WASHINGTON — Three civil rights organizations have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Secretary Kristi Noem, challenging recent staffing cuts that eliminated key civil rights oversight positions, according to a report by KCRA.
The lawsuit—filed Thursday by Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, the Southern Border Communities Coalition, and the Urban Justice Center—targets DHS’s March 21 announcement of a reduction in force across three internal watchdog offices: the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman (OIDO), and the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman (CIS Ombudsman).
“These offices are not bureaucratic excess… they are Congressionally mandated watchdogs, and their absence puts immigrants and vulnerable populations at greater risk,” the plaintiffs said, as reported by KCRA.
In response, DHS officials claimed they remain committed to civil rights protections but described the offices as impediments to enforcement. “These offices have obstructed immigration enforcement by adding bureaucratic hurdles and undermining DHS’s mission,” the agency said, according to KCRA.
The CRCL was created in 2002 under the Homeland Security Act, following the September 11 attacks, to ensure DHS policies respect civil liberties. KCRA reports that OIDO staff regularly visited immigration detention centers to assess conditions and safety, with over 100 facilities visited each month. The CIS Ombudsman, meanwhile, assists individuals and businesses with issues such as visa renewals and green card processing delays.
Democratic lawmakers have expressed alarm over the staffing cuts, which many view as a rollback of transparency and oversight consistent with Trump-era mass deportation policies. “Because Congress created these offices, only Congress can shutter them,” the lawsuit argues.
The civil rights groups are asking the court to order DHS to immediately rehire staff and restore the offices’ oversight functions. As KCRA notes, the case raises broader constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the future of immigration oversight under DHS leadership.
