Lee Gelernt — Profile¶

Date: 2026-02-18
Type: Legal Profile — Immigration Litigation and Constitutional Defense
Confidence: HIGH on biographical record, case history, and public statements; sourced from court records, ACLU publications, institutional bios, and Tier 1/2 journalism
Status: Active — Deputy Director, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; lead counsel in multiple active federal cases

Summary¶

Lee Gelernt is arguably the most important immigration lawyer in America. As Deputy Director of the ACLU's national Immigrants' Rights Project since 1992, he has argued dozens of major civil rights cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and virtually every federal court of appeals. If Tom Homan is the sword of the Trump administration's immigration enforcement apparatus, Gelernt is the shield. He was lead counsel in the family separation challenge during Trump's first term, lead counsel challenging the "invasion" proclamation, and lead counsel in the Alien Enemies Act litigation — three of the most consequential immigration cases in modern American history. His work directly shapes the legal environment in which every ICE arrest, detention, and deportation documented in our dossiers takes place.

Subject¶

Field	Detail
Name	Lee Gelernt
Born	Brooklyn, New York; raised in Manhattan
Family	Father of two sons; parents were an educator (mother, Lois Gelernt) and physician (father)
Education	Manhattan Country School (K-8); Tufts University, B.A. 1984 (basketball player); London School of Economics, M.Sc. International Relations 1985; Columbia Law School, J.D. 1988 (Notes & Comments Editor, Law Review)
Clerkship	Judge Frank Coffin, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
ACLU Tenure	Joined 1992 — 34 years and counting
Current Titles	Deputy Director, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Director, Program on Access to the Courts
Academic	Adjunct Professor, Columbia Law School; former Visiting Professor, Yale Law School
Recognition	Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers (2017); Tufts University Active Citizenship and Public Service Award (2020); subject of 2020 documentary "The Fight"; July 2018 New York Times Magazine cover story
Media	Regular on PBS NewsHour, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Frontline; Lawfare podcast; Democracy Now!

The ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project¶

The Immigrants' Rights Project (IRP) is a national litigation project of the ACLU Foundation, with offices in New York and San Francisco. It was founded in 1985 by Lucas Guttentag, who led it for 25 years, establishing it as the country's premiere immigrant justice litigation organization.

Current Leadership¶

Role	Name
Director	Omar Jadwat (joined as Skadden Fellow 2002)
Deputy Director	Lee Gelernt (joined 1992)

The Project undertakes targeted impact litigation, advocacy, and public outreach. It litigates complex class action and appellate cases on behalf of refugees and noncitizens throughout the country at all levels of the federal judiciary.

Career Arc: Three Decades of Impact Litigation¶

Post-9/11 National Security (2001–2010)¶

Gelernt's first major national profile came from civil liberties cases in the aftermath of September 11:

Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft — Successfully argued on behalf of media organizations to prevent the government from holding secret deportation hearings after 9/11. One of the first major post-9/11 cases to reach a federal appeals court.
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011) — Challenged the government's policy of using the federal material witness statute to investigate and preventively detain terrorism suspects without probable cause for criminal arrest.
Guantanamo Bay — Served as one of only a few human rights observers at the first military tribunal conducted by the U.S. since World War II.

Immigration and Border Rights (2010–2020)¶

Rodriguez v. Swartz (9th Circuit) — Argued the case of a Mexican teenager fatally shot in Mexico by a U.S. Border Patrol agent firing through the border fence from U.S. soil. The ruling was the first-ever federal court decision holding that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against excessive force applies extraterritorially. Gelernt stated: "The court made clear that the Constitution does not stop at the border and that agents should not have constitutional immunity to fatally shoot Mexican teenagers on the other side of the border fence."
Muslim Travel Ban (2017) — Successfully argued the first case challenging the Trump travel ban on individuals from Muslim-majority nations, resulting in a federal court in Brooklyn issuing a nationwide Saturday-night injunction against the ban only one day after it was enacted.
Family Separation: Ms. L v. ICE (2018) — See dedicated section below.
Asylum Bans — Successfully challenged both Trump administration asylum bans in the Ninth Circuit.
Title 42 — Successfully challenged expedited expulsion policies under both Trump and Biden administrations.

Trump II: The Constitutional Crisis (2025–Present)¶

Since January 20, 2025, Gelernt has been lead counsel or coordinating counsel in an unprecedented cascade of federal litigation. See dedicated sections below.

The Family Separation Case: Ms. L v. ICE (2018–Present)¶

This is the case that made Gelernt a household name and the subject of a New York Times Magazine cover and the documentary "The Fight."

First Trump Term (2018)¶

In 2018, the ACLU filed Ms. L v. ICE in the Southern District of California on behalf of a Congolese mother separated from her seven-and-a-half-year-old daughter. They were detained 2,000 miles apart. The case expanded into a national class action challenging the Trump administration's systematic practice of separating thousands of immigrant families at the border.

In June 2018, Judge Dana Sabraw issued a landmark injunction declaring the separation policy unconstitutional and ordering the reunification of all separated families. Gelernt traveled to Guatemala searching for deported parents. He encountered families where two-thirds of deported parents chose to let their children remain in the U.S. rather than be returned to dangerous home countries.

Gelernt on the policy: "It's as The Washington Post described it: 'gratuitous cruelty.' ... This is the worst thing I have ever seen in my 30-plus years doing this work."

The 2023 Settlement¶

Under the Biden administration, a settlement was reached with two components:
1. An eight-year bar on the federal government reenacting immigration policies that systematically separate children and parents
2. A mandate requiring the government to provide separated families parole to legally enter the U.S. and certain services (legal support, work authorization)

Second Trump Term: Settlement Breach (2025–2026)¶

The Trump administration has been breaching the settlement in multiple ways:

Service termination: The administration let legally mandated services lapse, arguing the main government contractor was "likely violating" civil rights laws by having a DEI program.
Re-detention of separated families: At least 25 people who were separated from their families during the first Trump administration have been detained again or deported, according to ACLU filings in federal court in San Diego (January 2026).
Deportation despite court order: The administration allegedly deported previously separated families despite the court order prohibiting such actions (July 2025).

The ACLU has spent most of the past year arguing that the administration is in breach. The case remains active in the Southern District of California.

The "Invasion" Proclamation: RAICES v. Noem¶

The Challenge¶

On January 20, 2025 — his first day in office — Trump issued a proclamation titled "Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion," invoking Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to declare that asylum-seeking immigrants constitute an "invasion" and must be summarily expelled without hearings.

On February 3, 2025, the ACLU filed RAICES v. Noem in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — the first major lawsuit challenging the proclamation. The coalition included ACLU, National Immigrant Justice Center, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies, Texas Civil Rights Project, ACLU of D.C., and ACLU of Texas.

Gelernt, lead counsel: "This is an unprecedented power grab that will put countless lives in danger."

Court Victory¶

On July 2, 2025, the D.C. District Court vacated the proclamation as unlawful and enjoined the government from implementing it, reaffirming that the right to seek asylum is a fundamental protection provided by Congress.

Gelernt: "This is a hugely important decision. It reaffirms that the president cannot ignore the laws Congress has passed and the most basic premise of our country's separation of powers."

The Alien Enemies Act Litigation (2025–Present)¶

This is the case most likely to define constitutional law for a generation.

Background¶

On March 14, 2025, President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 — a wartime statute used only three times in American history (War of 1812, World War I, World War II) — to target alleged members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a Venezuelan criminal organization. Within days, approximately 137 Venezuelan men were deported to El Salvador's CECOT prison without hearings.

Gelernt's Core Legal Arguments¶

From his PBS NewsHour interview:

"Congress was very, very clear in this statute... that there must be a foreign government or nation in a declared war with the United States or a foreign government or nation must be invading the United States or there must be predatory incursions, threatened or attempted. Nothing like that is happening."

"It's only been used three times in the history of the country, all during declared wars, the War of 1812, World War I and World War II."

"This is a very dangerous path we're going on if the government can say we're unilaterally going to designate any gang we want during peacetime as an enemy alien and then ship people off."

"The government based it on tattoos. But what experts say is, there's no definitive way based on tattoos to know whether someone is a gang member."

"Congress has set up a process to remove people who don't have a right to remain in this country... the courts are saying this wartime authority cannot be used during peacetime. Use your other authorities."

The Cases and Rulings¶

J.G.G. v. Trump (D.C. District / Supreme Court)

Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order. The Supreme Court, on emergency docket without oral argument, partially lifted the injunction (April 7, 2025) but ruled that individuals must be given meaningful advance notice to challenge their removal — rejecting the government's position that no notice was required. On April 18, 2025, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked new deportations under the Act while litigation continued.

W.M.M. v. Trump (5th Circuit)

Gelernt argued before the Fifth Circuit on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelans held in northern Texas. On September 3, 2025, the court ruled 2-1 that Trump's proclamation was not valid under the Alien Enemies Act, blocking its use for deportations in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The majority: Circuit Judges Leslie Southwick (George W. Bush appointee) and Irma Carrillo Ramirez (Biden appointee). Dissent: Judge Andrew Oldham (Trump appointee).

Colorado (D. Colorado)

On May 6, 2025, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting use of the Alien Enemies Act in Colorado and certified a class action.

Southern Texas

A Trump-appointed federal judge ruled the administration's invocation does not meet the "invasion" or "predatory incursion" requirement and blocked its use in the judicial district (May 2025).

December 2025: Due Process Ruling

Judge Boasberg ruled the government denied due process to Venezuelan men deported to CECOT and ordered the administration to either facilitate their return to the U.S. or provide hearings by January 5, 2026.

Gelernt: "This ruling makes clear the government can't just send people off to a brutal foreign prison with zero due process and simply walk away."

This case is likely headed back to the Supreme Court for full briefing and oral argument.

The Nationwide Lawsuit Campaign (2025–2026)¶

Beyond the headline cases, Gelernt and the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project are coordinating or directly litigating an unprecedented wave of federal lawsuits challenging ICE conduct across the country. These cases directly affect the communities documented in our dossiers.

Colorado: Warrantless Arrests¶

Filed: October 2025 (ACLU of Colorado, Meyer Law Office, Olson Grimsley Kawanabe Hinchcliff & Murray)

Challenged ICE's practice of conducting warrantless arrests without probable cause. On November 25, 2025, the federal court granted a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification preventing ICE from conducting warrantless arrests in Colorado without probable cause that a person is both a flight risk and in the U.S. in violation of immigration law.

Minnesota: Suspicionless Stops, Racial Profiling¶

Filed: January 15, 2026 (ACLU, ACLU of Minnesota, Covington & Burling, Greene Espel, Robins Kaplan)

Class-action lawsuit challenging the administration's "Operation Metro Surge" — a policy of racially profiling, unlawfully seizing, and arresting people without warrants and without probable cause, targeting Somali and Latino communities in the Twin Cities.

Named plaintiff Mubashir Khalif Hussen, a 20-year-old U.S. citizen, was walking to lunch in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood when multiple masked ICE agents in military gear stopped him, refused to look at his ID, placed him in an SUV, drove him to the Whipple building, shackled him, took his fingerprints, and only released him after he showed a photo of his passport card.

The lawsuit alleges First Amendment violations (retaliation against protesters and observers), Fourth Amendment violations (arrest without probable cause), and conspiracy to violate civil rights.

Minnesota: Observer and Protester Rights¶

Filed: December 17, 2025 (ACLU of Minnesota and partner firms)

Separate suit alleging ICE agents routinely violated the constitutional rights of people protesting and observing enforcement actions — arresting or retaliating against observers in violation of the First Amendment.

Nebraska: Bond Hearing Denial¶

Filed: February 2026 (ACLU of Nebraska)

Multiple federal lawsuits challenging ICE's adoption of a policy denying bond hearings to nearly all detained immigrants. Plaintiffs include Carlos Roldan Chang (detained in McCook, NE since December 2025) and Joel Angel-Becerril (27, a DACA recipient authorized to work until 2027).

On February 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Susan Bazis ordered ICE to arrange a bond hearing within seven days for Chang, ruling that noncitizens detained within the interior who have been present for years are entitled to bond hearings.

Idaho: Racetrack Raid¶

Filed: February 10, 2026 (ACLU, ACLU of Idaho, Wendy J. Olson)

64-page class-action complaint arising from an October 19, 2025 raid at La Catedral racetrack in Wilder, Idaho — a popular venue that draws Latino families and celebrates Mexican culture. More than 200 officers in armored trucks and helicopters descended on the arena. Approximately 400 people, including U.S. citizens and children, were detained for four hours, denied food and water. Parents and children were zip-tied at gunpoint. Agents used flash-bang grenades and rubber bullets. The suit alleges agents targeted anyone who "looked Latino."

Result of the raid: five gambling arrests; over 100 referred for immigration processing. The ACLU's argument: federal agents abused a criminal search warrant to "go fishing" for immigration arrests at an event where they knew they would encounter a large number of Latino families, violating federal civil rights protections.

Virginia: Detention Expansion and Youth Detention¶

FOIA Lawsuit (October 2025): ACLU, ACLU of Virginia, and ACLU of North Carolina sued ICE for records regarding potential expansion of immigration detention across Virginia. The litigation revealed ICE is actively considering opening six or more new detention centers.

Youth Detention (October 2025): ACLU of Virginia filed a class action accusing ICE of unlawfully detaining young people who already have or are in the process of obtaining Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) — legal protections Congress created to shield them from deportation.

Attorney Access to Counsel¶

Multiple lawsuits filed by ACLU and partner organizations challenging ICE's practice of preventing attorneys from communicating with detained immigrants in facilities across Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, and Nebraska.

Public Statements and Legal Philosophy¶

On Immigration Law¶

"It's the most insane area of law. It's totally Kafkaesque. People have these experiences that just feel like not in a rules-driven democracy." — NBC News

On the Humanity of Asylum Seekers¶

"The way these women are being talked about as if they're like gunrunners as opposed to people. It's the most basic instinct in the world for a parent to be protecting their child." — NBC News

On Due Process¶

"In America, you get to see a judge who doesn't work for the same people who are trying to put you in jail." — NBC News

On the Rule of Law¶

"Once that ends, we're no longer a country based on the rule of law." — on the government's apparent refusal to abide by federal court orders

On Immigration Work¶

"It is largely about race and poverty." — San Diego Union-Tribune

On Evasion of Court Orders¶

"It's a complete ruse to get around the order from the immigration judge. This fits a pattern of the Trump administration trying to evade court orders." — Democracy Now!, September 2025, on deportations to Ghana of West African asylum seekers despite judicial orders

On Personal Motivation¶

Colleagues note the family separation case "touched a nerve for him as a father" of two sons. He is described as "not a showboat" and "certainly not flamboyant" — someone who "makes an impression" through being "smart and articulate." During the 2018 family separation crisis, he flew to San Diego intending to stay briefly: "I ended up staying for 12 days."

Connection to Our Dossiers¶

Gelernt's litigation directly shapes the legal landscape in which the events we document occur:

Our Documentation	His Litigation
ICE raids on communities (Idaho, Minnesota)	Class actions challenging warrantless arrests, racial profiling, excessive force
Detention conditions (Everglades, McCook, etc.)	Bond hearing challenges; attorney access suits
Deportation flights to El Salvador/CECOT	Alien Enemies Act litigation; due process challenges
Family separation — documented cases of re-separated families	Ms. L v. ICE settlement enforcement
Asylum denial at the border	RAICES v. Noem — invasion proclamation struck down
ICE targeting of U.S. citizens	Minnesota lawsuit (Hussen, a U.S. citizen, detained)

Every court order he wins constrains the enforcement machinery we document. Every injunction limits the abuses our dossiers catalog. When ICE agents in Minnesota or Idaho violate the Constitution, the legal framework Gelernt has built is what makes accountability possible.

Intelligence Value¶

Lee Gelernt is the single most important legal counterweight to the Trump administration's immigration enforcement apparatus. His litigation portfolio represents the most comprehensive judicial challenge to executive overreach on immigration in American history. Court filings in his cases are primary sources for documenting government conduct — they contain sworn declarations, internal communications, and factual findings that meet evidentiary standards far exceeding journalistic ones.

His public statements are reliable, measured, and legally precise — he does not engage in hyperbole. When Gelernt says "this is the worst thing I have ever seen in my 30-plus years," it carries the weight of someone who argued before the Supreme Court about Guantanamo detentions and post-9/11 secret hearings.

Key monitoring targets:
- PACER filings in all active cases (J.G.G. v. Trump, W.M.M. v. Trump, RAICES v. Noem, Ms. L v. ICE, Colorado/Minnesota/Nebraska/Idaho actions)
- ACLU press releases and case pages
- PBS NewsHour, Lawfare, and Democracy Now! appearances
- Columbia Law School and Yale Law School event listings

Organizational network: ACLU national + 53 state affiliates; National Immigrant Justice Center; Center for Gender & Refugee Studies; Texas Civil Rights Project; Covington & Burling; Robins Kaplan — all co-counsel in active litigation.

Sources¶

Institutional Biographies¶

ACLU Case Pages and Press Releases¶

Court Records and Legal Analysis¶

Tier 1-2 Journalism¶

Profiles and Interviews¶

Family Separation Settlement¶

State-Level Litigation Coverage¶

Documentary and Film¶

IMDb — The Fight (2020)

Research Method: OSINT Cycle — public sources only, Bellingcat-standard three-source verification. All cases verified against court records, ACLU publications, and independent journalism.
Researcher: oilcloth / Mortui Vivos Docent Intelligence Project

Every. Human. Matters.