Every year, people, including families with small children, come to the U.S. seeking safety from violence and persecution. The U.S. is bound by both international and domestic laws — born out of the tragedies of World War II — to allow those with a “well-founded fear of persecution” on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group to apply for asylum. Yet over the last several decades, multiple administrations, guided by political rather than humanitarian considerations, have turned their backs on people fleeing persecution. As a result, countless refugees have been forced to remain outside the U.S. or returned to their countries of origin only to be abducted, tortured, and even killed.

The ACLU has been at the forefront of the fight to defend asylum every step of the way — and we will never back down. Here’s a look at how we’ve shown up to protect this critical right over the years.

In the aftermath of the Holocaust, dozens of nations commit to never again slam the door on people in need of protection, enshrining the right to seek asylum in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then again in the Refugee Convention of 1951 and its 1967 Protocol, which the U.S. ratifies.

Congress passes the Refugee Act of 1980, bringing the U.S. into conformity with the Refugee Convention of 1951, and ensuring people who are fleeing persecution on “account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” are not sent back to places where they risk persecution.

American Civil Liberties Union

Immigrants' Rights | American Civil Liberties Union

The fundamental constitutional protections of due process and equal protection apply to every person, regardless of immigration status.

The ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project is founded under the leadership of Lucas Guttentag with a mission to protect the rights of immigrants.

The ACLU joins several religious and civil rights organizations in a class action lawsuit challenging the Reagan administration’s discriminatory denial of 97 percent and 99 percent, respectively, of asylum applications from people from El Salvador and Guatemala, where civil wars involving U.S.-funded militaries were raging. Eventually, the government agreed to give new asylum hearings to 240,000 Salvadorans and Guatemalans.

The ACLU Joins the Center for Constitutional Rights and Yale Law Students in challenging the detention of Haitian asylum seekers living with HIV at a detention camp at Guantánamo, eventually winning their release and closure of the camp.

Credit: ACLU

The U.S. implements an “expedited removal” system that operates in virtually complete secrecy and short-circuits due process for people seeking asylum. Low-level Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) inspectors have authority to deny entry to people seeking refuge based on an on-the-spot determination. The ACLU — leading a coalition of civil rights organizations, refugee groups, and pro bono law firms — organizes a legal challenge to the expedited removal system.

Credit: Ilana Panich-Linsman

Expedited removals are expanded and news stories emerge of asylum seekers with well-founded fears of persecution being returned to danger. The ACLU supports bipartisan legislation intended to stop improper removals. Though the legislation never passed, the ACLU continues to document the harms of expedited removals.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals orders the immediate release of a Sri Lankan asylum seeker, Ahilan Nadarajah, who had been detained for five years, as a result of a lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Southern California.

The Ninth Circuit upholds an injunction ordering the government to provide bond hearings to asylum seekers detained for six months or more, after the ACLU files a class action lawsuit, Rodriguez v. Hayes, challenging prolonged detention of asylum seekers without a bond hearing.

Credit: Julia Robinson

The ACLU files two lawsuits challenging the Obama administration’s policy of locking up asylum-seeking mothers and children in Texas and New Mexico in order to intimidate and deter others from coming to the United States.

American Civil Liberties Union

Ms. L v. ICE | American Civil Liberties Union

The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit seeking to reunite an asylum-seeking mother and daughter fleeing violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The ACLU files a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s family separation policy. The lawsuit, expanded to a class-action in March, was filed on behalf of an asylum-seeking Congolese mother who was separated from her 7-year-old daughter, one of thousands who suffered needless cruelty under a policy intentionally designed to separate children from their parents.

The ACLU and partners file a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s arbitrary detention of asylum seekers fleeing persecution, torture, or death in their countries of origin. Shortly after, a federal court blocks the arbitrary detention of asylum seekers and orders a case-by-case review of whether each asylum seeker in the class-action lawsuit should be released on humanitarian parole.

A federal judge orders the reunification of thousands of separated parents and children after the ACLU pursued a preliminary injunction to halt the Trump administration’s inhumane practice of separating asylum-seeking families.

Credit: AP Photo/Scott Sonner

The ACLU and other groups file a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s rollback of protections for those seeking asylum from domestic violence and gang brutality.

A federal judge blocks a Trump asylum ban that illegally denied people who entered between ports of entry the opportunity to seek asylum, in response to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Credit: Guillermo Arias

The ACLU and other groups file a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s implementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols, more commonly known as “Remain in Mexico,” a policy that forces asylum seekers to remain at risk in Mexico while their cases are considered in the U.S.

The ACLU and other groups file a lawsuit against and help to successfully block the Trump administration’s “transit ban” that bars migrants who passed through other countries en route to the U.S. and did not request asylum there first.

The ACLU of Texas and ACLU Border Rights Center file a complaint with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security demanding that they investigate and put an end to “metering,” under which Customs and Border Protection officers turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry by arbitrarily limiting the number of asylum cases they will consider each day.

Credit: Carlos Moreno/Sipa USA via AP Images

The ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, and legal partners file a lawsuit seeking an immediate halt to the Title 42 expulsion policy, which illegally restricts immigration at the border based on an unprecedented and unlawful invocation of the Public Health Service Act.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Texas file a lawsuit against Texas Gov. Greg Abbott over an executive order that bars the transportation of certain migrants in the state, including asylum seekers trying to make their way from the border to networks of care elsewhere in the U.S.

American Civil Liberties Union

Huisha-Huisha v. Mayorkas | American Civil Liberties Union

The American Civil Liberties Union and partners are challenging the Title 42 expulsions.

Following a lawsuit from the ACLU and other groups, a federal appeals court orders the government to stop expelling families under Title 42. The Supreme Court later allows the expulsions to go on while litigation proceeds. The ACLU continues to fight against Title 42 in the courts and to push back against Congressional efforts to codify it.

The CDC terminates its Title 42 order, finding that the expulsion policy no longer serves a public health necessity. The decision follows weeks of pressure by the ACLU and other groups calling on the CDC to exercise its independent judgment free of political interference. A coalition of Republican led states challenges the CDC’s decision and succeeds in keeping the order in effect longer.

Credit: Blueline Media

Reports emerge that the Biden administration is considering replacing Title 42 with a new asylum ban, taken straight from Trump’s playbook, that would bar asylum for vulnerable migrants fleeing danger who did not apply for asylum in another country before reaching the U.S. The ACLU swiftly condemns the measure and promises to sue if the administration moves forward with the ban.

The Biden administration formally introduces the new asylum ban for public comment. The ACLU issues a condemnation of the illegal policy, saying it will cause “immense, avoidable suffering,” and encourages the administration to reverse course.

Credit: Photo by Bryan Olin Dozier/NurPhoto via AP

The ACLU and partners rally in D.C. to denounce the asylum ban, as well as reports that the Biden administration is considering bringing back the practice of family detention.

Through litigation, public advocacy, and mobilization, we continue to fight for the right of people fleeing persecution to seek asylum in the U.S., showing up with our affiliates, allies, members, and supporters in the courts, the streets, and in the halls of power to protect this crucial right.

In 2019, police in Castle Hills, Texas arrested Sylvia Gonzalez, a 72-year-old first-time city council member, because they didn’t like that she was advocating for the removal of the city manager, a police ally. Since police can’t constitutionally arrest someone simply because they find what they’re saying offensive, Castle Hills officers used a section of the Texas Penal Code related to the handling of government documents to arrest Gonzalez. Her purported crime was accidentally placing a citizen petition she had introduced at her first city council meeting into her personal binder.

Gonzalez sued, alleging that the police violated the First Amendment by arresting her in retaliation for her speech about the city manager. To establish that the arrest was retaliatory, she argued that the law used to arrest her had never been used to go after similar conduct. The Fifth Circuit dismissed her case, holding that to prove retaliation, she would have had to prove that other people who did exactly what she did (accidentally put a petition in their personal binder) but expressed different views (support for the city manager) were not also arrested. The court did not explain how she could possibly have offered such evidence.

Gonzalez has asked the Supreme Court to take her case. This month, the ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of her petition, urging the court to overturn the Fifth Circuit’s rigid rule to ensure that the police can’t use broad, vague, or new laws in novel ways to arrest critics of police and government.

As our brief explains, the Fifth Circuit’s decision denies crucial First Amendment protections that the Supreme Court sought to preserve in the 2019 case Nieves v. Bartlett. While the existence of probable cause to arrest generally defeats retaliatory arrest claims, the Supreme Court recognized in Nieves an important exception for circumstances in which “officers have probable cause to make arrests, but typically exercise their discretion not to do so.” The court pointed to the example of jaywalking, an act that’s illegal in many places but happens all the time, and typically goes unpunished. The court held that a vocal critic of the police should be able to bring a retaliatory arrest claim if they were arrested for jaywalking where jaywalking is commonplace but rarely results in arrest.

The court recognized what is now known as the Nieves exception because it was concerned that the wide expanse of criminal laws across the country gives police discretion to arrest in a broad range of circumstances, and that discretion could be exploited to punish disfavored speech. It’s what happened in Gonzalez’s case. While the Texas tampering law gives discretion to police to arrest people for attempting to steal (or for misplacing) a government record, it has not, in fact, been used that way — except to arrest Gonzalez. But the Fifth Circuit held that the Nieves exception was not available to Gonzalez because she did not show that other similarly situated individuals had mishandled government documents and were not arrested.

If left in place, the Fifth Circuit’s rigid reading of the Nieves exception would have dangerous consequences for critics of police and the government. People bringing retaliatory arrest claims will rarely be able to get the type of evidence required by the Fifth Circuit, because they typically don’t have access to evidence of others engaged in conduct identical to theirs. How would Gonzalez have evidence that other people put petitions in their binders and didn’t get arrested for it? How would someone arrested for a minor traffic infraction show that other drivers who committed the same infraction but didn’t “talk back” to the officer didn’t get arrested? How would someone arrested under a noise ordinance have evidence that others who played less offensive music at the same volume under the same circumstances didn’t get arrested for it?

Police arresting people because they don’t like their speech isn’t just a hypothetical. Take the case of Michael Picard, who was arrested in 2015 when protesting legally near a DUI checkpoint with a sign reading “Cops Ahead: Keep Calm and Remain Silent.” Officers brainstormed how they might charge Picard and one suggested, “We can hit him with reckless use of the highway by a pedestrian and creating a public disturbance.” Or the case of George Alston, who was pulled over for driving with tinted windows, but ultimately arrested because an officer disliked the way he criticized the traffic stop to his wife over the phone. In another instance, an officer said to a motorist, “[i]f you run your mouth, I will book you in jail for it.”

As these examples demonstrate, it’s easy for police to abuse their discretion and exercise their arrest power against those with whom they disagree. It is crucial that the Nieves exception apply where police use broadly-worded laws in novel ways to arrest critics like Gonzalez. We all have a right to free speech, and arresting anyone for exercising their rights is unconstitutional. We hope SCOTUS will take up this case to ensure that it doesn’t become impossible to allege a retaliatory arrest claim.

Every person deserves equal, effective treatment and safety, especially when in crisis. In such a vulnerable circumstance, people need professionals trained to provide support and care.

But too often, when a person is experiencing a mental health crisis, 911 dispatchers send armed police officers as a default response. We don’t send armed police when someone is experiencing a heart attack, but we do when a person is experiencing suicidal ideation. That doesn’t make sense.

Professor Jessica Gillooly, a former call-taker and expert on 911 dispatch, explains the problem to us this way: “Too often, 911 call-takers send police to calls because of a lack of timely, robust alternatives. The goal should be creating a 911 system that provides call-takers the tools and training to send the right response at the right time.”

The good news is that many jurisdictions have begun to consider incorporating trained civilian crisis responders into their emergency response systems. This approach offers significant improvements for public safety: Routing calls away from the police can reduce police use of force, escalation of situations that could have been stabilized by trained mental health providers, violence against people with disabilities, and unnecessary arrests that entangle people in the criminal justice system.

But that is only half of it.

911 dispatchers make crucial, frontline decisions every day about how to respond to emergencies. They are important partners in ensuring that all community members receive safety and equal treatment. Successful diversion programs require that 911 call-takers are empowered, through adequate technology and training, to make appropriate decisions about when to send crisis response teams instead of the police.

Crisis response teams should have adequate staffing and resources so that they are able to respond in a timely manner to all behavioral health crisis calls. This prevents situations in which 911 call-takers default to police officers because crisis response teams are unavailable.

Trained behavioral health professionals should also staff 911 dispatch centers to stabilize callers while they wait for a team to arrive. One option is for clinicians to be staffed at the dispatch center. Another is to integrate emergency response systems with the new 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.

The American Rescue Plan provides states funding for crisis call centers, crisis response teams, and crisis stabilization centers.

The training for 911 operators must recognize the costs and safety concerns of unnecessarily sending police officers to situations that they are not trained to handle, including risks of escalation, use of force, infringement on the civil liberties of community members, and resulting entanglement in the criminal justice system.

The training for 911 operators should include examples of questions probing the level of risk posed by the situation the caller describes. For example, if the caller reports an attempted break-in at a residence, as occurred in the arrest of Henry Louis Gates Jr., 911 call-takers should be empowered to ask the caller the basis for assuming that the subject of the call does not live there. The dispatch software should include a way to capture callers’ uncertainty about the level of risk.

For medical emergencies, call-takers often have checklists and question scripts to help standardize patient risk assessments. A similar list of factors to consider would help 911 call-takers decide which first responder to dispatch. Some jurisdictions are already piloting this approach.

911 systems must create clear criteria for which situations qualify for behavioral health responses, so that the response doesn’t vary depending on which call-taker answers the phone. Two common examples of incident types that are likely to be appropriate for a crisis response team instead of police officers include a subset of calls about an “emotionally disturbed person” or a “welfare check.”

The 911 system should develop protocols to respond to a caller who specifically asks for a behavioral health response or guide the caller to consider whether their emergency warrants such a response. For example, 911 call-takers in Austin answer calls with the question: “Are you calling for police, fire, EMS, or mental health services?”

Finally, feedback and data collection (while respecting privacy) are important to evaluate performance and areas to improve.

The 911 system is a crucial component of an effective behavioral health crisis response system, which requires someone to call, someone to respond, and somewhere to go. A person experiencing a mental health crisis should be able to call for help with de-escalation, receive on-site assistance from trained mental health professionals, and go to a 24-hour crisis stabilization facility — just as those experiencing physical health crises can. Reforming the 911 system is the first step for a functioning crisis response system. We need to send the right response at the right time.