
How the nation's first Asian American legal organization in S.F. is taking on Trump
Arriving at the corner building, not far from Wong's childhood home in Chinatown, visitors — often immigrants seeking free legal services — will find a laminated sign on its office doors saying that federal immigration officers are prohibited from stepping inside the property.
The Asian Law Caucus has long served clients from across the country. But the decades-old Bay Area organization now finds itself at the heart of the ongoing battle to protect birthright citizenship from an unprecedented challenge by the Trump administration as the fate of countless immigrant families hangs in the balance.
In 1895, as a wave of anti-Chinese sentiment spread across the country, Wong, who was born in the U.S., returned to San Francisco from a trip to China. Upon arrival, he was immediately detained by customs officials who claimed he was not a U.S. citizen because his parents were Chinese.
Wong was detained for four months on a steamship. But after his release, he and his attorneys from the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association challenged the government's attempt to deny him citizenship.
The legal battle eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor after about three years of litigation. And for the next 126 years, that decision enshrined birthright citizenship to anyone born in the country, giving clarity to what rights the 14th Amendment actually affords people born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents.
But more than a century after the landmark ruling, President Donald Trump signed an executive order in January intended to end birthright citizenship. The same day, the Asian Law Caucus, along with a coalition of other immigration advocacy groups, filed a federal lawsuit to block Trump's order.
'When Trump was a candidate, he told people what he was going to do, and (eliminating) birthright citizenship was part of the agenda,' said Aarti Kohli, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus. 'There was always a looming threat, and we had colleagues who started to plan on it.'
The Asian Law Caucus is the only member of the coalition challenging Trump's order to solely represent Asian Americans, a distinction not lost on the organization's leaders.
'What ALC is doing right now is ensuring that we are working in a broad coalition, and that the stories and voices of the Asian American community are visible,' Kohli said. 'It's so important, right this moment, for people to understand that we're all in this together,' she said.
'We have a disproportionately high number of members of our communities who would be affected' by an end to birthright citizenship, Kohli said. 'This is a fight that we need to roll our sleeves up and commit ourselves to because so much is at stake,' Kohli said.
To date, it's been over 53 years since the nation's first Asian American legal organization opened in a small Oakland storefront, staffed with one attorney and a handful of volunteers. The civil rights organization now boasts over 60 staff members, serving low-income Asian and Pacific Islander communities in the Bay Area and beyond.
Before being enmeshed in one of the largest litigation battles this year, the Asian Law Caucus regularly provides legal services for immigrants on housing rights, worker rights and community safety issues.
Kohli said the Trump administration's executive order on birthright citizenship would have far-reaching consequences. According to the Migration Policy Institute, ending birthright citizenship would leave 255,000 children being born in the U.S. without citizenship each year.
Winnie Kao, one of the Asian Law Caucus' senior attorneys leading their legal team, fielded panicked questions from clients across the country after Trump signed the executive order. Many of them, particularly those from China and India on work or student visas, feared that their U.S.-born children would lose citizenship or face deportation, Kao said.
'We had community members trying to figure out should they try to induce their pregnancy so that they give birth before the executive order goes into effect,' said Kao, who grew up in the U.S. with Taiwanese parents. 'People asked questions, whether my children would be separated? Could my baby get deported? These are heartbreaking questions.'
Since the beginning of Trump's second term, his administration has also threatened to revoke the nonprofit status of legal aid organizations whose work cuts against the grain of his policy goals. The Asian Law Caucus falls directly in those crosshairs, Kohli said.
In the past months, Kohli said her team has had internal discussions to double down on their commitments to immigrants seeking help, while some potential donors have gotten cold feet in fear of being associated with an organization like theirs, Kohli said.
But the Asian Law Caucus' efforts to pursue this legal battle have already drawn major applause from other community leaders, including the Asian American Bar Association in the Bay Area.
'Having ALC out there, standing up and representing the API community, and making clear that you know civil rights are civil rights regardless of which specific ethnic or racial group you belong to is critically important,' said Kelly Matayoshi, president of the Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area.
In early February, the federal judge overseeing their coalition's case issued an injunction blocking Trump's executive order. So did other judges presiding over similar lawsuits filed by states and other immigration advocacy nonprofits, offering a temporary reprieve.
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case that limited lower-court judges from blocking executive branch policies. The decision left some states to enforce Trump's birthright citizenship order starting on July 27. Twenty-two other states, including California, challenged the order this year, blocking the order from immediately taking effect.
The Asian Law Caucus soon filed a new nationwide class action lawsuit in New Hampshire with another coalition of legal organizations.
On Thursday, Kohli's organization notched one of its biggest wins this year: The federal court in New Hampshire ruled in favor of their class action lawsuit and issued a preliminary injunction, again blocking Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship.
Though she now feels relieved, Kohli anticipates a long road ahead, but she promises to lead her organization as long as it takes to certify protections for her clients and people nationwide.
'I'm feeling incredibly relieved because our clients were so worried,' Kohli said. 'At the moment, obviously, people are watching closely what happens in the courts, but for now, babies are protected in the United States, and that's really important.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fast Company
7 minutes ago
- Fast Company
‘Good Trouble Lives On': July 17 to see protests against Trump in all 50 states over voting rights, racial justice. Here's what to know
Organizers of the recent 'No Kings Day' and 'Hands Off' pro-democracy protests against the Trump administration have planned another nationwide day of action, dubbed 'Good Trouble Lives On,' for this Thursday, July 17, which will focus on promoting racial justice and voting rights. The organizers chose this date to commemorate the five-year anniversary of Congressman John Lewis' passing, a civil rights leader who frequently used the phrase 'good trouble,' and famously said, 'get in good trouble, necessary trouble and help redeem the soul of America'—meaning, when necessary, one should protest injustice. Lewis, who served in the House of Representatives from 1987 to 2021 representing Georgia's 5th congressional district, was a key figure in the civil rights movement, participating in the first mass sit-ins and Freedom Rides. He spoke at the March on Washington in 1963 alongside Martin Luther King Jr. His speech on that August day ended: ''Wake up America! Wake up!' For we cannot stop, and we will not and cannot be patient'—a sentiment echoed by many speakers at the many protests this year. Here's everything you need to know about the 'Good Trouble Lives On' July 17 protests. What is the 'Good Trouble Lives On' July 17 protest? Nationwide protests in all 50 states are aimed at carrying Lewis' legacy forward with a flagship event scheduled to take place in Chicago, and key additional events to be held in Atlanta; Washington, D.C.; Annapolis, Maryland; St. Louis; and tentatively San Francisco. 'Good Trouble Lives On: John Lewis National Day of Action is rooted in justice and peace,' Christine Wood and Allison Pulliam, co-directors of Declaration for American Democracy Coalition, one of the main organizers of the event, told Fast Company. 'For the past five years, we have fought to protect our civil liberties that generations of marginalized Americans have worked tirelessly to secure.' 'In only his first few months in office, Trump has pulverized that progress, attacking our right to vote, cracking down on free speech and our right to protest, deporting people without due process, cutting crucial programs, and DEI initiatives, defunding live-saving research,' they added. Who is behind the July 17 protest? The main organizing groups of the 'Good Trouble Lives On' protests are the Transformative Justice Coalition, Black Voters Matter, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, League of Women Voters, the Declaration for American Democracy Coalition, and Mi Familia en Acción, along with a coalition of other groups. How big is the 'Good Trouble Lives On' protest? 'We expect at least several hundred thousand people will attend across the country,' a spokesperson for 'Good Trouble Lives On' told Fast Company. As of Wednesday, July 9, some 1,200 events and rallies were already confirmed. Since Trump took office in January, millions of Americans have taken to the streets and organized rallies across the nation in record numbers from big cities to rural towns, in both blue and red states. For more information about the July 17 protests and other scheduled events in your area, go here.

USA Today
9 minutes ago
- USA Today
From 'obsolete' to the 'opposite of that': Trump changes tune on NATO, criticizes Putin
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump has changed his tune on NATO, now that U.S. allies are paying more for their self-defense. Before he was elected to office in 2016, Trump said the military alliance was from a "different time" and he called it "obsolete." But he has softened his tone and said this week that the Western alliance was "becoming the opposite of that." "It was very unfair because the United States paid for almost a hundred percent of it, but now they're paying their own bills, and I think that's much better," Trump told the BBC. "We changed NATO a lot," he added. Trump gave the interview after an Oval Office meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte. The pair announced a plan for Europe to pay the United States for weapons that the alliance ships to Ukraine. Trump issued an ultimatum to Russian President Vladimir Putin during the meeting, saying he has 50 days to make peace with Ukraine or he'll face economic punishment. NATO latest: Trump to send Ukraine weapons through NATO, threatens secondary tariffs on Russia Trump told the BBC later that he was disappointed with Putin but not done negotiating with the Russian leader, whom he suggested he does not trust. He told the British network he thought he had a deal with Putin to end the war four times. "And then you go home, and you see, just attacked a nursing home or something in Kyiv. I said: 'What the hell was that all about?'"


USA Today
9 minutes ago
- USA Today
SCOTUS lets Trump fire hundreds of Education Department workers, dismantle the agency
On Tuesday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: USA TODAY Supreme Court Correspondent Maureen Groppe discusses the high court's move to let President Donald Trump fire hundreds of workers from the Education Department and continue other efforts to dismantle the agency. A coalition of states is suing the Trump administration to restore billions of dollars in federal education funding. USA TODAY White House Correspondent Francesca Chambers breaks down Trump's decision to send Ukraine weapons through NATO. Plus, Senate pressure builds to sanction Russia. Some Trump loyalists are underwhelmed and upset with what's been delivered about Jeffrey Epstein. The MLB All-Star Game is tonight! Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Taylor Wilson: Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson, and today is Tuesday, July 15th, 2025. This is USA TODAY's The Excerpt. Today what a Supreme Court decision means for the future of the Education Department, plus Trump's latest approach to Ukraine and how some in his inner circle are upset with what's been delivered about Jeffrey Epstein. ♦ The Supreme Court is letting President Donald Trump fire hundreds of Education Department workers and dismantle the agency. I discussed with USA TODAY's Supreme Court correspondent, Maureen Groppe. Maureen, always a pleasure having you on. How are you? Maureen Groppe: I'm good. Thanks for having me on. Taylor Wilson: Thanks for joining me. What did the court decide and how did the majority argue here? Maureen Groppe: So the Supreme Court lifted a lower court's order that had required the administration to rehire hundreds of Education Department employees and had stopped the administration from transferring some of the Education Department functions to other agencies. The majority did not give an explanation for why it disagreed with those decisions that were made by both a federal district judge and were backed up by an appeals court and said it was just a very short order lifting those decisions. Taylor Wilson: Well, this is an ideologically divided court on this. What did we hear from the dissenters? Maureen Groppe: So the three justices who were appointed by Democratic presidents, they opposed this order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote 19 pages explaining why. The gist of it is that she said that the majority of justices are allowing Trump to repeal laws that Congress passed creating the Education Department, allowing him to do that by firing all the employees who are needed to carry out the functions that Congress required the Education Department to undertake. And she said her colleagues are either naive to think that that is not what's happening or they are willfully looking the other way to allow it to happen. Taylor Wilson: All right. And what did we previously seen from the lower courts on this issue, Maureen? Maureen Groppe: So this started with a federal judge in Massachusetts who said that the White House decision to fire more than 1300 workers is preventing the government from effectively implementing programs and services that they're legally required by Congress to do. She said changes that magnitude have to be approved by Congress before the administration can do them. And the US Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in Boston, they agreed with that federal judge and they said the administration hadn't provided any evidence to dispute that these firings were having a destabilizing effect on the Education Department. Taylor Wilson: Trump is clearly trying to fulfill his campaign promise to end the Education Department, Maureen. What are his practical goals here? How would this work? Maureen Groppe: He directed the Education Secretary to, as he put it, "facilitate the closure of the Department of Education." And the education Secretary previously announced that about half the workforce would be cut through a combination of layoffs and buyouts. And the administration also wants to move functions to other places, such as having these small business administration take over student loans and move special education services to the Department of Health and Human Services. Taylor Wilson: This decision came a week after the court allowed the administration to move forward with staffing cuts at a number of agencies. What's next, Maureen? Maureen Groppe: So the groups in states that are challenging these cuts, they can continue to do so. What the decisions mean, however, is that the layoffs can move forward for the time being. So it's possible that once these challenges eventually come back to the Supreme Court, the court could decide that the layoffs went too far. But even if it does do that, it could be difficult at that point to restore the agencies to the level they were at before they were gutted. Taylor Wilson: Maureen Groppe covers the Supreme Court for USA TODAY. Thank you, Maureen. Maureen Groppe: Thanks for having me. ♦ Taylor Wilson: In other education news, a coalition of states is suing the Trump administration to restore billions of dollars in federal education funding, including money for after school and summer learning programs. The group of Democratic Attorneys General representing 24 states in the District of Columbia, filed the lawsuit yesterday in a federal court in Rhode Island. In the complaint, the top lawyers in several blue states say the funding pause is unconstitutional and ask the court to restore the money in their states immediately. Since the Education Department's decision two weeks ago to withhold the funds which have been available to schools annually without interruption for decades, many districts nationwide have found themselves in financial uncertainty. You can read more with a link in today's show notes. ♦ President Trump has announced new weapons to Ukraine through NATO. I spoke with USA TODAY White House correspondent, Francesca Chambers, to learn more. Thanks for joining me, Francesca. Francesca Chambers: Thanks Taylor. Always pleasure. Taylor Wilson: All right, starting here. What did the president announce for sending weapons through NATO? Francesca Chambers: The president said that the United States would make the weapons, however now European countries would pay for them. The President said that Patriot missile systems that Ukraine was expected to receive would come from European countries, and then what the United States would do was backfill those countries' supplies. Taylor Wilson: Just on a practical level, Francesca, what will this functionally mean for Ukraine's ability now to fight back against Russia? Francesca Chambers: This is seen as critical for Ukraine. You may recall that Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, had asked President Trump for the ability of Ukraine to be able to buy these types of weapons and air defense systems from the United States. This is something that President Trump said that he was considering before. And then of course, we heard from him last week that he was going to remove a temporary pause that the Pentagon had put in place on some weapons shipments to Ukraine. But to have him sit with the NATO Secretary General yesterday and say that he was now going to be doing this for Ukraine was seen by experts and those watching this closely as a major turning point in the discussion. Taylor Wilson: All right. You mentioned NATO Secretary General. I mean, what role did NATO leader, Mark Rutte, have in making this happen? Francesca Chambers: Taylor, he's relatively new to the role. He became NATO Secretary General in October, not too long before Donald Trump took office, and he's seen as a mediator between President Trump and other NATO nations. Listeners might recall that last month at the NATO summit in the Netherlands, Mark Rutte was the one who called Trump daddy and said that sometimes he has to use tough language. That pertained to President Trump's salty language about the fighting between Israel and Iran. But as you saw yesterday at the White House, Taylor, his closeness with President Trump has helped him to bring the US leader closer to positions that Europe wants. Taylor Wilson: Well, as for Trump this week, he's also threatening related new secondary tariffs. Francesca, what has he said specifically on that point? Francesca Chambers: The President has been under pressure from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to put sanctions on Russia and to cut off financial revenue that it gets from its exports of oil and gas and also uranium. Now, that is something that's covered in a Senate bill that GOP leaders had said that they were trying to bring to the floor of both the Senate and the House, but President Trump said yesterday as he was sitting next to Rutte, that he would put severe tariffs on Russia and secondary tariffs on countries that do business with Moscow. Taylor Wilson: So senators have their own plans for terrorists or countries that do business with Russia as well, right? Francesca Chambers: Right. And that bill is now in limbo with the Senate majority leader saying that Trump appears to have plans of his own. He said to reporters yesterday evening that, "If at some point the President concludes that it makes sense and adds value and leverage that he needs in those negotiations to move on the bill, then we'll do it. We'll be ready to go." Taylor Wilson: All right. Francesca Chambers covers the White House for USA TODAY. Thank you, Francesca. Francesca Chambers: Thank you, Taylor. ♦ Taylor Wilson: For years, members of President Trump's inner circle have called on federal officials to release their files on Jeffrey Epstein. Since he took office, Trump administration officials have moved that campaign forward, suggesting new names from Epstein's purported client list and new accountability were in store. But many who were eagerly awaiting the administration's next steps are now disappointed what has been delivered. In a memo this month, the Justice Department and FBI said their systematic review of documents related to Epstein revealed no incriminating client list. After his team made such concrete promises, the report was tough for many Trump loyalists to swallow. Some of the president's strongest supporters were in uproar. You can read more about some of that friction and a timeline of what's been said with the link in today's show notes. ♦ The Major League Baseball All-Star Game will be held tonight in Atlanta. The game finally lands in Georgia after initially being yanked in 2021, following the state's passage of controversial laws. It comes after catcher, Cal Raleigh, won the Home Run Derby last night. You can follow along with USA TODAY Sports. ♦ Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your pods. If you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. I'm Taylor Wilson, and I'll be back tomorrow with more of the Excerpt from USA TODAY.