seekers

LOS ANGELES — A lawsuit filed Tuesday alleges that the Trump administration’s immigration agencies have been sharing confidential information about Iranian asylum seekers with the Iranian government, violating national immigration regulations and endangering countless Iranians, court filings argue.

The lawsuit depicts a coordinated campaign between the U.S. and Iranian governments to identify Iranians in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and pressure them to return to Iran — a marked departure from decades of diplomatic hostility between the two governments and an ongoing war.

Roughly 600 Iranians were put in immigration detention last year, according to public records obtained by the National Iranian American Council. In June, an Iranian woman was among the two dozen migrants the U.S. deported to the Central African Republic — in a marked departure from a decades-long practice by the U.S. of welcoming Iranian dissidents, exiles and others since the 1979 Islamic Revolution forced a large number of Iranians to flee.

The U.S. government is allowed to work with government officials of foreign countries to coordinate deportation logistics. However, federal regulations passed in the late 1990s prohibit the government from sharing information that could reveal that the individual getting deported applied for asylum.

“Congress made these confidentiality protections mandatory precisely because lives depend on them, and no agency and no administration, of either party, may set them aside,” said Ali Rahnama, the interim executive director of Iranian American Legal Defense Fund.

Starting in March 2025, the U.S. State Department arranged monthly meetings with Iranian officials, using the Pakistani embassy as an intermediary, in which U.S. officials shared detailed, sensitive information about detained Iranian immigrants who the U.S. government hoped to deport, lawyers for the Iranian American Legal Defense Fund and the Public Citizen Litigation Group wrote in a complaint.

The information included details about asylum applications filed by people who say they were persecuted for converting to Christianity, for their sexuality or for participating in the Women, Life, Freedom protests against the Iranian government in 2022, according to the lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

ICE forced Iranian asylum applicants who had been detained in numerous facilities, mostly southern states, to meet with an Iranian government official who had extensive and specific knowledge about their applications, according to the complaint. The information was shared even after the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran started the Iran war in February 2026.

The lawsuit is seeking to halt sharing information about asylum seekers with the Iranian government and appoint an independent monitor to prevent future disclosures.

“Despite the U.S.’s ongoing war with Iran, the administration seems more committed to mass deportation than protecting human lives,” Michael Kirkpatrick, attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group said in a statement.

The complaint names the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and the Department of State as some of the defendants. The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department didn’t respond to an emailed request for comment on Tuesday morning.

The allegations come amid President Trump’s ambitious and aggressive immigration crackdown that involved over 600,000 deportations and causing roughly 1.9 million immigrants to voluntarily leave in 2025 alone, according to an announcement made by DHS.

Iranian officials acknowledged in September 2025 that as many as 400 Iranians could be returned under an agreement with the Trump’s administration. That month, the first of three deportation flights brought dozens of Iranians back to Iran. The second deportation flight was in December 2025, and the final recorded deportation flight departed at the end of January 2026, roughly a month before the war on Iran started, and just weeks after the Iranian government killed thousands of citizens as part of a brutal crackdown on protests. The New York Times reported at the time that some of those deported in the flights in September, December and January were asylum seekers.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Asylum seekers may be turned away without a hearing at the southern border, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a historic retreat from the promise of relief for those who say they are fleeing persecution.

The justices split over whether this was a simple dispute over legal wording or a moral question involving desperate families.

Siding with the Trump administration, the court’s conservatives said the Refugee Act of 1980 offers a right to seek asylum to migrants who “arrive in the United States” but not those who are turned back when they approach a border crossing or a port of entry.

“This case presents a straightforward question” that turns on the word “in,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place — for example, a house, a city, or a country — before the person enters that place.”

The liberal dissenters agreed with immigration rights lawyers who saw this as a nonsensical reading of the law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the asylum law arose from the “international moral reckoning that followed the Holocaust and World War II.”

She cited the infamous voyage of the MS St. Louis in 1939. More than 900 Jewish refugees attempted to flee persecution in Nazi Germany by setting sail aboard the ship, which was turned away from Cuba and the United States.

Most of the passengers were returned to Europe, and several hundred died in the Holocaust, she said.

“Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980 because it did not want this country to repeat the mistakes of its past. Yet if the refugees on the M.S. St. Louis were to walk up to a port of entry on our southern border today, the majority’s interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto U. S. soil,” Sotomayor wrote.

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The decision upholds a turn-back policy that began in 2016 as an emergency response to a surge of Haitian immigrants at the San Ysidro border crossing.

The Department of Homeland Security said these asylum seekers must wait on the Mexican side of the border until they could return for a scheduled interview. The policy was extended to other border crossings, but it was challenged as illegal in federal court in San Diego.

Last year, a divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that those restrictions were illegal if they prevented migrants from applying for asylum.

“To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” wrote Judge Michelle Friedland. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”

She said the “government’s reading would reflect a radical reconstruction of the right to apply for asylum because it would give the executive branch vast discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.”

The 2-1 decision upheld a federal judge in San Diego who ruled for migrants who had filed a class-action suit and said they were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling, noting 15 judges of the 9th Circuit joined dissents that called the decision “radical” and “clearly wrong.”

The administration argued federal immigration law “does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so that they can seek asylum.”

From abroad, they may “seek admission as refugees,” Sauer said, but the government may enforce its laws by “blocking illegal immigrants from stepping on U.S. soil.”

Defenders of the asylum system denounced the decision.

“We believe that today’s ruling violates international law, as well as the express intent of Congress,” said Erika Pinheiro, executive director of the migrant support organization Al Otro Lado, which led the legal fight. “For decades, the United States has allowed individuals and families who are fleeing persecution, torture and death to ask for protection at U.S. borders.”

“Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system, said Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council. “It only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform applauded the decision.

“Our immigration laws are written to be pro-enforcement, not-anti-enforcement,” said Christopher J. Hajec, deputy general counsel of FAIR. “Because of this, courts that hamstring enforcement are often forced to violate basic logic, as the 9th Circuit did here. We are pleased the Supreme Court saw that the lower court’s reading would make immigration law incoherent, and reversed.”

Russell Crowe has pushed back against TMZ’s coverage of his recent interactions with a crowd of autograph seekers.

“Clickbait,” the “Gladiator” actor wrote in a Monday post on X. “Everybody got their autograph and selfie, the passage to the hotel was kept free for guests, and I still got to the airport on time. One man, no security. Handled. What’s your problem ?”

Earlier that day, the outlet had posted a video of Crowe addressing a crowd of fans and autograph seekers outside of a Paris hotel before making his way to them to sign various memorabilia.

“If you needed a reminder that fans are not always priority No. 1 — turn to Russell Crowe — cause the guy was absolutely not having it outside of his Paris hotel,” TMZ wrote in its since-deleted X post sharing the video. The outlet also framed the video as Crowe “explod[ing] on Pushy Autograph Seekers” in its news story.

In the video, the Academy Award winner is shown giving clear directions to those gathered for his autograph or to snap a photo with him.

“Stay where you are, don’t f— push in on me, I’ll come to you,” Crowe says. “Give everybody space. As soon as somebody’s a d—, I’m gone.”

The actor then approaches the crowd to sign various items held out in front of him. The short clip ends soon after Crowe declines a request to also write “Maximus” — the name of his “Gladiator” character — next to his signature as he continues to sign other things.

Crowe’s temperament, blunt demeanor and distaste for certain aspects of “celebrity” have long been fodder for news coverage. In 2005, the actor made headlines for throwing a phone that hit a Manhattan hotel concierge.

“If I ever was going to torture somebody, I’d put them in a room where they can’t leave and have someone new come in every three minutes and ask the same question over a number of days and then weeks,” Crowe said in a 2010 interview with The Times, describing what happens at a movie press junket on the eve of embarking on one.

“Some people believe celebrity is a power that should be used. Ultimately, your dollars are more powerful,” Crowe said in that interview. “I’m famous for making movies. Celebrity just happens to be an unfortunate byproduct of what I do.”

Judges say Trump’s order for swift removal at the border ‘cast aside federal laws affording’ right to seek asylum.

An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s ban on asylum applications in the United States is unlawful, dealing a setback to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

In a decision released on Friday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, found that existing laws — namely the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — give people the right to apply for asylum at the border.

Trump had issued the asylum ban in a proclamation on January 20, 2025, on the first day of his second term.

But the appeals court questioned whether suspending asylum unilaterally was within the president’s power.

“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the ruling said.

“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections.”

The decision validated a ruling by a lower court. While the judges blocked Trump’s order, it is unclear what its immediate impact will be. Already, the White House has signalled it plans to appeal.

Trump made immigration a major pillar of his 2024 re-election campaign, pledging to repel what he describes as an “invasion” of migrants by shutting down the southern border of the US.

Asylum in the US can be granted to people facing “persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group”. Such protections have been recognised as a fundamental human right under international law.

But unauthorised border crossings reached record levels during the administration of President Joe Biden, which had itself imposed asylum restrictions.

Millions of migrants — many suffering from gang violence and political persecution in Central and South America — have claimed asylum upon reaching the US.

Nearly 945,000 filed for asylum in 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

In his January 2025 decree, Trump suspended “the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border”.

The proclamation was quickly challenged in court, as other measures in Trump’s immigration crackdown have been.

But the appeals court panel concluded that the INA does not authorise the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making”.

Nor does it allow him to suspend the plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating claims of torture and persecution.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee.

The Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling to the full appellate court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.

The White House stressed after the court’s decision that banning asylum is part of Trump’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief.

“We have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

History textbooks often include the story of the Underground Railroad, an organized network of secret routes, places and people that guided enslaved populations from the South to abolitionist Northern states.

However, less is known about the underground railroad that ran southbound to Mexico. But one live-looped musical is unearthing that hidden history, one beat at a time.

Co-created and performed by Brian Quijada and Nygel D. Robinson, “Mexodus” tells the fictional story of Henry, who evades his capture by fleeing Texas across the Rio Grande. After a near fatality, he is saved by Carlos, a farmer and former combat medic battling his own trauma from the Mexican-American War. Together they form solidarity, despite social, racial and political strains plaguing both sides of the border.

Following its off-Broadway run at the Daryl Roth Theatre in New York City, the hip-hop and bolero-infused musical directed by David Mendizábal will open at the Pasadena Playhouse stage July 8 and run until Aug. 2. But for history buffs and musical enthusiasts alike, a sonically richer version filled with sound effects of the musical airs exclusively on Audible today, April 16.

The idea for “Mexodus” first came to Brian Quijada — playwright, actor and composer behind “Where Did We Sit on the Bus?,” “Kid Prince and Pablo” and “Somewhere Over the Border” — when reading a 2018 article on History.com about the estimated 5,000 to 10,000 enslaved individuals that escaped the American South for freedom in Mexico, though some researchers estimate that number to be higher.

“My parents crossed the border undocumented in the late 1970s, so I think I’ve always been fascinated with writing immigration stories,” Quijada said. “The reason that this story attracted me was because it’s like a reverse border story, but I also knew that it wasn’t my story to tell so I sat on it for a long time.”

Quijada bookmarked the article until he met Robinson — a performer at Berkeley Rep, Baltimore Center Stage, Shakespeare Theater Company, Mosaic Theater and writer and composer of “Santa Claus Is Comin’: A Motown Christmas Revue” and “R&J: Fire on the Bayou” — at an actor-musician conference weeks before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. They were the only actors-musicians of color in the room, listening in on conversations about how one should audition for musicals like “Once,” “Million Dollar Quartet,” which typically center white storylines.

“We kind of looked at each other and we’re like, ‘we don’t really belong here,’” said Quijada, who invited Robinson to take part in “Mexodus” during the pandemic shutdown. The first iteration of the project was as a mixtape.

The musical edge of “Mexodus” hinges on live looping, a recording and playback technique where a sound is repeated and then layered (think Justin Bieber’s solo performance of “Yukon” at the 2026 Grammy Awards). Physically, both Quijada and Robinson’s characters have to pick up a guitar, record it, then play the drum set and run to the bass. “ It’s pretty labor-intensive,” Quijada said.

“I think Brian and I are artists in this way, like various people of color, where it’s like, no one else is gonna do it for me, so I can do it all by myself,” Robinson said.

There’s also a more dramaturgical, meta reason for the loop, which follows a four chord structure throughout the piece, set in both 1851 and present day.

“The looping shows you that there’s not much difference between 1851 and 2026,” Robinson said. “We just keep finding ourselves in a loop and like maybe a sound is in that wasn’t there before. Maybe another sound is added, but it’s still the same four chord structure that has been happening in this country for all existence.”

In 2010, the U.S. National Park Service outlined a possible runaway route stretching on the Camino Real de la Tejas between Natchitoches, La., to Monclova, Mexico. Still, it is unclear how organized the underground railroad heading to Mexico truly was, the Associated Press reported in 2020, with archives destroyed in a fire and sites along the path abandoned.

In 2024 the Jackson Ranch Church and Martin Jackson Cemetery in San Juan, Texas — which are part of a ranch owned by interracial couple Nathaniel Jackson and Matilda Hicks — were recognized by the U.S. National Park Service for serving as a gateway to freedom in Mexico.

Other Texas couples alongside the border— including interracial abolitionist couple Ferdinand Webber and Silvia Hector — aided enslaved people in their pursuits to reach Mexico, which had abolished slavery in 1829, while Texas was still part of the country.

Fears surrounding the Mexican government’s attempts to abolish slavery led to the formation of the Republic of Texas in 1836 and its eventual annexation to the United States by 1845; records also show that American slave owners would head down to Mexico to kidnap formerly enslaved individuals, according to USC historian Alice Baumgartner, who wrote about it in her 2020 book “South to Freedom: Runaway Slaves to Mexico and the Road to the Civil War.”

A database by the Texas Runaway Slave Project, which found listings for 2,500 runaways across various Texas newspapers from the 1840s through the 1860s, also documents the frequented journey to Mexico.

Slavery in the U.S. wouldn’t be officially abolished until 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution.

“I was also really intimidated by the amount of research that I would have to do to write this piece because at the time back [between 2017 and 2020], [researchers] were just beginning to uncover a lot of this,” Quijada said.

Themes of racism — including anti-Blackness in the Latino community — oppression and resistance are woven throughout “Mexodus,” which since its debut in 2023 at the Baltimore Center Stage/Mosaic Theater Company in Washington, D.C., has been making viewers aware of the little-known history.

Robinson recalled how one Black woman came up to him after the show to let him know she believed in Trump’s border wall.

“I got nervous, but she was like, ‘after seeing this, I’m realizing that there’s something trying to convince me of that.’ And I’m like, yes!” said Robinson. “I’m like, this is good. This is good. We started you somewhere. Wow.”

The pair hope that amid all the dark news circulating around the world — and the traumatic, historical themes interlaced in “Mexodus” — the existence of this piece of art can be a glimmer of hope and joy for the future of both Black and brown communities.

“ I need you all to see the truth, but we’re gonna try and dance anyway,” Robinson said.