency, to blame Renee Good for her own death—including claims, contradicted by video evidence, that she "weaponized her vehicle" in "an act of domestic terrorism."
Antonio M. Romanucci, the law firm's founding partner, emphasized that "unquestionably, unequivocally, neither Renee nor Becca was the worst of the worst. They were exactly as their name says—Good folks. No one was armed. No one was a domestic terrorist. They had their pet dog in the car."
"Indeed, Renee told masked agents she wasn't mad at them; her last words clearly reflected her state of mind. Renee had the right to speak, express herself, assemble, observe, and leave the scene unharmed and alive," he continued. "Today, these lawsuits are the beginning of the ultimate legal weapon in uncovering the truth behind this unlawful use of deadly force and the nefarious conspiracies behind the invasion of American cities by American law enforcement officers."
Renee Good's brother, Ganger, declared Thursday that "I stand here with fierce determination to do what is right for my sister, for her children, and for our country—and that is to insist on accountability."
"What happened to her on January 7th and what has happened to far too many people in the last year is not what America is about," he added. "We can and must do better, and the Constitution must be the roadmap back to decency and the rule of law."
"We won't let them destroy the wildest place in Texas without a fight," the Center for Biological Diversity vowed.
The Trump administration on Wednesday allowed a temporary pause on border construction in and around Big Bend National Park in Texas to expire, prompting renewed vows from conservationists and other opponents to fight the contentious project in court.
Laiken Jordahl, the national public lands advocate at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), posted a court document stating that US Customs and Border Protection (CBP)k "will lift the pause on ground-disturbing activities" related to the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) plan to build border barriers and other destructive infrastructure across one of the most remote and environmentally sensitive stretches of the US-Mexico border.
The government said Tuesday in a court filing that CBP is “actively considering adjustments” to the project “that would reduce its scope and avoid or minimize potential impacts, based on input received from the National Park Service and other stakeholders."
However, those possible changes did not assuage opponents of the project, who span the political spectrum.
“We are disappointed, and urge the Department of Homeland Security to extend this pause,” Emily Thompson, executive director of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks, said Wednesday. “Continuing with construction of border barriers, roads, and associated infrastructure inside Big Bend National Park will do unprecedented damage to the park.”
Thompson continued:
Big Bend National Park stands out for its unique desert landscape. With more nesting bird species than any other national park, towering canyon walls, and the largest international dark sky reserve in the entire world, Big Bend is an integral addition to our nation’s natural heritage. The Trump administration's plan to build a border wall through the park threatens all of this, heightening flood risk, inundating the skies with lights, and cutting off migration patterns for wildlife. Building in Big Bend would be mutilating an extraordinary landscape at a massive cost to the taxpayer—with little ultimate benefit.
Bob Krumenaker, chair of Keep Big Bend Wild and a former Big Bend National Park superintendent, asserted that “border security already works" in the park "without the need for intrusive construction."
"The Border Patrol, the National Park Service, and local sheriffs already operate an effective surveillance system with ground and aerial patrols and unobtrusive, wireless sensors," he noted. "The rugged terrain, huge distances, and harsh desert weather in the national park and in Mexico across the Rio Grande make this the least active section of the entire southern border for illegal crossings."
CBD and other plaintiffs are already seeking a preliminary injunction in federal court. US District Judge Kathleen Cardone—an appointee of former President George W. Bush—is scheduled to hear testimony and evidence Friday in El Paso on the request to halt construction while the groups' lawsuit proceeds. The plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration unlawfully waived dozens of federal laws to accelerate construction.
Indigenous peoples and their advocates have criticized DHS for waiving laws, including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, to enable the project's construction.
In a statement issued Wednesday, CBD described some of the damage already done by construction in service of Trump's deadly immigration crackdown:
Bulldozers started tearing into Big Bend National Park near the iconic Santa Elena Canyon in early August and were documented plowing new routes for vehicle barriers into both the east and west sides of Mariscal Mountain. Contractors have stockpiled heavy equipment across the Big Bend region, where staging yards have been cleared, worker camps built, and water wells drilled.
"We'll be in court... in El Paso demanding a permanent halt to the destruction," CBD said. "We won't let them destroy the wildest place in Texas without a fight.
“The harms caused by this US government scheme are no longer hypothetical,” UN experts stressed. “For migrants in situations of particular vulnerability, the consequences can be deadly.”
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume rapidly deporting immigrants to countries other than their own, even as United Nations experts warned that the policy is putting deportees at heightened risk of human rights violations.
In a one-page order, the justices—who did not rule on the legality of the policy—stayed a lower court ruling that required the administration to give people facing a so-called third-country deportation notice wan opportunity to raise concerns that they could face persecution or torture in the destination country. The court agreed to hear the administration's appeal, with oral arguments scheduled for December.
The high court said it will consider whether the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts has jurisdiction over the case, whether it had authority to issue classwide relief, and whether the Trump administration's policy violates federal immigration law, the Constitution's due process clause, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, or the Convention Against Torture.
The court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—said they would have rejected the administration's request to lift the lower-court order.
NEW: The Supreme Court, over the objections of the 3 liberal justices, grants a stay in the D.V.D. litigation, authorizing the Trump admin to resume third country removals without any notice to people being sent to countries they've never been to.The Court also agrees to hear the case in December.
[image or embed]
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) September 29, 2026 at 12:16 PM
US Attorney General Todd Blanch responded to the order on social media, posting, "Now for the second time, SCOTUS just granted our stay in conducting all third-country removals of illegal aliens."
"Again, this is entirely lawful and a critical tool for immigration enforcement," he added. "Unlike the lower court, SCOTUS waited to hear from both sides before making the decision."
Tuesday's ruling came one day after two dozen United Nations human rights experts urged the United States and 35 countries that have entered deportation agreements with the Trump administration to halt the practice, which is "triggering [a] cascade of human rights violations including torture."
“These migrants are being transferred to countries or territories with which they have no ties, which can be a traumatizing and isolating experience that compounds harms already suffered,” the experts said, warning that they face “further violence or discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or human rights advocacy.”
“The harms caused by this US government scheme are no longer hypothetical,” the experts stressed. “For migrants in situations of particular vulnerability, the consequences can be deadly.”
The UN experts' warning followed an urgent appeal issued earlier this month by Amnesty International that two men deported to Equatorial Guinea under a secret deal—one of them Egyptian and the other Eritrean—were at risk of being tortured in detention in the African nation, which has an abysmal human rights record. Amnesty said that the men had already been beaten and violently arrested by police after arriving in the country.
The Trump administration has deported roughly 25,000 people to more than two dozen countries under often secret agreements and at a cost to taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars. Most have been sent to Mexico, while others have been transported to countries including Liberia, Guyana, and Equatorial Guinea.
The Supreme Court has already intervened in a related case involving eight men whom the administration sought to deport to war-torn South Sudan, although only one was originally from that country. In that case, Sotomayor warned that the policy exposed “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”
The justices' latest order will remain in effect until the court issues its judgment in the case. Until then, the administration can resume the expedited removals that the lower court had sought to restrict.
"Don't ever get immune to the inhumanity and dehumanization of what the Trump/Miller project is doing to children and families," said one advocate.
"We cannot allow this evil to continue," said one commentator after reading a CNN reporter's description of an immigration court hearing in Harlingen, Texas on Monday, where children as young as 3 appeared without legal representation and were asked by a judge whether they wanted a "voluntary" departure from the US or a deportation order.
The hearing, attended by Priscilla Alvarez of CNN, was one of many that are taking place in the US as President Donald Trump pushes to fast-track deportations with abruptly scheduled asylum interviews and court appearances, as the administration also sharply curtails the legal representation that's available to children.
There is no requirement for children, like the 1,883 who were being held by the US Health and Human Services (HHS) Department last month, to have an attorney throughout the asylum process, during which they are expected to present evidence that they have a credible fear of returning to their home country and should be granted asylum in the US.
But Shaina Aber, executive director of the Acacia Center for Justice, told CNN that before the group lost a $200 million contract in July when the administration allowed it to lapse, it was practically unheard of for children to appear in court without legal representation.
“Before, under our contract, it was mandatory to enter into representation if a child was moving forward to the pleading stage while in detention. You’d never have a child in detention being ordered removed without representation,” said Aber, whose group subcontracted with 100 legal service providers to help advocate for more than 20,000 unaccompanied migrant children, including those who were detained while trying to cross the US-Mexico border without their parents and others who were sent to detention when their family members were arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
As family members and guardians face new vetting requirements to have their children released back into their custody from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at HHS, children are increasingly being pushed into immigration court hearings without anyone to help them determine how to advocate for themselves.
A 13-year-old Honduran boy identified as Angel appeared in court Monday without a lawyer and was asked by a judge if there was a reason he couldn't return to his home country, which faces a displacement crisis due to violence, poverty, and climate disasters.
“My mom and almost my entire family are here. It’s too dangerous to go back," said Angel.
The judge told him he did not qualify for asylum and asked the 13-year-old to make a choice: a promise of a $3,000 stipend from the Department of Homeland Security to return to Honduras without his mother and family, or a deportation order.
“I don’t know,” Angel said before beginning to cry. “I have no one. I have nothing.”
The judge gave Angel a deportation order and said he had 30 days to appeal it.
The proceedings were observed virtually by an attorney from the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI), which was given a $20 million contract last month by ORR, ostensibly to provide legal services to children facing immigration hearings and asylum interviews.
The lawyer did not speak on behalf of Angel or any of the other children who were facing the judge, and attorneys and advocates have said in court filings that USCRI lawyers have either not shown up to hearings or have not spoken in defense of children facing deportation. USCRI did not respond to a request for comment from CNN regarding that claim.
One advocate told CNN that the fast-tracked deportation proceedings are "a complete violation of due process for a child."
“The kids who are unrepresented, they can’t read the form, much less figure out how to file it. And if they don’t put an asylum claim in, the judges are ordering their removal,” they said. “No one is asking a single question—who will you go to? Will you be safe?”
The hearing took place as Margaret Wurth, senior adviser at the children's rights division at Human Rights Watch (HRW), warned of the "anguish" the Trump administration is causing for families and children across the US as the number of people deported by Trump reaches 540,000.
HRW spoke to one Haitian man named Pierre, who had been living in Florida with his wife and son, who was born in the US. Pierre had protections under Temporary Protected Status, but Trump ended the program for Haitians, and the US Supreme Court upheld that decision in June.
Pierre was detained at a routine check-in with ICE, which told him his work permit had expired. He said he had a pending asylum case and had applied to renew his work permit on time, but was taken to two different detention centers before being sent back to Haiti.
“I worked so that he could grow up without the fear, violence, and uncertainty that I had known in Haiti,” Pierre told HRW. “I did not get to hug my son. My wife is now alone with the rent, the bills, and our child. She tells me that he still waits for me and asks whether I will be there when he comes home from school.”
Dylan Williams, executive vice president for the Center for International Policy, called the immigration hearing that was described on Monday as "monstrous."
"A society that allows this is deeply sick," he said.
Another observer wondered how proceedings like the ones described by CNN are going forward in courtrooms across the country without judges "rage-quitting," and labor advocate Charles Idelson called on Americans to not "normalize" the treatment of immigrant children by Trump and his top officials, including Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller.
"Don't ever get immune to the inhumanity and dehumanization of what the Trump/Miller project is doing to children and families," he said.
“The detentions are happening in a flash—we’re talking, like, 90 seconds from the time ICE shows up to that person being driven away,” said one immigration attorney.
The Trump administration may have deliberately toned down its highly visible, militarized immigration raids that generated widespread backlash, but US Immigration and Customs Enforcement is arresting more people than ever, an investigation published Monday by The Guardian revealed.
The British newspaper examined what it called the increasingly “invisibilized” immigration dragnet reaching into workplaces, airports, traffic stops, convenience stores, and communities far from the US-Mexico border, declaring "ICE is everywhere."
“Before, [ICE] were storming around, making a lot of noise,” Gracie Willis, a rapid-response attorney with the National Immigration Project, told The Guardian. “Now, they are moving more quietly.”
"More quietly" does not mean fewer arrests. In fact, The Guardian reported that ICE apprehended nearly 50,000 people in July, a record high. The agency has also more than doubled its workforce this year to more than 22,000 officers and staff after Congress provided the Department of Homeland Security with $75 billion in additional funding.
As of September 15, ICE had also signed more than 2,500 agreements allowing state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in federal immigration enforcement.
“The detentions are happening in a flash—we’re talking, like, 90 seconds from the time ICE shows up to that person being driven away,” Willis said. “And often they are moving very quietly, with very soft feet.”
The shift in tactics came after the administration's highly publicized operations provoked intense opposition, especially following a series of fatal shootings, including of American citizens.
President Donald Trump said earlier this year that “maybe we could use a little bit of a softer touch,” while Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told senators that "my goal in six months is that we’re not in the lead story every single day.”
Still, immigration attorney Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch told The Guardian that “we’re seeing a lot of racial profiling" in immigration enforcement, adding that agents “might have their sights set on a big job site... and just slowly patrol that site and just take people in day after day until nobody’s going to work there anymore.”
The Guardian investigation comes amid continued condemnation of ICE's methods.
Amnesty International published a report last week based on interviews with 154 people affected by enforcement operations in Chicago, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New Orleans, and Washington, DC, documenting allegations including racial discrimination, arbitrary detention, excessive force, unlawful surveillance, incommunicado detention, and inhumane detention conditions.
“Masked and armed federal agents attacking people in the streets with impunity doesn’t make our communities safer—it puts everyone in danger,” said Amnesty International USA Executive Director Nadia Daar. “ICE is fundamentally broken and cannot be fixed.”
An increasing number of Republicans—especially those facing tough reelection battles—are criticizing the administration's heavy-handed immigration enforcement.
A campaign ad for Congresswoman Monica De La Cruz (R-Texas) even features a woman whose husband the lawmaker helped free from immigration detention.
“I have been very direct with the White House, with leadership, that enforcement policy should be focused on the criminals and on the cartels that are terrorizing our communities,” De La Cruz said last week during an interview on "The Joe Pags Show."
“They should not be on hardworking immigrants that are navigating the immigration process," she added.
In July, Democratic lawmakers sent a letter to Department of Homeland Security officials noting that agents had shot at least 22 people during Trump's second term, and that in multiple cases, federal authorities had made allegations against shooting victims that were later contradicted by evidence.
More than 50 people have died in ICE custody since Trump returned to the White House last year.
"This isn't law enforcement," said US Senate candidate James Talarico. "It's lawlessness."
Democrats in Congress on Monday evening were demanding a full, independent investigation into US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's shooting on Sunday of Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, as it was reported that he had been held in an ICE detention center with a bullet still lodged in his back—close to his spine—and that he was finally being taken to a hospital only after he lost feeling in the left side of his body.
In a video posted on social media, US Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) recounted how Perez was initially hospitalized after ICE agents in an unmarked SUV sideswiped his car as he was making DoorDash deliveries in Austin, Texas, and then shot him through his windshield as he was trying to pull over.
But "only a few hours after being shot, he was forced out of the hospital," said Castro, "and sent over to what is known as STIPC, in Pearsall, Texas, along I-35, the South Texas ICE Processing Center."
Castro and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) spent Monday attempting to gain permission to visit with Perez and raising alarm over the fact that ICE's bullet had not been removed from his back before he was taken to STIPC, where he was reportedly forced to sleep on a floor.
"He reported that he's in incredible pain, that he'd not been given any medication," said Castro. "It's basically abuse that you would take somebody who has been shot and move them from a hospital to a prison, that kind of prison, within a matter of hours, and then also, it looks like, start the process to deport them immediately."
Update on the condition of Wilber Rafael Garcés Pérez at the South Texas Ice Processing Center. He’s being taken to the hospital. He is in tremendous pain and tells us that the bullet is still inside his left side. He can’t move the left side of his body. pic.twitter.com/SWquC2AOrj
— Joaquin Castro (@JoaquinCastrotx) September 21, 2026
Perez entered the country two years agoafter using the CBP One application to set up an appointment with immigration agents. The app was introduced by the Biden administration, but President Donald Trump abruptly terminated it immediately after he took office last year. Perez was permitted to enter the country, applied for asylum, and received a work permit.
As Common Dreams reported Monday, Perez's lawyer, Kate Goldfinch-Lincoln, and his wife were unable to make contact with him when he was first taken from the hospital on Sunday.
After Perez briefly called in from the detention center to a press conference held by Goldfinch-Lincoln on Monday, she said she received a call from another detainee who told her "that officers came in and handled Wilber roughly."
"According to this detainee, Wilber then lost feeling on the left side of his body, including his arm and leg," she said. "Wilber has a bullet lodged near his spine. I was told that he was handcuffed, shackled at the feet, placed in a waist chain, and taken to a hospital. I am waiting to find out how he is doing and what his current condition is. We need answers. We need to know that Wilber is safe and receiving appropriate medical care. So far, he has not."
In response to the update on Perez's condition, Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico said: "This isn't law enforcement. It's lawlessness."
Casar called Perez's transfer back to the hospital "a positive first step," and credited immigrant rights advocates and community members for "speaking up."
"Now, we have to make sure he fully recovers, is reunited with his family, and gets to tell law enforcement the full story of how he was shot in the back by ICE," said Casar.
Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) were among the lawmakers calling for a full investigation into the shooting and ICE's treatment of Perez.
"This is absolutely horrific," said Frost. "ICE must be stopped. Their regime of cruelty will continue until they are held accountable."
"By setting aside those unconstitutional policies, the court has restored the rule of law."
A federal judge on Monday handed down a decision in a case brought by US citizen Leo Garcia Venegas, who was detained three times in the Trump administration's immigration raids at construction sites—but the court's order, said advocates, will protect workers across the country from federal agents' warrantless, violent raids.
Chief US District Judge Jeffrey U. Beaverstock in the US District Court for the Southern District of Alabama temporarily blocked Department of Homeland Security officers from conducting raids at construction sites. He issued stays on three DHS policies while Venegas' case proceeds and said agents had likely violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The three practices Beaverstock blocked include DHS' warrantless entry policy; its preemptive detention policy, which allows agents to detain a person simply based on suspicion, even without evidence, that they are an undocumented immigrant; and its continued detention policy, which permits officers to hold a person even after they show evidence of citizenship or lawful presence in the US.
Those policies have resulted in three arrests of Venegas since the spring of 2025, including one instance in which masked officers followed him home from the construction site where he worked, ripped him from his car, tackled him to the ground, and handcuffed and shackled him—all while he was trying to show them his REAL ID to prove his citizenship.
“They can suddenly show up and detain you without having done anything,” Venegas testified in May. “Now I don’t feel free to drive, to go to work, or go to the store.”
The Institute of Justice, which is representing Venegas, noted that the Trump administration has urged all Americans to get their REAL ID cards—which, in most states, have a symbol like a star on them to comply with new rules—and Venegas' state of Alabama issues the cards only to citizens or those who are lawfully present. Yet a DHS official testified in Venegas' case that REAL ID cards do not prove that someone is authorized to be in the US.
"Venegas was not promptly released following the production of his REAL ID to officers. Instead, the officers disregarded the veracity of his documentation and continued to detain him," reads the court order. "A policy that permits such action is likely to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment."
In the ruling, Beaverstock also noted that DHS last year had claimed Venegas tried to interfere with officers when he was first detained in May 2025—something that video of the arrest did not support.
DHS also claimed that the agency treats construction sites as "open fields" where agents do not need a warrant or even a reason to search the premises and make arrests—but Venegas works in closed construction sites that are posted with "No Trespassing" signs, and was working inside a house that was in the finishing stages of being built when he was arrested for a second time last June.
"Agents walked inside a house where Leo was working, surrounded him, and ordered him to follow them," said the Institute for Justice last year when Venegas sued the Trump administration. "Again, Leo produced his REAL ID. Again, the agents refused to accept it. They marched him out of the development and detained him alongside other workers they had grabbed—only releasing him (and other lawful residents) 20 minutes later after confirming his citizenship."
Beaverstock wrote that "the government has not convinced this court that the warrantless entry into a structure—which undisputedly occurred during the June encounter—does not implicate the Fourth Amendment."
Jared McClain, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, called the judge's decision "a huge blow to DHS’ lawless enforcement practices."
“The government stood up in court and argued that they don’t need warrants to enter private construction sites and round up all the workers, and that they can’t trust government-issued IDs," said McClain. "By setting aside those unconstitutional policies, the court has restored the rule of law. Construction workers like Leo can finally go to work in peace again.”
"Hiding prisoners from the courts is unconstitutional," said one expert.
Critics reacted with horror to a Monday report from The Associated Press detailing how US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has abruptly ended its practice of disclosing the locations of thousands of detainees.
According to the AP, ICE "has stopped publicly revealing where it is holding... detainees who are subject to final deportation orders, an unannounced move that has made it far more difficult for lawyers and relatives to find them."
Immigration attorneys who spoke with the AP said that their clients had "vanished" from the system after ICE removed them from its online detainee locator system last week.
Greg Chen, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told the AP that families of detainees "are freaking out because they think the person has been deported and they don’t know where the person might be."
Chen added that the new policy has "serious implications" for attorneys' ability to make contact with their clients.
Michelle Mendez, legal director at the National Immigration Project, told the AP that the new policy is "just another iteration of disappearing people."
"Why would we do that in the United States of America?" Mendez asked. "It's something we’d hear about in another country and be concerned about individual rights and due process."
Tom Jawetz, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, echoed Mendez's analysis, writing in a social media post that the AP report reveals "an official government policy of disappearing people," as "systems for attorneys and loved ones to know where—even whether—a person with a final removal order is in ICE custody have been wiped clean."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, described the new ICE policy as "unprecedented" for US immigration enforcement.
"People who have been detained for months are suddenly disappearing from the locator system—even if they haven't been moved anywhere," Reichlin-Melnick explained. "And people newly arrested are not showing up at all, their location now hidden from view."
Georgetown University political scientist Jonathan Ladd argued that the ICE policy was a fundamental violation of long-established rights in the US that date to before the country's official founding.
"The government moving or hiding jailed people to avoid review by courts isn't some loophole in our habeas corpus rights," Ladd explained. "This government behavior has been considered a violation of the people's habeas corpus rights since at least the Habeas Corpus Act of 1679."
Ladd further pointed out that "habeas corpus rights are guaranteed by Article I of our Constitution," which means "hiding prisoners from the courts is unconstitutional."
Journalist Gillian Brockell observed that the new ICE policy "will make it nearly impossible to file habeas petitions, because attorneys won’t even know what federal district their client has been moved to to stage for their removal."
Among those sharing the AP report on social media was Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, an attorney for Wilbur Rafael Garces Perez, a 28-year-old Venezuelan shot by ICE in Austin, Texas on Sunday.
Initially, she and the immigrant's wife could not make contact with him, because ICE moved him from the hospital "to an undisclosed location," but Lincoln-Goldfinch said Monday afternoon that her client "is being held at Pearsall for interrogation."
"We got Wilber on the phone live from detention at the press conference," the attorney added. "He says he still has the bullet lodged in his shoulder. He says he is not doing well and has not received the medical care he needs."