After living in Detroit for more than a quarter century, Juan Manuel Lopez-Campos was pulled over by local police during a routine traffic stop in Romulus this summer. Suspecting Mr. Lopez-Campos had immigration issues, local police called immigration authorities, who arrived on the scene and arrested him.

Historically, immigrants like Mr. Lopez-Campos – who are picked up within the United States and are only accused of having entered the country without authorization long ago – would have been allowed to appear before an immigration judge and explain why they should be released on bond so they can fight their immigration case from home, instead of staying locked up during months—or even years—of immigration court proceedings. That historical practice reflects the fact that immigration violations are civil in nature, and that civil detention can only be used for very limited purposes (such as to prevent someone from continuously evading court proceedings). 

But these are not typical times.

In July, the Trump administration issued a new nationwide directive that -- in contradiction to existing laws, longstanding federal policy, and the Constitution -- attempts to unlawfully deny bond hearings to people who are legally entitled to them. They applied that directive to Mr. Lopez-Campos in order to keep him locked up for over two months without the chance to go home to his family.

To address that injustice, the ACLU of Michigan and co-counsel Shahad Atiya urgently filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court on behalf of Mr. Lopez-Campos in August. A habeas corpus petition is a lawsuit used when someone believes their detention or incarceration is unlawful. We argued that, by denying Mr. Lopez-Campos a bond hearing, the Trump administration is acting contrary to federal immigration laws and violating Mr. Lopez-Campos' due process rights. U.S. District Court Judge Brandy R. McMillion agreed and ordered immigration officials to either immediately release Mr. Lopez-Campos from custody or promptly schedule a bond hearing.

In her decision, Judge McMillion wrote that the government’s new directive denying bond hearings “is not only wrong but also fundamentally unfair.” 

Five days after the judge’s order, Mr. Lopez-Campos was released from detention, able to remain free while his immigration case continues. Instead of being locked up, he has returned home to resume caring for his close-knit family after more than two months of forced separation.

“I’m happy to finally be with my family,” he told us just after being set free. He also expressed gratitude to the legal team that helped win his freedom.

We are heartened that Mr. Lopez-Campos is finally out of detention. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) cannot simply lock someone like Mr. Lopez-Campos up and then throw away the key by denying them a bond hearing. People navigating their immigration case should be able to do so while remaining with their family and in their community. Fairness, freedom, and due process are at the core of our immigration system, but our current system isn’t set up to uphold these values. Instead, hundreds and thousands of people are deprived of their liberty, separated from their loved ones, and put at risk in ICE custody.

The ruling is an important victory. It sends a clear message to the Trump administration that it must follow the immigration laws and the Constitution when it comes to providing people the opportunity to fight their immigration cases from home.

But we are not at all certain the current administration has learned its lesson. This is, after all, what the ACLU has described as a “lawless executive branch.” Given that, and the fact that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of immigrants in Michigan are still being detained without access to due process, our fight may be far from over. Every person, including immigrants like Mr. Lopez-Campos, has the right to move and live freely, in community and with their family, without fear of being separated from their loved ones or displaced from their home.

Unless ICE and other administration officials suddenly reverse course and begin adhering to established immigration law and the Constitution, we and others will be prepared to step into the breech and fight for the rights of all immigrants being wrongly detained, just as we did for Mr. Lopez-Campos.

Watch Ramis Wadood's remarks from Mr. Lopez-Campos' hearing

This op-ed originally appeared in PrideSource on 8/29/25

A president should not bully health care providers at the expense of the people they exist to serve.

Amid silence from all but a few of our state and federal political leaders about Michigan Medicine's disheartening decision to end gender-affirming care for patients under the age of 19, Michigan’s attorney general issued a strong admonition, a reminder that our state civil rights law protects against "refusing health care services to a class of individuals based on their protected status."

Why has Michigan Medicine's dismaying decision been met largely with silence by our elected leaders? Maybe they have interpreted political polling to say that they should talk less about the rights of transgender people. Maybe they aren't particularly knowledgeable or comfortable with gender-affirming care. Maybe they have absorbed the rampant and constant misinformation about gender-affirming care. But none of those things should matter when their role is to serve the people of Michigan, consistent with our state laws.

Gender-affirming care is legal in Michigan. Our state civil rights law provides protections for people based on gender identity. Most fundamentally, health care is a decision between a doctor, a patient and a patient's family if the patient is a minor. The government does not and should not enter into highly personal and individual decisions about medical treatment made by doctors, patients and families.

As we look toward 2026 elections in Michigan, it's important that those elected to the role of governor, attorney general, secretary of state and the state legislature recognize and are willing to use the power that they have to protect the rights and liberties of the people of Michigan against unrelenting attacks from the federal administration. Our right to vote empowers us to ensure that whoever is elected to those important seats is committed to a vision for our state that embraces the promises of our state and federal constitutions and where everyone lives fully and safely.

The Trump administration's attacks — and echoing attacks from the Michigan House of Representatives — are purposefully targeted to erode fundamental rights for everyone by focusing on those groups most vulnerable to violations of their civil rights and civil liberties. It is no mistake that the Trump administration has most explicitly and heavily targeted transgender people and immigrants to narrow the scope of rights that protect us all.

The Trump administration is targeting groups where they know people are more likely to carve out exceptions to justify their silence. But here's the thing: Our unwillingness to stand up for people out of discomfort, misunderstanding, fear or a sense of false security about our own rights or the rights of people whose experiences we are more familiar with fuels the erosion of fundamental rights for all of us. Our struggles for justice, equality and democracy are connected. The loss of fundamental rights such as due process, privacy or bodily autonomy for any person will impact every person in this country.

We are not powerless — we are powerful together. We can band together in defense of our collective rights at the foundation of our democracy. But we cannot afford to carve out exceptions for who deserves the protection of the rights in our constitution. The promise of our constitution must be for everyone or it is for no one.

Read the full op-ed here