This week at the ACLU of Maine: Our Sixth Amendment case moved forward, the Supreme Court heard arguments about birthright citizenship, we're engaging Wells residents on immigration issues, and more.

 

As the Town of Wells Considers Its Next Budget, Agreement with ICE Faces Opposition

 

Do you live in Wells? Your town board needs to hear from you!

As Wells considers its next budget, an agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement is likely to increase costs and liabilities, threaten Maine people's constitutional rights, and decrease community safety. The town board is considering the budget on Tuesday, May 20, and they need to hear from you.

Maine's local law enforcement agencies should focus on their communities' needs. Immigration enforcement is often rife with civil rights violations and racial profiling. 287(g) agreements threaten Maine people's constitutional rights, erode trust in local law enforcement, keep people from reporting crimes and providing witness statements, and expose towns to costly legal liability. We hope Wells will join Monmouth and Winthrop by reversing plans to use community resources to further the president's ‘mass deportation' agenda.

Add your name urging the town board to withdraw from its agreement with ICE

^{This action is for Wells residents only.}

 

Superior Court Rejects State's Attempt to Halt Sixth Amendment Case

The Kennebec County Superior Court ruled last week that it will proceed with hearings to consider releasing people who have been jailed and denied counsel for over 14 days or charged and denied counsel for over 60 days. Charges could be brought again once the state can provide an attorney.

 

The order comes after the state requested in March to pause the hearings while it appeals to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The court considered legal arguments from the state and the ACLU of Maine on the matter, and ultimately decided it would move forward with habeas proceedings while the state appeals. 

This ruling is the latest advancement in the Robbins v State of Maine since the start of the year. On January 3, 2025, the superior court ruled that the State of Maine is violating the Sixth Amendment by failing to provide attorneys to those charged with a crime. On March 7, 2025, the court ordered the state to provide legal counsel to people charged with a crime who cannot afford their own attorney, and for the state to create a plan to end this ongoing crisis. It also stated it would begin habeas proceedings to consider releasing people and dismissing charges against people who have been denied counsel for an extended period. 

Read more about this development

 

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Birthright Citizenship

On Inauguration Day, President Trump signed an executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship, a Constitutional right enshrined in the 14th Amendment guaranteeing everyone born in the U.S. is granted citizenship. The ACLU of Maine, along with several other organizations, sued Trump immediately after he signed the order. The 14th Amendment is clear: If you are born in the U.S., you are a U.S. citizen. 

 

On Thursday, the Supreme Court considered questions stemming from three of the lawsuits against this executive order. The hearing did not focus on the legality of Trump's order, but instead on technical questions about "injunctions." Courts often use "nationwide injunctions" to stop potentially illegal policies from going into effect while the court determines their legality. This protects people who would be harmed by the policy. The court considered, in the context of some birthright citizenship lawsuits, whether a federal judge has the power to block clearly illegal orders from going into effect during litigation.

This is part of the Trump administration’s ongoing strategy to limit access to justice, and in turn, make it harder to stop his cruel, unlawful agenda from taking effect. Regardless of the outcome, the fight to stop Trump’s order on birthright citizenship is not over. The ACLU and our partners will keep fighting to protect the constitutionally enshrined right of birthright citizenship.

 

ACLU of Maine's Spring Newsletter Recaps Busy Start to 2025

A few weeks ago, we sent out our spring newsletter to recap the work we've been doing over the last several months. If you haven't seen it yet, you can view the newsletter here. Read a letter from our executive director, Molly Curren Rowles, about our response to Trump's second term, an update on our ongoing Sixth Amendment lawsuit against the state, and what's coming up in the second half of the year. 

Do you want the next newsletter to arrive in your mailbox? Support our work by donating any amount to join the list.

Spring 2025 Newsletter

---

In case you missed it: Our legal team held a Zoom webinar on the cases and issues they've been working on. You can watch a recording of the webinar here to catch up.

In the first 100 days of President Donald Trump’s second term, we’ve seen a whirlwind of executive orders, policy proposals, and media commentary that have left many of us questioning the future of our democracy. It can be hard to separate what’s truly important, what’s fact, and what can be done to safeguard our rights. We believe that an informed public is a powerful one, and we're here to help you understand the policies shaping our country,

Since January, our legal and advocacy experts have been breaking down the implications of Trump’s executive orders. These actions seek to roll back DEI efforts, attack birthright citizenship, target trans people, and attempt to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. We’ve also explained unlawful threats, such as Trump’s attempt to invoke the Insurrection Act, use outdated laws to deport millions, and silence speech that challenges his discriminatory agenda. In addition, we shared materials about what your rights are, how to exercise them, and what to do if they’re violated.

We know you have questions, and we have answers. Below, you’ll find answers to five of the most pressing questions we’ve received about Trump’s first 100 days in office. This is the first in our ongoing series, “Your Questions Answered,” where we bring your questions about civil liberties and civil rights issues directly to ACLU experts.

An executive order is a written directive, signed by the president, that orders the government to take specific actions. Executive orders cannot override federal laws and statutes.

Importantly, the Constitution has a set of checks and balances written into it so that no one branch of the government is more powerful than the other. The president can’t use an executive order to sidestep those checks and balances. Trump, or any president, is misusing executive order authority if the president orders the government to take actions that are not authorized by the Constitution or are in violation of federal laws. That’s when the courts must step in to safeguard our rule of law.

An executive order can be lawful and still cause harm, especially when it threatens important civil liberties or civil rights. At the ACLU, we have more than 100 years’ experience holding powerful entities, like the executive branch, to account. Already during this administration, we’ve explained how Trump’s most recent executive orders rolling back DEI efforts, attacking birthright citizenship, and targeting trans people are unlawful. We’ve also filed more than 20 lawsuits against the Trump administration’s policies.

–Chris Anders, director of Policy and Government Affairs, Democracy and Technology

On his first day back in office, President Trump signed a far-reaching executive order requiring federal agencies to discriminate against transgender people by denying who they are and threatening the freedom of self-determination and self-expression for all.

Trump’s signed order states: “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” The order defines terms like “man” and “woman” based on whether a person “at conception” belongs “to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell” or that “produces the small reproductive cell.”

Trump’s order then directs federal agencies to “enforce laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations” using his cramped definitions, including designating sex on passports and other federal identification documents, or determining where transgender people are confined in federal custody. The order also includes a sweeping mandate to all agencies to “end the Federal funding of gender ideology.” The ACLU sued.

–Gillian Branstetter, LGBTQ communications strategist

Programs labeled as diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) encompass a broad range of lawful initiatives that create fairer workplaces and schools. Trump’s executive orders targeting these programs conflate lawful efforts with discrimination, weaponizing enforcement to bully institutions into abandoning critical programs and taking steps to try to eliminate protections against discrimination by government contractors. However, no court has declared DEI efforts inherently illegal, and President Trump cannot override decades of legal precedent.

In employment, properly designed DEI programs are not only legal under federal and state civil rights laws and long-standing legal precedents; they are also necessary to ensure compliance with those laws. Programs labeled as DEI ensure that no one is excluded from opportunities because of their race, ethnicity, disability, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Many of these initiatives are not focused on selecting specific candidates for hire — they aim to create fairer processes.

Schools, too, are required to comply with federal and state civil rights laws that ensure educational opportunities are provided on an equal basis. This means reviewing policies and practices to ensure they don’t unnecessarily foreclose opportunities based on race or other protected characteristics. Schools must also work to foster a climate where all students can access and thrive in their educational pursuits. Now, more than ever, educational institutions must resist intimidation and reaffirm their commitment to identifying and removing barriers to equal opportunity.

–ReNika Moore, director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program

You have the right to share truthful, lawfully obtained information about law enforcement and tell people about their legal rights — even if they’re in trouble. You can also advocate for changes to laws without fear, as long as you follow certain guidelines.

Specifically, you have the right to tell people their legal rights even when the person has broken, or is breaking, a law. Telling people about their legal rights includes identifying people’s rights and explaining them, offering practical advice about one’s demeanour when interacting with law enforcement, and suggesting specific words one can say to invoke one’s rights or to understand whether one is under arrest.

You can also advocate for what you believe in, including whether laws should change. This is political speech protected by the First Amendment. You can say that you think current policy is unjust, you can advocate for specific alternatives, and you can talk about the impacts you are seeing on the people and communities around you. You can also talk about illegal activity. For example, you can say, “I think this is a bad law and that people shouldn’t be punished for violating it.” That is true even if the government believes you are thereby encouraging or advocating for illegal activity — as long as you are not intentionally advocating for imminent and likely unlawful action or intentionally offering help to someone on how to commit a specific, unlawful act.

–Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project