Racial Justice

Pretext stops can unjustly funnel people into the criminal justice and immigration enforcement pipeline.

In one of the most consequential terms in recent history, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down decisions that will reshape the law for years to come.

The Supreme Court greenlit the Trump administration’s destruction of a critical humanitarian immigration program. We’re fighting back.

The struggle between exclusion and equal protection defines American history — and this moment.

Mullin v. Dahlia Doe challenged the Trump administration’s decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for thousands of Syrian immigrants living and working legally in the United States while it is unsafe for them to return to their home country. The case was consolidated with Trump v. Miot, a case concerning Haitian TPS holders. The Supreme Court expedited the case for judicial review, granting certiorari before judgment based on a preliminary ruling from the district court. In its Supreme Court’s June 25, 2026 6-3 ruling, the Court allowed the TPS terminations of Syria and Haiti to proceed, resulting in the loss of legal status and the right to work for over 350,000 people. The Supreme Court held that there was no judicial review for the plaintiffs’ statutory claims; and that the constitutional equal protection claim was unlikely to succeed on the merits. TPS is a program established by Congress in 1990 to protect individuals who cannot safely return to their home country due to war, natural disaster, or other emergencies. TPS holders are mothers, fathers, workers, and contributing members of their communities. They rely on this humanitarian protection regime for safety. The Supreme Court’s ruling impacts not only Syrian and Haitian TPS holders but all 1.3 million individuals from 17 countries designated for TPS. At the time the Supreme Court heard this case on April 29, 2026, the Trump administration had terminated TPS for 13 countries—despite ongoing wars and undisputed humanitarian crises. Alongside our co-counsel the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), Muslim Advocates, Van Der Hout LLP, and the National ACLU, the ACLU of Northern California represents seven Syrian nationals with TPS or pending applications in Mullin v. Dahlia Doe, a class action lawsuit originally filed in October 2025. Cancelling TPS designation for Syria subjects nearly 6,100 Syrian TPS holders, along with 800 Syrians with pending applications, to immigrant detention and possible deportation to an unsafe country. The Miot case, consolidated with Doe, affects 350,000 Haitian TPS holders. The plaintiffs argued that the DHS Secretary does not have the legal authority to unilaterally override the TPS statute enacted by Congress, and that it is the role of the judiciary to review the government’s legally dubious actions. The Supreme Court adopted the government’s extreme position that even lawless decisions that violated clear statutory mandates were not reviewable.

A habeas petition based on claims brought under the Racial Justice Act, in which our client is challenging his conviction and death sentence. We subsequently filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging four unfounded disciplinary infractions.

Original writ petition challenging California’s death-penalty system under the state constitution’s equal protection provisions.

The ACLU Foundations of Southern and Northern California and co-counsel Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP and Martínez Aguilasocho Law, Inc. filed a lawsuit today against Kern County and Kern County Superior Court for systematically denying poor misdemeanor defendants their constitutional rights to counsel and due process. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of UFW Foundation and three Kern County residents.