This blog is the first of a series based on interviews with Mah-konce Hudson, GuJuan Fusilier, and O'Shay Toney, who are currently held in the Penitentiary of New Mexico.

The world seems to be getting darker and more cruel by the day. I’ve struggled along with many others to find hope and connection amidst rising fascism, masked kidnappings, and concentration camps, so it came as a surprise that I found inspiration in one of the cruelest of all places: solitary confinement.

For decades, our country has sanctioned unimaginable cruelty and dehumanizing violence against those living behind bars. New Mexico incarcerates more people per capita than the national average and in some of the worst conditions. Santa Fe’s long-term solitary confinement unit is deliberately designed to strip every bit of humanity from the people confined there and to break even the strongest of spirits—all happening far out of the public eye. Men in the unit are locked in sunless concrete boxes approximately the size of a parking space for 23 to 24 hours a day with no meaningful human contact for months and often years on end. Many subjected to this torture have succumbed to hopelessness and despair; my heart breaks for them and for their families.

I found inspiration in one of the cruelest of all places: solitary confinement.

Yet, life has a way of surviving even in the harshest conditions; with just a little water and sunlight, plants crack hard concrete walls and flower in desolate places. Similarly, even after years locked alone in cold, sunless concrete cages, some brave men in solitary confinement have held onto little seeds of hope and, through their ongoing trauma, are fighting to change the conditions in which they find themselves.

Men like Mah-konce Hudson, GuJuan Fusilier, and O'Shay Toney believed they had been discarded and abandoned by the world and left to rot away in quiet agony, with their stories and voices unheard. When we reached out to them, they were shocked that anyone cared about their lives, let alone wanted to ease their suffering. But the prospect of being heard and seen was enough to make their seeds of hope, tucked away in a hopeless place, begin to sprout. 

New Mexico incarcerates more people per capita than the national average

Like 95% of people who are incarcerated, Mah-konce, GuJuan, and O’Shay will return home to their communities. Despite this fact, New Mexico’s prison system has seemingly branded them as irredeemable, heedless of their pleas for the support they need to change and become better for themselves and for their families. Instead, each day, month, and year spent in solitary makes it more difficult for them to outgrow their pasts and to break destructive patterns in their lives. 

These men are just people with families, talents, and dreams. GuJuan’s eyes light up when he talks about his mom, who calls him her “baby” and wants to do TikTok dances with him when he returns home. O’Shay was a basketball prodigy before a juvenile mistake changed his path forever. Recently, he won an award from Arizona State University for his poetry. Outside of prison, Mah-konce plays four instruments. He is writing a book about repentance and transformation. It is their hearts that moved these three men to serve as the faces of a difficult lawsuit, which, if successful, will ultimately only benefit those who come after them.

To build a more just society, all people must have the chance to change, grow, and evolve. Inflicting more violence on those who have done harm does not advance rehabilitation and accountability—compounding violence through the torture of solitary confinement makes no one safer. Instead, people who have made terrible mistakes must be allowed to truly atone for them and be given the tools and support they need to become active and involved members of their communities, as O’Shay, GuJuan, and Mah-konce hope to do.

When Rita Padilla-Gutiérrez posted anti-Trump signs in her yard, Valencia County threatened her with criminal prosecution at the urging of a pro-Trump county commissioner. Rita, a longtime Tomé resident and community activist, refused to be silenced. 

No one should ever be threatened with criminal prosecution for having a political sign in their yard. But that’s what happened to me. 

After I hand-painted and posted several anti-Trump signs in my yard – including a Fuck Trump! sign – code enforcement officials showed up with a threatening code citation letter. The letter deemed one of my signs a public nuisance and threatened to criminally prosecute me if I did not take it down within 24 hours. I later learned that a pro-Trump county commissioner was behind the code enforcement threat.  

I knew that being threatened criminally for my speech wasn’t right, so I wrote to the ACLU of New Mexico. The ACLU of New Mexico wrote a demand letter to Valencia County, explaining my First Amendment right to post political yard signs. Within a day of receiving the ACLU of New Mexico’s letter, Valencia County did the right thing and retracted the criminal prosecution threat. The county attorney also promised to review the code enforcement process to ensure that future enforcement isn’t politically motivated. 

"It's important to me to express my opinion about this administration."

I have deep ties to Tomé, New Mexico, where I posted my signs. Generations of my family have lived here. My mother was the Tomé postmaster for 43 years. I think her experience and my father's dedication to the Town of Tomé Land Grant are how I became committed to public service – always giving back, always volunteering. My community and political activism also go back a long way. I’m a product of the 1970s. In college, I was supportive of the movement to advance Hispanic representation in higher education. Moving back home after college, when I saw something going on with the county commission or the school board, I was quick to write a letter. I’ve always felt good about sharing my opinion.  

It's important for me to express my opinion about this administration. I come from a counseling background with a degree in social work and a master’s in counseling. I’m angered every morning when I hear about what this administration is doing – all the hatred, racism, and retaliation. Trump’s behavior is such an affront to my core values and background. I’ve always fought for the underdog. We have got to get back on the right course. We need to stop hating people and breaking up families. 

People in Tomé know my commitment to the community. They also know me as someone who doesn’t back down when I see something that isn’t right. That’s why I’m proud to have my signs in my yard. 

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order seeking to end the constitutionally-guaranteed right to birthright citizenship. The American Civil Liberties Union and our partners swiftly sued to block that cruel and lawless action, as did other groups of plaintiffs around the country.

The Trump administration took several of these cases to the Supreme Court, asking it to limit lower courts’ ability to block illegal policies like this one, and for permission to enforce its order against thousands of babies nationwide. The Court ruled for the Trump administration in part, leaving many of those families confused and afraid of what might come next.

Several months later the case remains complex, with multiple legal challenges and appeals. Below, we lay out how the court ruled, where birthright citizenship stands today and what happens next.

Hours after Trump signed his executive order, the ACLU and our partners filed a lawsuit, NHICS v. Donald J. Trump, challenging Trump’s executive order in federal court. Within days, other legal challenges followed and several judges issued injunctions that blocked the order, temporarily halting enforcement and preventing harm while the legal challenges proceeded.

In response, the Trump administration filed emergency applications asking the Supreme Court to narrow the injunctions by limiting their protections from the entire country to just a handful of individual plaintiffs. Usually, this kind of request is decided based on written arguments. But, in an unusual move, the court agreed to hear oral arguments in a special session held on May 15.

On June 27, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that potentially cleared the way for Trump’s order to take effect nationwide. In Trump v. CASA, Inc. the court limited the availability of what’s known as “universal injunctions.” These legal tools prohibit or require certain actions not just for the parties involved in a particular case, but for all persons or entities. The Supreme Court limited the availability of these universal injunctions in general, but ultimately left it to lower courts to decide whether broad relief was justified in these particular cases. That meant that, as of July 27, tens of thousands U.S.-born babies could be left vulnerable to arrest, deportation, discrimination, and denial of critical early-life nutrition and health care.

Immediately after the Supreme Court’s ruling, the ACLU and our partners filed a new class action lawsuit, Barbara v. Donald J. Trump. A class action lawsuit is a different legal tool that can also broadly block harmful or unconstitutional policies. We identified a class of people – in this case all children born on U.S. soil to parents who are undocumented or have temporary status – and asked the court to let us proceed with the case on behalf of the entire class (called “class certification”) and to block the executive order as to everyone in the class. On July 10, a federal court provisionally granted nationwide class certification, recognizing the protected class and again blocking the executive order from taking effect while questions over the legality of Trump’s order continue to move through the courts.

Right now, every child whose citizenship was threatened by the executive order is protected. While the legal fight is far from over, these families can now take solace in knowing that they are protected while the cases make their way through the courts.

The fight over “universal injunctions” that culminated in the Supreme Court’s CASA decision and limited how this legal tool is used will have significant implications for future cases. But the Trump administration’s procedural win in that case was ultimately an empty victory when it comes to birthright citizenship. The Barbara injunction protects everyone and it is not vulnerable to the kind of arguments that the government offered in CASA. In fact, the Supreme Court pointed to class actions,like Barbara, as an appropriate way to obtain nationwide protection.

Importantly, the Trump administration has not yet appealed the ruling in Barbara or sought to have the Supreme Court block it. They were granted a seven-day window to seek an emergency stay, but that deadline passed without any action from the government.

Importantly, the CASA decision did not in any way question whether the 14th Amendment protects birthright citizenship. It does; as the Supreme Court made crystal clear more than 125 years ago. Trump’s executive order is blatantly illegal, violating both the 14th Amendment and a statute passed by Congress. President Trump has no power to change those facts.

One court of appeals has already ruled against the Trump administration on these merits questions, concluding that the executive order cannot stand. In the NHICS lawsuit — the one we filed just hours after Trump signed the order, directly challenging its legality – a court of appeals heard oral arguments on August 1.

The legal fight could take many paths from here. Right now, however, our win in Barbara ensures that there is no reason for families to fear whether they need to move, give birth in another state, or take other drastic steps to secure their children’s citizenship. Expectant parents can feel confident that their babies will still be recognized as U.S. citizens at birth — regardless of their immigration status or where they live.

In the courts, the appeals process could take some time, or move quickly to the Supreme Court. When the government presumably brings one or more cases to the Supreme Court, the court will have to decide whether to hear the appeals — and if it accepts the case or cases, more written legal briefs and oral arguments will follow. It may take years to work through the process and put a final end to this lawless executive order. Whatever path the litigation takes, the ACLU is ready to fight every step of the way. Our goal is to ensure that nobody is ever subjected to this unconstitutional order.

Birthright citizenship isn’t just a legal doctrine — it’s central to who we are as a nation. It reflects that all children born in this country belong here, and are equal members of our national community, no matter who their parents may be. The Constitution is on our side, and the ACLU will keep fighting to ensure this remains a fundamental right for future generations.

ACLU’s co-counsel in the NHICS and Barbara cases are: NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Asian Law Caucus, Democracy Defenders Fund, and ACLU’s of New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. Our organizational clients in NHICS are New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, League of United Latin American Citizens, and Make the Road New York.