Renée Good’s Family Files Lawsuits Challenging Federal Immunity as ICE Shootings Continue

The increasingly violent reality of the Trump administration’s mass deportation agenda came into sharp focus again last week when plainclothes ICE officers opened fire on a car in New York City within seconds of surrounding the vehicle, wounding 28-year-old Oscar Belgal while his terrified 5-year-old son sat in the back seat. This alarming use of force, echoing across the country as communities grapple with a sharp rise in immigration enforcement violence, provides context for a major legal battle unfolding in Minnesota.

Just days before the New York shooting, the family of Renée Good, a 37-year-old mother of three who was shot and killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in Minneapolis earlier this year, filed two significant federal lawsuits against the U.S. government and top administration officials.

Good’s family and lawyers seek to use two distinct legal paths to force accountability through the U.S. federal courts, even though doctrines such as qualified and sovereign immunity usually protect federal law enforcement officers and the administration’s top political leaders from facing civil rights lawsuits. The twin lawsuits target both the officer that killed Good and the systemic policies that the lawsuit claims made her death inevitable and near-guaranteed impunity for the officer’s deadly use of force.

Minneapolis deadly encounter

On January 7, 2026, during a tense confrontation between protesters and federal immigration officers deployed to Minneapolis as a part of the administration’s “Operation Metro Surge,” ICE officer Jonathan Ross fired three shots into Good’s car as she attempted to drive away. One bullet struck her in the head, killing her.

While the Trump administration initially claimed that Good was a “domestic terrorist” trying to run over the officer, the lawsuit argues that video footage clearly shows Good steering her vehicle away and talking to the officers using deescalating language. Good was a U.S. citizen and had no criminal history. After Good’s death, the administration neither indicted nor fired Ross and he is still in the agency as an active ICE officer.

A double attack on impunity

To overcome the significant legal doctrines that protect ICE officers and the federal government from liability, the lawsuits — filed by Good’s partner and her brother — rely on a two-part approach primarily via two legal statutes.

Federal Tort Claims Act

The first claim uses the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and names the United Sates as the sole defendant. It accuses the government of battery, assault, false imprisonment, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress that directly caused Good’s wrongful death. By using the FTCA, Good’s family and attorneys seek to hold the Trump administration liable for torts committed by federal immigration officers acting within the scope of their federal employment.

Typically, sovereign immunity protects the U.S. government from lawsuits; but Congress’ enactment of the FTCA provides an exception giving victims injured by government actions a mechanism for filing a lawsuit to seek damages. In the Good lawsuit, the FTCA legal claim focuses primarily on the mechanics of the shooting itself and the immediate liability of the government.

Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871

Parallel to the FTCA claim is the second and more politically explosive lawsuit, which uses a provision of the Reconstruction-era Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871. Congress designed the law to protect citizens from organized and systemic civil rights violations. At that time, local and state authorities routinely refused to prosecute Ku Klux Klan members for violence they inflicted upon newly freed Black Americans. Congress responded by enacting this law to explicitly enforce the newly ratified Fourteenth Amendment and ensure protection of civil and voting rights.

The Good lawsuit brings claims under two provisions of the statute, 42 U.S.C. Section1985(3) and 1986, to allege a broad Trump administration conspiracy to violate civil rights, naming not only Officer Ross, but also senior administration officials including Stephen Miller, Tom Homan, and former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

The Section 1985(3) claim alleges that these officials conspired with private actors, including far-right online provocateurs whose allegations against the Somali community in Minnesota led directly to the administration’s Operation Metro Surge, as well as private corporations whose technology was used to target neighborhoods for enforcement and track observers and protestors. The Section 1986 claim arises from the officials’ failure to prevent the wrongs of the alleged conspiracy.

At the core of the Ku Klux Klan Act claim, Good’s lawyers argue that her death was not an isolated operational error, but the “predictable result” of an unconstitutional campaign driven by racial animus targeting Hispanic and Somali communities. The family alleges that Trump administration officials deliberately structured federal immigration crackdowns to encourage aggressive, hostile confrontations, while signaling to rank-and-file officers that they would never face legal consequences for using excessive force.

Bringing claims under Sections 1985 and 1986 avoids the strict legal limitations of “Bivens actions” which in the past allowed individuals to sue federal enforcement officers for Fourth Amendment violations but which the Supreme Court has heavily curtailed in recent decades.

Systemic reckoning or indefinite impunity?

By linking executive policy to field-level operations, the lawsuit seeks to provide an alternative route to challenge immunity for high-ranking political appointees. If the federal court moves the case forward, it could establish a major precedent for holding top level administration officials accountable for the actions of ICE field officers. If the court does not allow the lawsuit to proceed, then the only way to ensure individual officials’ accountability for unlawful immigration enforcement violence will be for Congress to make overdue changes to outdated immigration laws which for decades have permitted immigration agent officers and agencies to operate with significant impunity.  Congress could pass a law that would create a clear cause of action so that victims of constitutional violations committed by federal law enforcement officers can sue in federal court. When local police officers violate the Constitution, they can be sued in federal court; but when federal law enforcement agents commit the same violations there is no parallel recourse.

While the Good family seeks unspecified compensatory damages, their primary focus is public accountability. At an emotional Minneapolis press conference, Renee Good’s partner Becca Good stated: “The whole world had to watch as our entire universe was destroyed. We were all robbed.”

Following so closely on the heels of the recent New York City ICE shooting, the Renee Good lawsuits will test whether the federal judiciary is willing to hold federal officers accountable or continue to allow them to operate with near impunity on American soil.

The post Renée Good’s Family Files Lawsuits Challenging Federal Immunity as ICE Shootings Continue appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/9wkMym2
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

New Lawsuit Challenges Trump-Vance Administration Policies Threatening Green Card Applicants with Family Separation

USCIS Policies Upend Decades of Practice, Penalizing Eligible Immigrants for Seeking Permanent Residence from Within the United States

Boston — Immigrant families, workers, educators, unions, and immigrant rights organizations filed a lawsuit today, challenging two Trump-Vance administration policies that make it significantly harder or impossible for eligible immigrants already living in the United States to obtain lawful permanent residence — commonly known as a green card — without leaving the country.

The lawsuit challenges new policies from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that fundamentally alter the longstanding process known as “adjustment of status,” which Congress created to allow eligible immigrants already in the United States to apply for permanent residence without having to leave their families, jobs, and communities to pursue a green card abroad.

The challenged policies are:

• Adjustment of Status Policy, issued in May 2026: USCIS directs immigration officers to treat an applicant’s decision to seek permanent residence from within the United States, rather than leave the country for consular processing, as a negative factor in deciding their application. It also requires applicants to demonstrate “unusual or even outstanding” considerations to overcome that negative factor.

• Evidence, Requests for Evidence, and Notices of Intent to Deny Policy, issued in August 2026: Allows USCIS officers to deny applications without giving applicants an opportunity to provide additional evidence — including people who filed their green card applications before the new policies existed.

The policies change the rules for people who have followed the legal process to seek permanent residence and put them at risk of losing their ability to live and work in the United States, being separated from their families, and having their careers and education disrupted.

The organizational plaintiffs serve immigrants across the country who are pursuing permanent residence, including educators and researchers, health care workers, service workers, and people whose spouses and other close relatives are seeking green cards. The individual plaintiffs include people who have built careers, raised children, pursued their education, and established lives in the United States, but whose ability to remain with their families and communities is now threatened by the challenged policies. They are the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and its Harvard University Chapter (Harvard AAUP) and Boston University Chapter (BU AAUP); Service Employees International Union (SEIU); SEIU Local 509; 32BJ SEIU; Americans for Immigrant Justice (AI Justice); and individual green card applicants Areli Esmeralda Rojas Correa, Miriam Esther Moreno Coto, Maria Francisca Guardado, Ikechi Obinna Nwaozuzu, Derly Sierra Palacios, and Julieth Melissa Camargo Figueroa.

Plaintiffs are asking the court to block and ultimately set aside the policies and require USCIS to adjudicate affected green card applications consistent with controlling precedent. They are represented by Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and Colombo & Hurd.

“By weaponizing the green card process and threatening immigrant professors, researchers, and students with sudden deportation or forced family separation, this administration is sabotaging scientific innovation and turning our universities into hostile environments for the global talent that drives our country forward. Trump’s assault on immigrants is not only cruel and inhumane,  it weakens the global competitiveness of our higher education institutions,” said Todd Wolfson, President of the American Association of University Professors. 

“Immigrant faculty and students are essential to the success and vitality of U.S. higher education and research. By making it even more difficult for international scholars to work and live here, these cruel and counterproductive new policies reflect both the Trump administration’s larger anti-immigrant crusade and its unconstitutional war on universities. But the U.S. cannot be a global leader in education while cutting off the globe, and we will always stand up for members of our academic community when they are illegally threatened by this lawless administration,” said Kirsten Weld, co-president of the Harvard University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors.

“BU AAUP condemns the Trump administration’s new green card policies, which impose onerous and opaque rules on our international faculty and students. The revised regulations jettison precedent and due process and threaten the ability and freedom of faculty and students to research, teach, and learn. They harm valued members of our community and interfere with Boston University’s stated mission as an international research institution. More, in targeting noncitizen scholars and imposing external rules that seek to limit who can research and teach at American universities, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services strikes at academic freedom—the core principle of higher education,” said Mary Battenfeld, co-president of the Boston University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors.

“SEIU’s 2 million members include physicians, long-term care workers, janitors, security officers, airport workers, and others.  Many SEIU members are foreign-born U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and immigrants authorized to work in the United States. We oppose any policy that makes it harder for working people to do their jobs and provide for their families,” said SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Rocío Sáenz. “If implemented, this directive will impact people who are following the rules and navigating an immigration system and process already full of red tape.   Our government should make it easier, not harder, to keep families together and workers in their jobs so they can continue contributing to their communities and our economy.”

This directive disrupts legal immigration and pathways to permanent residency, threatening our members’ ability to earn a living, and further straining our healthcare system if these workers are forced to leave the United States, said David Foley, President of SEIU Local 509 “It is clear that the focus of this administration has never been on keeping our communities safe, but rather on expelling as many immigrants as possible from our communities by any means necessary. The people affected are our union siblings, our family members, and our friends. They deserve dignity and the opportunity to remain with their families while they navigate their path toward permanent residency.”

“The Trump administration’s animosity towards immigrants is so deep that they are now punishing those who have been working their way to becoming permanent legal residents by following the same rules followed by countless immigrants for generations. As a union with a majority immigrant membership, we object to the harm this could do to families and communities everywhere, and we deplore the administration’s determination to close the doors on immigrants in every way they can as a thoroughly un-American act of naked cruelty,” said Manny Pastreich, President, 32BJ SEIU

“Congress created a process that allows eligible people who are already living in the United States to pursue permanent residence without uprooting their lives and leaving the country. The executive branch cannot rewrite that system and then treat people’s lawful actions as a reason to deny them said permanent residency,” said Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward. “These policies are changing the rules on families, workers, students, and others who have followed the legal process and built their lives here, putting them at risk of separation from their loved ones and communities. We are proud to represent our clients in challenging these unlawful policies and protecting the process Congress established.”

“For decades, people who met the requirements to apply for a green card from inside the United States were able to do so without having that choice count against them. But under these new, radical policies, the Trump administration is trying to reverse decades of practice and punish people for using a legal pathway that Congress created,” said Leslie Dellon, a senior attorney for business immigration at the American Immigration Council. “This is a major shift with very real consequences: spouses and parents separated from their families, workers forced to leave their jobs, students and researchers yanked away from their work, and people potentially stranded abroad for months or even years waiting for a consular appointment. At a time when our immigration system is already buried in years-long backlogs, the Trump administration is creating even more uncertainty and disruption for people who are simply trying to follow the rules.” 

“Our immigration system should embody the values that define America: fairness, transparency, due process, and adherence to the rule of law. AILA is litigating this case on behalf of our more than 18,000 members and the individuals, families, and businesses they represent because no administration should be permitted to rewrite the rules unilaterally or place itself above the law. The Constitution established checks and balances for a reason. We urge the courts to continue serving as a safeguard against executive overreach, and we call on Congress to exercise its oversight authority to protect the integrity of our immigration system and ensure it serves the national interest while remaining true to our shared values,” said Jeff Joseph, President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. 

“These policies do more than disrupt individual green card cases. They create uncertainty for the highly skilled professionals who drive American research, health care, education, and innovation. If the United States wants to remain competitive in attracting and retaining global talent, it cannot make lawful permanent residence more arbitrary and less predictable for people who are already building lives here,” said Sarah Wilson, Partner & Federal Immigration Litigation Practice Leader.

The consequences are already significant. According to the complaint, the challenged policies threaten families with prolonged separation, workers with the loss of employment and work authorization, students and educators with disruptions to their studies and careers, and employers and communities with the loss of people who have built their lives in the United States.

The case is American Association of University Professors et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al. 

Read the filing here.

The post New Lawsuit Challenges Trump-Vance Administration Policies Threatening Green Card Applicants with Family Separation appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/MPDpgh0
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

Dear Immigrant: What Homesickness Actually Is

Letter 10

Re: What Homesickness Actually Is

Dear Immigrant,

Homesickness is not missing a place. It is missing a version of yourself that only existed in that place.

The self that existed at home was embedded in a specific context — a language, a set of relationships, a cultural understanding, a physical landscape. That self was known. Known by the people around it, known by the institutions it moved through, known by the streets and the sounds and the food. In the new place, that self is not known. You are new. You are starting from zero. The version of you that existed at home cannot exist in the new place yet because the context that made it possible has not been rebuilt.

What you miss when you are homesick is not the place as a place. It is the ease of being yourself in that place — the absence of the effort of translation, the relief of being understood without explaining, the comfort of being known rather than being new. These are losses. Real ones. They do not mean you made the wrong decision. They mean that the decision had costs, and the costs are being felt.

Homesickness decreases not because you stop caring about home but because you build enough of a new context that the self can exist in the new place without the constant effort of translation. This takes years. There is no shortcut. The only path through it is through it.

When the homesickness is acute — at the holidays, at the significant occasions you are missing, at the random Tuesday when a smell or a sound brings the absence flooding in — let it be what it is. Do not try to logic your way out of it. It is the appropriate response to a real loss. Feel it and let it pass.

The homesickness is evidence of what you love. That is not a problem to be solved. It is something to be held.

From someone who still feels it sometimes,
A former immigrant

dearimmigrant.com

Fifth Circuit Hears Major Case Over Right to Challenge Immigration Detention

Case will determine whether longtime U.S. residents can be detained without a meaningful opportunity to ask a judge for release 

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana, Sept. 24 2026 — On Thursday, September 24, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit heard arguments in a major case over whether the Constitution permits the federal government to detain immigrants without ever providing them a bond hearing where they can challenge whether their detention is necessary. 

The consolidated case involves three longtime Texas residents, all fathers of U.S.-citizen children and none with criminal histories. Each was arrested following a routine traffic stop and detained by immigration authorities without an opportunity to appear before a judge and demonstrate that he posed no danger to the community or flight risk — the only valid reasons to keep someone in detention during their immigration proceedings. 

The American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Project, Garza & Narvaez PLLC, and the Law Offices of Stephen A. Lagana represent the three men. 

In court today, attorneys argued that under the Constitution, the government cannot lock someone up in immigration detention without giving them a real chance to go before a judge and challenge their imprisonment.  

“This case is about a basic constitutional right: if the government wants to lock someone up, it should have to explain why. The Trump administration is arguing that it can hold people in immigration detention without ever proving that doing so is necessary. This turns a fundamental constitutional protection on its head and gives the government extraordinary power over people’s freedom,” said Rebecca Cassler of the American Immigration Council, who argued the case today before the full Fifth Circuit court. 

Federal district courts previously ruled that detaining the three men without bond hearings violated their constitutional right to due process. A three-judge Fifth Circuit panel later agreed, ruling that the Constitution protects people who have entered and built lives in this country regardless of their immigration status. The full Fifth Circuit subsequently vacated that decision and agreed to rehear the case. 

“Today the government made the unprecedented argument that it can jail immigrants without ever having to explain why,” said Ellie Norton, Supervising Attorney, of the National Immigration Project. “That flies in the face of years of Supreme Court case law and the Constitution. Our clients are three fathers, community members, and churchgoers who have each lived in this country for over a decade. All they ask is for the opportunity to challenge whether they actually need to be behind bars and separated from their families while their immigration cases are pending. That is a cornerstone of our justice system and we hope that the Court will uphold it.”  

The case is part of a nationwide fight over whether the government can lock up immigrants – including those who’ve lived in the U.S. for years or even decades – without giving them a chance to ask a judge for release. Hundreds of courts across the country, in thousands of cases, have repeatedly rejected the administration’s position, concluding that it violates either federal immigration law or the Constitution’s guarantee of due process when a person is thrown into prison.

The Fifth Circuit’s decision could affect thousands of people held in immigration detention across Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, states where a large share of the nation’s detained immigrants are held. Six other federal circuit courts have held that locking up longtime U.S. residents in immigration detention without giving them a chance to ask a judge for release would violate the Constitution. If the Fifth Circuit agrees with the government, this will be the first federal circuit court to find this detention without process constitutional.

More about the lawsuit here. 

MEDIA CONTACTS 

Elyssa Pachico, epachico@immcouncil.org  

Lilly Gonzalez, media@nipnlg.org

The post Fifth Circuit Hears Major Case Over Right to Challenge Immigration Detention appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/2EDLQlt
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant

How Maybelle Center Made the Belonging Barometer Part of Everyday Practice

For more than 30 years, Maybelle Center has worked alongside adults experiencing financial hardship, mental health challenges, and social isolation in downtown Portland, Oregon. Today, the organization describes itself as a community health organization because it believes health begins with belonging. Through neighborhood programs, affordable housing, and assisted living, Maybelle Center helps people build lasting relationships and become known, valued, and connected.

When Maybelle Center shifted its mission from fighting social isolation to intentionally building belonging, staff encountered a familiar challenge: How do you measure belonging?

“We wanted to measure belonging,” recalls Shane Skinner, Lead Member Inclusion Coordinator. “But how can you measure something so subjective?” The answer was the Belonging Barometer.

As Maybelle Center developed its organizational theory of change, staff found themselves researching belonging from dozens of different sources. They wanted confidence that their programs were grounded in evidence. When they discovered the Belonging Barometer, they immediately recognized the framework gave them a research-backed definition of belonging that was both comprehensive and practical. 

The Barometer took belonging from being an abstract concept and broke it into measurable components that staff could understand, discuss, and intentionally strengthen through their work.

One of Maybelle Center’s biggest takeaways is that implementing the Belonging Barometer doesn’t have to be complicated. Serving approximately 200-250 active members, the organization launched its first survey using simple tools already available to them.

They:

• Introduced the survey through their monthly newsletter.
• Mailed paper surveys with prepaid return envelopes.
• Asked volunteers to enter responses into an Excel spreadsheet.
• Partnered with a board member who had data expertise to analyze the results.

It just took a commitment to learning from the people they serve.

While the annual Belonging Barometer survey provides valuable data, Maybelle Center quickly realized the framework could also shape programming. Rather than trying to improve every dimension of belonging at once, the team selected three priority building blocks from the Barometer’s local belonging framework to guide every activity they offer.

Those 3 guiding priorities are:

• Helping people feel welcomed and included.
• Helping people feel valued for who they are and what they contribute.
• Creating spaces where people feel comfortable expressing different opinions.

Before each event, staff intentionally ask: How will this activity strengthen belonging? Sometimes the answer is an icebreaker, changing how conversations are facilitated, or creating more opportunities for participants to contribute.

After each program, the team evaluates whether those belonging goals were achieved and uses what they learn to improve future activities. Each year, Maybelle Center plans to administer the full Belonging Barometer survey to understand how members’ experiences change over time. The findings will help staff identify which dimensions of belonging are growing and where more attention is needed. Rather than relying on assumptions, they’ll use data to guide future decisions. As Skinner puts it: “Belonging becomes the compass.”

Maybelle Center’s experience shows that you don’t need perfect data, a large staff, or a significant budget to begin measuring belonging. You can start with one survey and choose just a few dimensions of belonging to focus on.

Most importantly, you can begin using the Belonging Barometer to understand and strengthen your community. As Skinner says, the Belonging Barometer gives community leaders something many have been searching for: a tangible way to measure belonging.

Ready to get started?

Download the free Belonging Barometer Quick Start Guide and survey questions to begin measuring belonging in your community.

The post How Maybelle Center Made the Belonging Barometer Part of Everyday Practice appeared first on American Immigration Council.

from American Immigration Council https://ift.tt/y8AvQZl
via Dear ImmigrantDear Immigrant