Immigrants' Rights

The ACLU of Michigan and the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center (MIRC) sent a letter to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Detroit Field Office detailing documented accounts of dangerous medical conditions and limited access to legal counsel for people detained at North Lake Processing Center.

The ACLU of Michigan (ACLU) applauds today’s federal appeals court decision holding that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is illegally detaining immigrants without access to bond hearings.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan (ACLU) and Michigan Immigrant Rights Center (MIRC) issued the following statements in response to today’s announcement by the Michigan Supreme Court that it has strengthened protections against the arrest of everyone required to attend state courts, including immigrants.

The ACLU of Michigan (ACLU) and the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center (MIRC) call on Congress to require an independent investigation into the U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) North Lake Processing Facility, where people locked up launched a hunger strike on Monday.

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 Unfortunately, under the second Trump administration, this policy has been rescinded, causing disruption almost immediately as ICE began conducting activity around courthouses nationwide.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.)

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. Raycraft; 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.  

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).