Immigrants' Rights

Be prepared if you have an interaction with police or federal immigration agents.

Today’s ruling from the Third Circuit is the eighth from a federal appeals court to find the policy unlawful

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Handley Farah & Anderson PLLC, Langer Grogan & Diver, P.C., and the Robert & Ethel Kennedy Human Rights Center filed a federal class action lawsuit against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Philadelphia Field Office and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) challenging the field office’s abandonment of its longstanding Changed Circumstances Policy as a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). For decades, the federal government has allowed immigrants who do not pose a danger to the community or a flight risk to remain out of custody during ongoing removal proceedings if they comply with their conditions of release. Consistent with the federal statutory and regulatory scheme, legal precedent, DHS policy, and the U.S. Constitution, the Philadelphia ICE Field Office adopted and followed the Changed Circumstances Policy. The policy required officers to justify re-arrest and re-detention by first making an individualized determination of a material change in circumstances, such as an indication of new danger or flight risk. In 2025, without any reasonable explanation, they suddenly abandoned this policy. This shift has since induced distress and anxiety throughout the community, as ICE officers re-detain individuals at routine check-ins, who are still in full compliance with all conditions of their release and have no material change in their circumstances. The lawsuit is being brought in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of three immigrant community members who — individually and as part of a class and subclass of people in similar circumstances — face the threat of re-detention without legal basis. In addition to the ICE field office rescinding its policy unlawfully under the APA, the ACLU-PA and co-counsel contend that re-detaining people in this manner is contrary to guarantees of due process and protections against unreasonable seizures found in the Constitution. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the members of the proposed classes, are requesting that the court declare that the rescission of the Changed Circumstances Policy is unlawful and provide relief that protects the rights of class members.

Mr. Parady La, a 46-year-old Cambodian American father and longtime Philadelphia-area resident, died on January 9, 2026, days after being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at FDC Philadelphia. ICE has stated that La was undergoing treatment for drug withdrawal when he was found unresponsive in his cell. His family says significant questions remain unanswered regarding his medical care, treatment, and the circumstances leading to his death. On February 5, 2026, the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on behalf of Mr. La's family, seeking the production of records from ICE and the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) related to the detention and death of Mr. La while he was in ICE custody. As part of the request, the ACLU-PA asks for the release of "any and all" records, including: Mr. La's detention file, medical care records, autopsy report, video footage and photos, calls, emails, witness statements, and relevant policies and procedures to help uncover the truth about Mr. La’s treatment in ICE custody.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania joined lawyers from the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) to file a habeas corpus petition on behalf of Dylan Lopez Contreras, a New York City high school student and asylum seeker who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and held at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Clearfield County, Pennsylvania. Mr. Lopez Contreras, who is from Venezuela, entered the United States legally in 2024 after receiving humanitarian parole. Despite having no criminal record and a pending application for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status, which would have put him on a pathway to a green card, Mr. Lopez Contreras was detained at a courthouse by ICE during a routine immigration hearing on May 21, 2025, after ICE moved to dismiss his asylum case. Mr. Lopez Contreras does not speak English and had no attorney at this hearing. As a result, he did not understand that dismissing his case would allow ICE to place him into expedited removal, a summary deportation process with little judicial review or oversight. Mr. Lopez Contreras also suffers from a severe medical condition that doctors were attempting to diagnose before ICE detained him; in detention, he had no access to the specialized care he needs. The ACLU-PA habeas petition challenged Mr. Lopez Contreras' unlawful detention and sought to prevent him from being moved by ICE to another jurisdiction and to ensure he was given full due process as guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. On March 18, 2026, Dylan was released from ICE detention in Pennsylvania after being held for 10 months in captivity.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania and the Community Justice Project have filed a lawsuit on behalf of Make The Road Pennsylvania, NAACP Bucks County, the BuxMont Unitarian Universalists, and an impacted Bucks County resident in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County challenging a so-called 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that the Bucks County Sheriff entered into without authorization of the county’s governing body, the Bucks County Commissioners. ICE uses such agreements to deputize local law enforcement to act as immigration agents. The lawsuit argues that Sheriff Fred Harran illegally entered into the 287(g) because he failed to consult with and get approval from Bucks County Commissioners, the majority of whom oppose the agreement. By entering into this agreement over the County Board of Commissioners’ objection, the Sheriff violated both the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Cooperation Act. The lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction that would prevent the agreement from taking effect.