ACLU Comment on Appeals Court Panel Ruling on Alien Enemies Act Contempt Issue 

PORTLAND, Maine – The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit against federal immigration agents who violated a Portland resident’s civil rights during “Operation Catch of the Day.” Agents racially profiled, violently arrested, and unlawfully detained Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz, violating his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The lawsuit could reaffirm an important legal avenue for holding federal officials accountable under state law. On Jan. 22, 2026, Mr. Carvajal-Muñoz was abducted by federal immigration agents while driving to work in Portland. Agents in an unmarked SUV with Minnesota plates, some of whom were masked, abruptly cut in front of Carvajal-Muñoz, surrounded his vehicle, and demanded he show his paperwork. He showed his REAL ID through the window and reached for his phone to call for help and record the interaction. (REAL IDs are only given to non-citizens who have lawful status.) Even though Mr. Carvajal-Muñoz complied and posed no safety threat, agents smashed his window with a crowbar, dragged him out of the car at taser-point, handcuffed him, and placed him in the unmarked SUV. Agents left his car running in the middle of the street with the door open, his keys and bag in the open vehicle, and his phone on the street. Carvajal-Muñoz was afraid for his life, especially after seeing what had happened to Renée Good in Minnesota two weeks before. “Federal agents came to Maine and terrorized entire communities, just as they have done throughout the country,” said Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz. “All people should be free to move about their communities safely, knowing they will not be violently arrested by masked agents simply for driving while Latino. I came to Maine to study engineering and work hard. Even though I followed all the rules, federal agents targeted me based on my race. I hope this case can prevent agents from violating other people’s constitutional rights so the United States can fulfill its promise of being a beacon of freedom, opportunity, and safety for all people.” Agents targeted Carvajal-Muñoz based on his race or ethnicity and had no legal basis for the stop and arrest, which violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. When agents stopped Carvajal-Muñoz, the only information they had about him was his appearance and the fact that the vehicle was registered in his name. Agents refused to examine additional documents in Carvajal-Muñoz’s possession proving his legal status. Over the next 16 hours, agents physically and psychologically harmed Mr. Carvajal-Munoz. He was placed in shackles and moved between various unmarked vehicles and locations in Maine and Massachusetts, alongside other detainees, all of whom were people of color. At one point, agents engaged in what appeared to be a cruel "joke," pretending to return him to Portland, only to take him to an ICE facility in Burlington, MA. See a detailed timeline of events here. The lawsuit asserts that federal agents violated Mr. Carvajal-Muñoz’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights by racially profiling and stopping him with no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, unlawfully arresting him, using excessive force, and unjustifiably prolonging his detention. The suit seeks to hold federal agents accountable under the Maine Civil Rights Act. The Maine Civil Rights Act allows people to bring claims for violations of federal law by federal officers. Specifically, it affords a cause of action for violations of “the rights secured by the United States Constitution” by “any person, whether or not acting under color of law.” While federal law mandates that claims against federal officials must generally be made against the United States, there is a crucial exception. The Westfall Act of 1988 preserves remedies in the form of “a civil action against an employee of the Government [] which is brought for a violation of the Constitution of the United States.” This case could re-establish the right of people to bring claims against federal officers under state law. The Supreme Court allowed some types of actions for federal constitutional violations in its 1971 Bivens decision, but the court has sharply narrowed that in recent years. Reaffirming the ability to bring claims under state law could strengthen a crucial avenue for people to seek justice when the federal government violates their constitutional rights. Mr. Carvajal-Muñoz is in the United States with a valid H1-B work visa valid through September 2027. He works as a civil engineer, doing foundation analyses for bridge construction projects across Maine. He earned his master’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Maine in May 2023, and he has been working at the same firm for two and a half years. “The Constitution applies to everyone, and simply being a federal agent is not a license to operate outside the law,” said Carol Garvan, legal director for the ACLU of Maine. “The Maine Civil Rights Act protects all people’s constitutional rights from government officials’ abuses of power – whether they are local, state, or federal officials. We hope this case will strengthen paths for people to seek justice when federal officials violate their constitutional rights.” "The abduction of Mr. Carvajal-Muñoz has made the weight of our Constitutional rights clear: no one is safe when federal agents can harm people without consequence," said Scott Michelman, legal director for the ACLU of the District of Columbia. "A right you can't enforce is a right in name only. We are asking the courts to make clear that federal agents do not have license to run roughshod over the Constitution." “The law should provide a remedy for what happened to Mr. Carvajal-Muñoz,” said Matthew Segal, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “If federal law doesn’t, state law still can. And in Maine, it does.” The case, Carvajal-Muñoz v. Ravencamp et. al., was brought on behalf of Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz by the ACLU of Maine, ACLU of the District of Columbia, the national ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, Gideon Asen, and the Law Firm of James Wagner. The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine.

This lawsuit seeks to use several tools, including a state civil rights act, to hold federal immigration agents accountable for violating the rights of a Portland resident who held a lawful visa. In January 2026, federal immigration officers descended on Maine as part of what the federal government has called “Operation Catch the Day.” The federal government claimed the operation targeted “the worst of the worst criminal aliens,” yet in fact it targeted many people who had committed no crimes. Among them was our client, Juan Sebastián Carvajal-Muñoz, a Portland-based civil engineer with a valid visa, who was seized by federal agents.   With the help of the ACLU and other law firms, Mr. Carvajal-Muñoz filed suit to hold the federal agents accountable. This case has significant implications: it could confirm that state laws can authorize individuals to hold federal officials accountable for violating rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Amid rampant abuse by federal agents, state legislatures can pass critical laws that allow people to take federal agents to court for violating their rights.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Trump v. Barbara, a nationwide class action brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of New Hampshire, ACLU of Maine, ACLU of Massachusetts, Legal Defense Fund, Asian Law Caucus, and the Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of children who would be denied citizenship under an executive order issued by President Trump. The groups presented arguments challenging the administration’s efforts to dismantle birthright citizenship — the legal principle guaranteed by the 14th Amendment that babies born in the United States are U.S. citizens — highlighting how Trump’s executive order flouts the Constitution’s dictates, longstanding Supreme Court precedent, a statute passed by Congress, and fundamental American values. Courts have uniformly blocked the Trump administration from implementing the executive order. A Supreme Court decision is expected by the end of June or early July. The following is comment from the co-counsel in this case: “All of us born in this country are Americans, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. That is the principle we defended before the United States Supreme Court today,” said Cecillia Wang, ACLU national legal director, who argued the case before the court. “I left the courtroom thinking about my parents and so many families who came here seeking refuge, opportunity, and the American way of life. We couldn’t be more confident that this unlawful, un-American executive order will be struck down.” “Today’s argument before the Supreme Court was on behalf of the countless families who would be harmed, especially children and families of color, if the Trump administration’s birthright citizenship executive order takes effect,” said Morenike Fajana, senior counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. “We are confident in our case against such an unlawful attempt to rewrite the Constitution in a way that is antithetical to who we are as a nation.” “Birthright citizenship was affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, when a Chinese American community challenged the idea that people like them could never fully belong. For Asian Americans, that history is deeply personal — it is a right we helped shape and defend,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director at Asian Law Caucus. “Trump’s executive order attempts to erase that legacy, denying families the dignity, stability, and belonging that the Constitution guarantees to every child born in this country. We’re fighting today to ensure that in our democracy, no president gets to re-define who is born a citizen and who is not.” “Birthright citizenship has been clearly protected for well over a century by the plain text of the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, and congressional enactment. An attack on this indisputable right is an assault on the Constitution itself,” said Amb. Norm Eisen (ret.), co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. “If this indisputable legal principle is up for grabs, so is anything in the Constitution and American law. That cannot be the case and so birthright citizenship must stand.” “Our Constitution and the more than a century of court decisions on this topic are overwhelmingly clear: no politician can decide who among those born in this country is worthy of citizenship. We are fighting this cruel executive order to ensure that every child born in the United States has their right to citizenship protected instead of being relegated to a permanent, multigenerational subclass of people born in the U.S. but who are denied full rights,” said SangYeob Kim, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the ACLU of New Hampshire. “Birthright citizenship is a cornerstone of our democracy, deeply rooted in the American legal tradition and enshrined in our Constitution,” said Carol Rose, executive director at the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The 14th Amendment and centuries of precedent categorically reject the maintenance of a permanent underclass. No good-faith reading of the law can hold otherwise. That is why we are asking the Supreme Court to unequivocally reject the Trump administration's unlawful attempt to strip away the fundamental American guarantee that every baby born in this country is equal.” “Birthright citizenship has been the law of the land since the 14th Amendment was enacted in 1868,” said ACLU of Maine Executive Director Molly Curren Rowles. “It is a core reason that the United States has been seen for generations as a beacon of freedom and opportunity around the world. Successive waves of immigrants have shaped and reshaped every aspect of our society and culture, from the food we eat and the music we listen to, to our regional accents and religious practices. As Americans, we are bound by our values and commitment to a pluralistic, free society — not by our family heritage. We hope a decision in this critically important case can bring stability at a time when immigrant families across the country face increasing hostility, threats, harm, and uncertainty.” More case background is here.