Court Cases

In January 2025 a 14-year-old student of Palestinian descent at East Middle School in the Plymouth-Canton Community Schools district chose to express her personal distress and concern about tragic, violent events in Gaza by, on three separate occasions, remaining seated during the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Although she caused no disruption or disturbance of the classroom environment, her teacher admonished her in front of her classmates and scolded her, stating that the student was being disrespectful to U.S. military forces and the flag. On the third and final occasion that Plaintiff remained seated, the teacher told her she should be ashamed of herself. After class, when the student attempted to engage the teacher in a discussion about her motivation for remaining seated–specifically her concern about U.S. complicity in the violence, the teacher responded: “Since you live in this country and enjoy its freedom, if you don’t like it, you should go back to your country.” As a result of this treatment, the student was emotionally devastated. She experienced loss of sleep, recurring nightmares and high stress levels. She also experienced some degree of social isolation, and her academic performance was negatively impacted. The ACLU of Michigan sued the teacher and the school district on the student’s behalf for violation of her First Amendment rights. (D.K. v. Plymouth-Canton Community Schools; ACLU Attorneys Mark P. Fancher and Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio; Cooperating Attorney Nabih Ayad of the Arab American Civil Rights League.)

In March 2025 the federal government suddenly terminated the lawful status of thousands of international students who came to the United States on a visa to study at American universities. The government’s mass termination of status rendered these international students subject to immediate arrest and deportation, and caused headline-making chaos nationwide. Many international students voluntarily left the country due to uncertainty about their futures and their safety. The ACLU of Michigan and its co-counsel filed a lawsuit on behalf of four international students at the University of Michigan and Wayne State University, alleging that the unexplained termination of their status was unlawful because it did not satisfy the regulatory requirements for terminating their status. At an emergency hearing, the government’s lawyer assured the court that the students were not immediately at risk of arrest or deportation, causing the court to conclude that a restraining order was not necessary. Shortly after the hearing, however, the parties reached a settlement that fully restored the students’ status and negated any negative consequences that the temporary termination might have had. (Deore v. Noem; ACLU Attorneys Ramis Wadood, Phil Mayor, Syeda Davidson, Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio, Dan Korobkin; Cooperating Attorney Russell Abrutyn; Co-counsel Kevin Carlson of Pitt McGhee).

In July 2025, the federal government announced a sweeping new policy that rendered any noncitizen who allegedly entered the country without permission a target for immediate arrest and detention without the possibility of being released on bond—no matter how long they have been in the country. This policy upended decades of agency practice and interpretation of the immigration laws, which guarantee a bond hearing for those same individuals. Because of the policy, millions of detained immigrants are at risk of being torn from their loved ones and losing their opportunity to fight their immigration cases at home. The government has put them in jail and thrown away the key. In August 2025, the ACLU of Michigan filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of Juan Lopez Campos, a noncitizen with no criminal history who had been residing in the country for twenty-six years before he was picked up by immigration agents after a routine traffic stop. He was detained at the Monroe County Jail and denied a bond hearing to which he was entitled under the immigration laws. The petition proceeded speedily, and within three weeks, the federal court granted the petition and ordered that Mr. Lopez Campos be released or, at least, be given a bond hearing. The government released Mr. Lopez Campos from custody shortly after the petition was granted. He continues to fight his immigration case from home—surrounded by his family. In late September 2025, we filed another habeas petition, this time on behalf of eight noncitizens who were arrested and detained under the same policy. The lead plaintiff, Mr. Contreras-Cervantes is a father of three U.S. citizen children and has a rare, life-threatening form of leukemia which was not being adequately treated while in detention. His detention separated him from his medical team and jeopardized his health. In October 2025, the court again ordered either release or a speedy bond hearing, and Mr. Contreras-Cervantes and our other clients were released days later. In October the ACLU, along with our partners at the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, launched a habeas pro bono project so that the many other immigrants who being illegally locked up—just like Mr. Lopez Campos and Mr. Contreras-Cervantes—can get the legal help they need to file similar cases and go home to their families. (Lopez Campos v. Noem; ACLU Attorneys Ramis Wadood, Miriam Aukerman, Phil Mayor, Nara Gonczigsuren Orantes, and Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio; Cooperating Attorney Shahad Atiya; Contreras-Cervantes v. Raycraft; ACLU Attorneys Ramis Wadood, Miriam Aukerman, Phil Mayor, Nara Gonczigsuren Orantes, Marty Berger, and Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio). If you are a lawyer and want to help us fight for justice for immigrants, sign up to volunteer here.  

The right of access to the courts is a fundamental right under both the Michigan and United States Constitutions. Everyone, regardless of immigration status, must have meaningful access to courthouses to file civil suits, defend against criminal charges, and testify as witnesses in order to protect the integrity of Michigan’s judicial system. Reflecting the importance of access to the courts, Michigan has a law prohibiting civil arrests on or near courthouse property. And under prior Department of Homeland Security policy, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was prohibited from conducting immigration arrests near courthouses except under extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately, under the second Trump administration, this policy has been rescinded, causing disruption almost immediately as ICE began conducting activity around courthouses nationwide. At Plymouth’s 35th District Court, a US citizen was aggressively accosted by immigration agents in what appeared to have been a case of racial profiling. In response, in April 2025, the ACLU of Michigan, in partnership with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, drafted a proposed court rule reflecting Michigan’s statute prohibiting civil arrest and submitted it to the Michigan Supreme Court with a detailed letter requesting expedited implementation. After receiving no response, the ACLU drafted a second letter and invited coalition partners to sign on. The letter was submitted with 27 signatories supporting the request in September 2025. (ACLU Attorneys Syeda Davidson, Nara Gonczigsuren Orantes, Miriam Aukerman, and Executive Director Loren Khogali; Susan Reed, Executive Director of MIRC.)

Transgender people were an immediate target for the Trump administration upon taking office as explicitly spelled out in an Executive Order declaring that it was the “policy of the United States to recognizes two sexes, male and female.” To comply with the Executive Order, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which is the federal agency tasked with resolving employment discrimination claims, stopped investigating claims that involved transgender people. Further, it sought to withdraw from representation in all of the cases that the EEOC had filed on behalf of transgender plaintiffs under the prior administration. There were three such plaintiffs in Michigan—Asher Lucas, a transgender employee who was repeatedly bullied and harassed by a coworker, with management doing nothing to stop it, and Regina Zaviski and Savannah Nurme-Robinson, two of his coworkers who spoke out against the harassment. All three were fired by their employer after speaking out against the harassment. The EEOC had previously filed suit on their behalf, but reversed course under the new administration and sought to withdraw themselves from the case. Mr. Lucas was already represented by another attorney, but Ms. Zaviski and Ms. Nurme-Robinson were left scrambling to find legal representation. The ACLU of Michigan intervened in the lawsuit on their behalf and worked alongside Mr. Lucas’s attorney to reach a fair resolution for the case, which allowed it to settle in August 2025. (EEOC v. Brik Enterprises Incorporated, ACLU of Michigan Attorneys Syeda Davidson, Jay Kaplan, Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio, and Dan Korobkin.)

Bruce Parker, who is incarcerated by the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and identifies as non-binary. Under MDOC policy, a special gender dysphoria review committee is required to assess each case and recommend treatment and accommodations to address medical needs and personal safety. It was initially decided that Parker would be housed only with other people who have gender dysphoria and would be permitted to shower in relative privacy, accommodations that reduce safety risks for people in prison who are gender non-conforming. Parker’s accommodations were implemented successfully for six months but were then abruptly removed due to the fact that Parker does not wish to undergo feminizing hormone treatment—a treatment that is common for people with gender dysphoria but by no means universal or medically required. In January 2024 Parker filed a lawsuit seeking to restore the accommodations, and in May 2024 the ACLU of Michigan joined other attorneys in volunteering to provide representation pro bono. We are arguing that it violates Parker’s constitutional rights to condition health and safety accommodations on their willingness to take hormone therapy. In October 2024, Judge Judith Levy denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but in March 2025, the defendants filed another motion to dismiss the case, which remains pending. (Parker v. MDOC; ACLU Attorneys Syeda Davidson, Jay Kaplan, Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio, Dan Korobkin; Co-counsel Debra Freid of Freid, Gallagher, Taylor, & Associates; John Philo, Tony Paris, and Elizabeth Jacob of the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice.)

Among the many societal harms of our prison and jail system is the damage that having an incarcerated parent wreaks on the family and children of the person on the inside. Traditionally, the most important way to relieve this harm is through family visits where the incarcerated person can see their family in person and hug their child. Decades of research shows that these visits promote the parent-child bond and result in better social outcomes for the children, make jails and prisons safer by providing critical social supports to the people housed there, and promote rehabilitation when people are released from incarceration by preserving the family ties essential to their reintegration into society. Unfortunately, in recent years, some jails have stopped allowing in-person family visits, and instead now have a policy of family visits only through electronic teleconferencing provided by for-profit corporations that kick back significant chunks of their profits to pad jail budgets. Such visits are often plagued by glitchy internet connections and come at significant expense to families already suffering from the economic impact of having a loved one incarcerated. As such, research shows that replacing in-person visits with teleconference calls does not accomplish any of the benefits of family visitation. In March 2024, our partners at Civil Rights Corps, Public Justice, and the law firm of Pitt McGehee filed lawsuits in Genesee County and St. Clair County against two jails (and the associated telecom companies selling such services) who implemented these inhumane policies, arguing that the policies violated both parents’ and children’s fundamental right under the Michigan Constitution to associate with each other. The circuit courts in both counties dismissed the cases, and the plaintiffs appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals. In January 2025, we led efforts to file an amicus brief in the St. Clair County case, explaining how these policies caused immense harm to families and to the public at large. Our brief was joined by eighteen other organizations and individuals from across the political spectrum: the Cato Institute, the American Federation of Teachers Michigan, the Criminal Law and Children’s Law Sections of the State Bar of Michigan, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Michigan Center for Youth and Justice, the Detroit Justice Center, Safe & Just Michigan, the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights, the Michigan State Planning Body, the National Lawyers Guild Michigan-Detroit Chapter, Black Lives Matter Port Huron, Street Democracy, Prison Policy Initiative, Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, Inc., Dr. Rebecca Shalger, Prof. Margo Schlanger, and Prof. Vivek Sankaran. We filed a similar brief in August 2025 in the Genesee County case. Briefing has closed and a decision is pending. (M.M. v. King [St. Clair County] and S.L. v. Swanson [Genesee County]; ACLU Cooperating Attorney Prof. Paulina Arnold; ACLU Attorneys Phil Mayor, Dan Korobkin, and Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio. Numerous counsel from our co-amici not listed for brevity.)

In August 2025, the ACLU of Michigan filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Christopher Gibson, a Black man who was pepper sprayed, tasered and brutalized in a jail cell by a group of more than a dozen Warren Police officers. The attacks resulted in Mr. Gibson’s hospitalization for injuries to his face, muscular system and kidneys. Mr. Gibson and a family member repeatedly informed officers that he was experiencing a mental health emergency and required immediate psychiatric treatment, but officers instead subjected him to abuse. Found wandering the streets lost, confused and coatless on a winter night, Mr. Gibson was taken into custody because of outstanding warrants related to identity theft. The lawsuit alleges that Warren police officers violated Mr. Gibson’s Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him needed psychiatric care and by using excessive force while he was in their custody. It also alleges that officers violated federal laws designed to protect people with disabilities. (Christopher Gibson v. City of Warren, et al., ACLU Attorneys Mark P. Fancher, Syeda Davidson, and Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio.)