Behind closed doors, the White House and Congress continue to negotiate major changes to border and immigration law as part of a larger deal on foreign military assistance. One of the rumored proposals is to expand a program called Family Expedited Removal management, or FERM.

Already, we’ve seen families in this program suffering harm and denied due process. But with the potential for a second Trump administration, the risks of this program are even more severe — including widespread surveillance.

Operated by Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), FERM rushes families seeking asylum through a fast-track deportation process within days of their arrival, preventing them from accessing crucial legal support and jeopardizing their ability to effectively present their asylum claims. Fewer than 3 percent of families are able to obtain a lawyer to help them prepare for their cases. Additionally, newly arrived parents have had to recount horrific details of their trauma and persecution, often in front of their children. ICE has significantly expanded the program since creating it in May, outsourcing work to a subsidiary of Geo Group, a private prison company with a track-record of human rights abuses. Currently, the program applies to around 500 families.

FERM subjects people to intense and continuous GPS surveillance with no justification other than their status as recently arrived migrants. Heads of household are required to wear ankle monitors and adhere to a home curfew from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. These extreme physical surveillance measures not only punish families seeking asylum, but also treat them as public safety threats, without any individualized assessment. For people who have recently endured trauma on their harrowing journey to safety, these measures are particularly demeaning and frightening.

People forced to wear ankle monitors report experiencing physical pain, such as cramps and impaired circulation. They describe thoughts of suicide and social isolation, with one person likening it to a “modern day scarlet letter.” The fear of malfunctions or battery failure of a monitor can increase anxiety not only for the person wearing the monitor but also for their entire family. The combination of a home curfew and GPS monitor turns routine family activities — like a midnight run for baby formula or a visit to Urgent care with a child — into frightening risks of separation and deportation.

Tell Congress: Protect families seeking asylum

Sacrificing families and children seeking protection for short-term political points is unacceptable.

This is all unnecessary. Studies show that notifying individuals of upcoming court appearances through various means, including phone calls, recorded messages, mail, text messages, and emails is highly effective at ensuring people appear in legal proceedings. Moreover, providing access to legal counsel is far more effective; immigrant families with legal representation attend their immigration hearings 99 percent of the time, according to one study.

Bigger picture, Congress needs to consider how FERM normalizes 24-hour suspicionless surveillance. We should all be concerned when the government seeks authority to keep thousands, and potentially millions of people under constant watch without any pretext of criminal investigation. The people currently under the scrutiny of FERM are seeking sanctuary in our nation, often fleeing dictatorships and political persecution, making this surveillance even more perverse.

As Congress considers codifying and expanding this program, it should weigh the full ramifications. FERM’s electronic monitoring may seem benign, especially in comparison to keeping tens of thousands of people locked up in immigration detention for months or years. But imagine what a second Trump administration would do if Congress hands it authority and capacity to identify and locate immigrants around the clock, as some extremist state politicians are already threatening to do.

In a second Trump presidency, ICE could expand FERM to the over 3 million immigrants with pending cases or deferred removal. It could require them to wear GPS monitors or modify the current SmartLink app for continuous monitoring. They could also use this 24-hour location access to identify, track, and pursue its agenda for mass deportations, even using historical location data to track relationships between immigrants and their family members. If that happened, FERM would drive people further into the shadows instead of fulfilling its purported purpose of facilitating immigrants’ appearance in court and appointments.

FERM under a second Trump administration could also stifle dissent. The previous administration weaponized ICE and Customs and Border Protection to surveil activists and intimidate and attack protestors. We fear that similar, if not worse, actions may occur in a second Trump term. People under 24-hour GPS monitoring by ICE might be afraid to participate in protests and organizing — and this would affect not just them, but also people who live in a mixed-status household. Currently, one in every 15 U.S. residents live in a mixed-status household — that is, with at least one undocumented person.

We need Congress to pass immigration reform that modernizes our system to meet the challenges of the border. It should ensure families are not left in years of processing limbo, and that American businesses are able to access this labor source. That includes better court processing, ending administrative and legal backlogs, and providing a pathway to legal status for millions of our immigrant neighbors, loved ones, and co-workers.

But these solutions are not even part of the current negotiations. The ACLU is urging all members of Congress to reject any immigration and border deal that grants the anti-immigrant, extremist wish list of former President Trump in exchange for unrelated foreign aid.

For people across the country, reliable internet access allows them to engage with the world. Think about your day – how many times did you go online, and what were you able to accomplish? This April, however, 23 million households are likely to lose access to affordable internet unless Congress acts now to fund the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), a federal broadband subsidy for low-income households.

Tell Congress: Pass the Affordable Connectivity Program Extension Act!

At least 1 in 5 American households don’t have home internet service, often because they cannot afford to. The deepest rift in this digital...

Access to broadband is one of the most important equity issues of our time. That’s why it’s such a big problem when access to broadband isn’t universal – and it isn’t. Historically marginalized communities, including Black, Latine, Indigenous, rural and low-income consumers are all far less likely to have access to the internet. One of the top reasons for this disparity is subscription cost. U.S. broadband prices are amongst the most expensive in the world – with the average U.S. household paying $84.37 a month, compared to $46.83 in Europe and $64.29 in Asia. For many households, the high price of an internet subscription may mean that, when times get tough, they have to choose: broadband or food.

The ACP is a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) program designed to help low-income households pay for their internet service by offering a $30 monthly subsidy, or a $75 monthly subsidy for those residing on tribal lands. Eligible households include those who receive many other federal subsidies, including Medicaid, food stamps, Pell grants, or who fall below 200 percent of the federal poverty line. Additionally, because many broadband providers agreed to offer ACP-eligible households a plan for $30 or less – broadband subscriptions are essentially free for some enrollees.

Congress created the ACP in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and appropriated $14.2 billion dollars to keep the program funded for five years. However, due to incredibly high demand, that initial appropriation didn’t last nearly as long as intended. In April 2024, the FCC anticipates that the program’s funding will be exhausted. If Congress does not step in to fund the program, millions will be disconnected. This will have a devastating impact on individuals’ ability to access the resources they need to thrive.

Luckily, a bipartisan and bicameral group of legislators are trying to save the ACP. In January, Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), alongside Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), introduced the ACP Extension Act. That legislation would allot $7 billion to keep the ACP funded through the end of 2024.

If you care about equity, you should care about access to broadband. The average person spends nearly seven hours a day online, and those who cannot are at an extreme disadvantage. For school-aged children or adult learners, the inability to get online at home makes it harder to complete assignments or attend online classes, ultimately jeopardizing higher education and career prospects.

The lack of broadband can even have negative health impacts. For example, many rural communities lack specialists and resources needed to handle complex medical issues. It can also be particularly challenging for rural Americans, especially low-income rural Americans without reliable transportation, to regularly drive to their nearest city for medical care. Telehealth enables these communities – or any community with a dearth of health resources – to access the care they need and deserve.

Broadband also helps individuals access information that supports free expression, reproductive health, and the right to vote. The internet has become the place to exercise our First Amendment rights. Without affordable internet access, however, not only would individuals not be able to speak out, but they’d lose the ability to find information.

In the LGBTQ community, internet access helps individuals find resources and build community with others like them – even when those support systems may not exist in their hometowns. In our post-Roe v. Wade world, broadband access helps individuals access accurate and reliable information so they can make the best decision for their health and future, including unbiased sex education, the best forms of birth control for their body, and information on where to access abortion care if they want to end a pregnancy. Broadband access also allows voters to find their polling location, and to learn more about candidates’ platforms and policies.

Ultimately, the ACP is how our nation can ensure that cost isn’t a barrier to accessing the internet. If you benefit from the program yourself, or simply want everyone to have the same opportunity to engage in online life, contact Congress, and tell them this cannot wait. The ACP must be funded now – or we risk disenfranchising the millions of Americans who rely on this vital service.

Like everyone else, college students have a First Amendment right to express their political opinions and advocate for the causes they believe in. Universities have long served as hotbeds for students to exercise these rights, providing opportunities for them to encounter diverse perspectives and broaden their understanding of themselves and the world.

Recent actions by Florida officials violate the First Amendment and pose a threat to these freedoms. In October 2023, Florida State University System Chancellor Ray Rodrigues, together with Gov. Ron DeSantis, ordered public universities in Florida to deactivate their Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters. There are more than 200 SJP chapters in the country, and Florida has two. In the order, Chancellor Rodrigues makes unsubstantiated claims that Florida’s SJP chapters have violated the state’s material support for terrorism law. This dangerous and stigmatizing allegation is solely based on constitutionally protected statements published by the National Students for Justice in Palestine, a separate organization with no formal relationship to the Florida SJP chapters.

In response to Florida officials’ attempt to punish these students for something the national group said, the ACLU, the ACLU of Florida, and Palestine Legal filed a lawsuit on behalf of the University of Florida (UF) chapter of SJP. The UF SJP is an independent student-advocacy organization dedicated to organizing and educating its community on the struggle for Palestinian freedom. As its mission statement says, it is “directed at incorporating a diverse membership of people from all faiths and nationalities who believe in the attainability of peace.”

Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues

As the lawsuit makes clear, the chancellor’s deactivation order constitutes a clear violation of students’ First Amendment right to free speech and association. UF SJP’s case aims to stop these unconstitutional bans, and to protect students’ right to speak out on matters of urgent concern.

Here’s what you need to know about the case, including how it could impact the future of free speech on campuses throughout the country.

Our client UF SJP was not involved in drafting or circulating the National SJP toolkit, and it didn’t use the language suggested in the document. It opted instead to issue its own statement that “the killing of any life is always undignified and heartbreaking,” and stressed that “[v]iolence against all innocent life is unacceptable.” UF SJP concluded: “We hope that no more lives, Israeli or Palestinian, are lost. We pray for those who are suffering.” Later frustrated by what it saw as the University of Florida’s disregard for Palestinian civilian deaths in Gaza and failure to support Palestinian and Muslim students on campus, the group urged its university to “condemn all violence, antisemitism, Islamophobia, Palestinian erasure, and anti-Palestinian sentiment.”

Strikingly, the deactivation order does not assert, or even suggest, that UF SJP has violated any law or policy that might justify the chapter’s disbandment.

Essentially, Florida officials are attempting to censor and punish these students for the political advocacy of another group—and even though the other group’s speech is itself protected by the First Amendment.

Students and faculty at public colleges and universities have a First Amendment right to express themselves, which includes the freedom to voice dissent against government policies, and to advocate for the movements and causes they believe in. Florida’s deactivation order blatantly violates this right.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized students’ right to free speech, including in times of crisis. In a 1972 case, Healy v. James, for example, the Court affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of student groups to associate and to speak out on matters of public concern, free from censorship by public university officials. As the Court said , “nowhere is free speech more important than in our leading institutions of higher learning.” And the Court held that a public college could not deny recognition to a local chapter (like UF SJP) because of its relationship with a national group—or based on the views of either group.

With the death toll in Gaza exponentially increasing by the day, UF SJP sees the need for advocacy on Palestinian human rights as urgent and continuing — yet the threat of deactivation still looms, limiting the student group’s ability to organize itself and others in support of its advocacy mission.

Since the deactivation order was issued, UF SJP’s funding has been in limbo. The organization’s sole source of funding is from the university’s Student Government, which makes funding available only to registered student groups. Deactivation would mean losing this funding and the UF SJP would not be able to afford to invite speakers to campus, print promotional materials for events and recruitment, or even provide food at events.

On top of funding worries, the group is worried about recruitment, given its reliance on school-controlled communications services. Only registered student organizations can post information on GatorConnect, which is the University of Florida website that students access for information about student organizations and upcoming events.

Florida officials’ accusation that the student group is providing “material support for terrorism” leaves current and potential members fearful of the devastating consequences that this stigmatizing label could have on their lives and advocacy.

Florida officials’ deactivation directive poses a direct threat to students’ ability to make their voices heard and speak out on the rapidly deteriorating situation in Palestine.

In times of heightened political tension and global crisis, it is crucial for university leaders to safeguard free speech, open debate, and peaceful dissent on campus. Yet we’re seeing a surge in efforts across the country to punish and silence pro-Palestinian students and professors voicing opposition to Israeli and/or U.S. government policies.

These efforts include—

• In December 2023, Rutgers University suspended its chapters of the Students for Justice in Palestine, saying the university had received complaints claiming that the group was disrupting campus life and making students and staff feel unsafe. The Rutgers’ SJP denied these allegations. The chapter has since been reinstated, but remains on probation until December 2024.
• In Indiana, a tenured professor of political science and Middle Eastern studies was barred from teaching until next fall after incorrectly filling out a room request form for an event organized by the Palestine Solidarity Committee.
• The University of Michigan recently canceled student elections on resolutions related to Palestine and Israel, restricted or shut down student email listservs on which students were discussing the international crisis, removed posters expressing support for Palestinians from graduate students’ office windows, and responded with aggressive policing and punitive discipline to a campus protest and sit-in.

We hope that the court will see Florida officials’ deactivation order for what it is: A blatant and harmful effort to censor pro-Palestinian speech on campus, in violation of the Constitution. Florida officials’ ban against a student group exercising free speech is both dangerous and wrong. Actions like these could pave the way for further censorship and discrimination within our schools and across the nation. We therefore urge university leaders to remember that they are stewards of democracy and the Constitution and free speech principles require them to protect the rights of everyone, not just those with whom they agree.

For more than 100 years, the ACLU has fought for free speech and association while opposing government censorship in all forms. We believe that students have the right to speak out, and we will always defend that right.