Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

New Law Will Likely Harm Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence

Opinion

New Law Will Likely Harm Immigrant Survivors of Domestic Violence

A person's speech bubble being popped.

Getty Images, Malte Mueller

A tragic death sparked national attention, turning into a call to strengthen immigration enforcement to enhance public safety. In response, the Laken Riley Act emerged as a significant piece of legislation in the ongoing debate over immigration policy in the United States. It purports to provide protection from crime but, in fact, could have an especially negative impact on survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

The new law allows for the detention of individuals who lack legal status, even if they have only been arrested or charged with minor offenses like theft or burglary. Notably, conviction is not required. This blatantly undermines the fundamental principle of "innocent until proven guilty," eroding due process protections that keep innocent people from being incarcerated, separated from children and family, losing employment, and suffering mental and physical health consequences.


Mandating that the Secretary of Homeland Security take into custody any undocumented individual who is charged with a criminal offense—regardless of the offense’s severity or the individual's circumstances—risks creating a system where immigrants are being treated more harshly than U.S. citizens. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, in fiscal 2023, more than 75% of convictions for federal crimes in the immigrant community were related to immigration status. Native-born Americans are 2.5 times more likely to be convicted of violent crimes than undocumented immigrants, according to the 2024 American Immigration Council Report.

More troubling is the expansion of authority to state/local law enforcement, empowering them to detain individuals “suspected” of being undocumented. This opens the door for racial profiling. Imagine a brown person, with a Latino surname or an Afghani accent, becoming a target because of how they look or sound. By reinforcing biases, the Act now creates an environment where individuals who "look different" are unfairly targeted—a practice that has led to documented cases of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) impersonators harassing community members.

Racial profiling increases the likelihood that survivors of domestic violence will be targeted based on their appearance, making them less likely to seek help from law enforcement and undermining their access to critical services. This leaves survivors trapped in abusive situations, often unable or unwilling to report their abusers.

With over 12 years of experience as an attorney who supports immigrant survivors of crime, including domestic violence, I have witnessed abusers manipulate the system by portraying themselves as victims, leading to biased arrests—sometimes of victims themselves—which, even if later resolved, inflict lasting trauma and deter survivors from seeking future help. This Act could dangerously impact survivors—particularly immigrants—who, out of desperation, commit minor crimes as it renders them deportable, exacerbating their vulnerabilities, deterring them from reporting abuse or seeking protection when fleeing their abusers, and ultimately denying them access to critical resources under this very law.

A 2019 survey conducted by the Tahirih Justice Center, underscored this crisis, revealing that 52% of advocates had worked with survivors who chose to drop civil or criminal cases because they did not feel safe, while 76% of advocates reported that immigrant survivors expressed concerns about contacting the police. These findings illustrate the urgent need for policies that prioritize survivor safety and restore trust in systems designed to protect them. Rather than enhancing public safety, harsh enforcement measures often risk empowering abusers.

By discouraging survivors from reporting abuse, the Laken Riley Act will lead to more significant harm in immigrant communities. We must not prioritize security concerns over human rights considerations. Policymakers must provide additional protections by securing due process rights for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and trafficking that ensure safety for them and the community while upholding fairness and due process for all. No one should have to choose between safety and deportation.

All survivors of domestic violence—regardless of immigration status—deserve the protection, resources, and legal support they need to escape abuse and rebuild their lives. You can help: Urge Congress to pass legislation that expands protections for survivors, including strengthening the Violence Against Women Act ( VAWA), strengthen and support legislation like the WISE Act that expands survivor’s access to immigration relief and necessary services, and secure more funding for legal aid agencies and critical supportive services such as shelters and mental health agencies.

Payal Sinha is a distinguished attorney who serves as Director of Strategic Partnerships and Community Engagement at the Tahrirh Justice Center, a national nonprofit that serves women, girls and all immigrant survivors of gender-based violence. She is a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project

.


Read More

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

Black and white illustration of voters

State Court Report

How State Courts Can Help Deflect the Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Multiracial Democracy

With its April ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court delivered yet another blow to the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, which governs race in redistricting. The decision was sad and utterly predictable, but still nothing short of astonishing. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Court’s conservative supermajority, stealthily setting aside 40 years of legal precedent under Section 2 largely on the belief that racism is a thing of the past and extreme partisan gerrymandering is, in effect, a fundamental right of state lawmakers. Callais had a tortured path to the Court, a feature of the case that has undoubtedly been eclipsed by the lawless nature of the ruling itself, all of which reveals that the Supreme Court represents the gravest threat to multiracial democracy in the United States. (I argued as much in a law review article, predicting the outcome and analyzing the ways a Court gone rogue might get to that ruling.)

What’s more? In recent years, the Court has played fast and loose with a “principle” purportedly meant to limit chaos around elections, known as Purcell. But instead of limiting chaos, the Court’s Purcell jurisprudence will hasten and aggrandize the already-problematic impact of the Callais ruling. As the nation’s redistricting wars inevitably continue — in this election season, the 2028 presidential campaign, and even the next decade — state courts can help stave off democratic erosion by resisting the urge to invoke Purcell.

Keep ReadingShow less