July Welcoming NH Table with ACLU NH Legal Director Gilles Bissonette

July Welcoming NH Table with ACLU NH Legal Director Gilles Bissonette

by | Jun 23, 2025 | Uncategorized

Since 2013, Gilles Bissonnette has been the Legal Director at the ACLU of New Hampshire, where he leads a team of four civil rights lawyers. He has litigated cases on racial justice, the criminalization of poverty, voting, police and government accountability, public records, freedom of speech, classroom censorship, immigrants’ rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and criminal justice issues.  Gilles has authored over 30 articles and testified before the New Hampshire legislature on hundreds of bills impacting civil liberties. 

In 2024, Gilles received the National Education Association-New Hampshire’s “Friend of Education” Award for the ACLU-NH’s successful work challenging New Hampshire’s 2021 classroom censorship law that discourages public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity in the classroom.  He is the 2022 recipient of the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications’ First Amendment Award for the ACLU-NH’s litigation supporting government transparency.  He is also the 2022 recipient of the New Hampshire Bar Association’s Distinguished Service to the Public Award.  In 2025, his legal team at the ACLU-NH and the legal team at the ACLU received the Visionary Impact Award from California ChangeLawyers for their work protecting birthright citizenship in the case N.H. Indonesian Community Support et al v. Trump.  In 2021, his legal team — along with co-counsel — received the Granite State Advocacy Award from the New Hampshire Association for Justice for their legal work on behalf of medically-vulnerable immigrants being civilly detained amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prior to joining the ACLU, Gilles was a civil litigator in Boston at the law firms of Choate Hall & Stewart LLP, Todd & Weld LLP, and Cooley LLP.  From 2008-2009, he clerked for the late Judge Thomas M. Golden of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  He received his J.D. from UCLA School of Law in 2007 where he was the Chief Comments Editor of the UCLA Law Review.  In 2003, he received his B.A. and M.A. in history from Washington University in St. Louis. 

Gilles is admitted to practice law in the state and federal courts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court.  He has taught multiple Continuing Legal Education courses on government transparency, as well as on the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions.  He is a member of the Hearings Committee of the Attorney Discipline System, as well as the Federal Court Advisory Committee.  He was a trustee of the New Hampshire Supreme Court Society (2018-2024), and has served as an adjunct professor at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law.

Representative cases litigated by his legal team include the following:

RACIAL JUSTICE & CLASSROOM CENSORSHIP

  • Nat’l Educ. Ass’n v. United States Dep’t of Educ., No. 25-cv-091-LM, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77874, __ F. Supp. 3d __ (D.N.H. Apr. 24, 2025) (issuing preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the U.S. Department of Education’s February 14, 2025, “Dear Colleague” letter against the plaintiffs, their members, and any entity that employs, contracts with, or works with one or more of plaintiffs or plaintiffs’ member, where the letter restricted discussions and programs on diversity, equity, and inclusion in educational institutions, and threatened to withhold federal funding for engaging in such efforts).
  • Local 8027, Mejia, Philibotte, et al. v. Edelblut, No. 21-cv-1077-PB, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94052 (D.N.H. May 28, 2024) (holding that the prohibitions in New Hampshire’s classroom censorship law “against teaching banned concepts are unconstitutionally vague,” and that the law’s provisions that discourage public school teachers from teaching and talking about race, gender, and sexual orientation contains “viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”; lead counsel).
  • State v. Jones, 172 N.H. 774 (2020) (holding that “race is an appropriate circumstance to consider in conducting the totality of the circumstances seizure analysis” in determining whether a person feels free to leave and therefore is seized under the New Hampshire Constitution; as amicus).

LGBTQ+ RIGHTS

  • Tirrell v. Edelblut, et al., 748 F. Supp. 3d 19 (D.N.H. 2024) (in a challenge to New Hampshire’s transgender sports ban, granting plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction allowing them to play sports; as counsel in coalition led by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders).
  • Jane Doe v. Manchester School District, et al., 176 N.H. 780 (2024) (affirming lower court ruling that upheld a Manchester school district policy in support of transgender students; as amicus in coalition led by GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders).

VOTING RIGHTS

  • Saucedo v. State of New Hampshire, 335 F. Supp. 3d 202 (D.N.H. 2018) (striking down, on procedural due process grounds, a New Hampshire law that invalidated the absentee ballots of hundreds of voters, many of whom are disabled, based on signature comparisons without notice or an opportunity to cure).
  • Guare  v. State of New Hampshire, 167 N.H. 658 (2015) (striking down voter registration form language that would impose a chilling effect on the right to vote of those domiciled in New Hampshire).
  • Norelli v. N.H. Sec. of State, 175 N.H. 186 (2022) (holding that current 2010 congressional maps cannot be used after the 2020 census for upcoming congressional elections, and concluding that the “least change” approach should apply in the event of an impasse; as amicus).

FIRST AMENDMENT/FREE SPEECH

  • Richards v. Union Leader Corp., 176 N.H. 789 (2024) (concluding that statements referencing white supremacy were protected political opinion, and therefore not defamatory; as amicus).
  • Rideout v. State of New Hampshire, 123 F. Supp. 3d 218 (D.N.H. 2015), aff’d, 838 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2016), cert denied, 137 S. Ct. 1435 (2017) (striking down New Hampshire law banning online “ballot selfies” on grounds that it violates the First Amendment).
  • Valentin v. City of Manchester,  No. 15-cv-00235-PB (D.N.H.) (secured $275,000 settlement in lawsuit addressing the First Amendment right to record the police where ACLU-NH client was arrested for audio recording a conversation with two Manchester police department officers while in a public place and while the officers were performing their official duties).
  • Pineda-Landaverde v. City of Manchester, No. 1:20-cv-00319-LM (D.N.H.) (secured $20,000 settlement in lawsuit alleging that the Manchester Police Department, in violation of the Constitution, forcibly seized the smartphone of an ACLU-NH client without a warrant after he was recording the Department’s officers).
  • State of New Hampshire v. Andersen, No. 218-2018-cr-00241 (N.H. Super. Ct., Rockingham Cty. Aug. 31, 2018) (vacating “gag order” that barred disclosure of police reports because the order was “sweeping” and “violate[d] the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Part I, Article 22 of the New Hampshire Constitution”).
  • State of New Hampshire v. Bonacorsi, Nos. 218-2014-CR-01357, 218-2015-CR-868, 2016 N.H. Super. LEXIS 22 (N.H. Super. Ct., Rockingham Cty. May 18, 2016) (narrowing and striking down portions of online identifier statute on First Amendment grounds).
  • State of New Hampshire v. Clay, No. 450-2015-cr-00414 (N.H. 4th Cir., Dist. Div., Laconia June 9, 2015) (securing dismissal of disorderly conduct charge on First Amendment grounds where client was arrested during a public meeting simply for engaging in political, non-disruptive speech on matters of public concern).
  • Clay v. Town of Alton, No. 15-cv-00279-JL (D.N.H.) (secured $42,500 settlement in lawsuit where, in violation of the First Amendment, client was arrested during a public meeting simply for engaging in political, non-disruptive speech on matters of public concern).
  • Frese v. Town of Exeter (secured $17,500 settlement from Town of Exeter after the Exeter Police Department arrested our client in May 2018, after he posted comments to an article on Facebook alleging that the local police chief “covered up for [a] dirty cop”).
  • Albert v. City of Manchester (secured $17,500 settlement in a case where client was wrongly arrested for recording in public).
  • Kearns v. Town of Littleton (secured $17,500 settlement and further police training in case where client was arrested simply for allegedly swearing at a parking enforcement official in violation of the First Amendment).

CRIMINALIZATION OF POVERTY

  • Petrello v. City of Manchester, No. 16-cv-008-LM, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144793 (D.N.H. Sep. 7, 2017) (striking down, on First Amendment grounds, Manchester’s anti-panhandling ordinance, as well as permanently enjoining Manchester’s anti-panhandling police practices; case settled for $89,000 in attorneys’ fees and damages).
  • Pendleton v. City of Nashua (secured $15,000 settlement in a case where homeless client was arrested and spent 33 days in jail simply for walking along a public foot path in the park adjacent to the Nashua Public Library in violation of his First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights).
  • Pendleton v. Town of Hudson, No. 14-cv-00365-PB (D.N.H.) (secured $37,500 settlement and permanent consent order in lawsuit where Town detained, harassed, threatened, dispersed, and cited peaceful panhandlers in violation of the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments).

CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM/DUE PROCESS

  • Paine v. Ride-Away, Inc., 174 N.H. 757 (2022) (holding that the use of therapeutic cannabis prescribed in accordance with New Hampshire’s therapeutic cannabis statute can be a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s disability under New Hampshire’s Law Against Discrimination; as amicus).
  • Doe v. Commissioner, No. 18-cv-1039-JD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75759 (D.N.H. Apr. 30, 2020) (ruling that State is obligated to provide due process to those suspected of experiencing a mental health crisis within three days of their detention in a hospital emergency room); Doe v. Commissioner, No. 18-cv-1039-JD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78387 (D.N.H. May 4, 2020) (certifying case as class action, and certifying ACLU-NH as class counsel); Doe v. Commissioner, No. 18-cv-1039-JD, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238431 (D.N.H. Dec. 18, 2020) (denying 11th Amendment immunity), aff’d, 16 F.4th 894 (1st. Cir. 2021).
  • Doe v. Commissioner, 174 N.H. 239 (2021) (holding that the State “has a duty mandated by statute to provide for probable cause hearings within three days of when an involuntary emergency certificate is completed”; as amicus on behalf of federal class).
  • State of New Hampshire v. Brawley, 171 N.H. 333 (2018) (holding that legislature’s 2017 law aimed at curbing debtors’ prisons practices applies to the State’s efforts to recoup public defender fees from indigent defendants; as amicus).
  • Doe v. State of New Hampshire, 167 N.H. 382 (2015) (New Hampshire’s retroactive, lifetime registration requirements for certain offenders are “punitive in effect” and therefore unconstitutional as applied to client under New Hampshire Constitution’s bar on retrospective laws).
  • State of New Hampshire v. Mazzaglia, No. 2014-0592 (N.H. Sup. Ct. Sept. 29, 2016) (New Hampshire Supreme Court order agreeing with the position of the victim, victims’ rights advocates, and the ACLU-NH that documents concerning a victim’s prior consensual sexual activity should be sealed pending appeal; as amicus).
  • Petition of State of New Hampshire, 166 N.H. 659 (2014) (applying retroactively U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment; as amicus).

PUBLIC ACCESS/GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

  • Provenza v. Town of Canaan, 175 N.H. 121 (2022) (holding that an internal report commissioned by a police department investigating an allegation of excessive force should be released to the public, in part, because “[t]he public has a substantial interest in information about what its government is up to, as well as in knowing whether a government investigation is comprehensive and accurate”).
  • ACLU-NH v. N.H. Div. of State Police, 176 N.H. 302 (2023) (holding that, in response to a Right-to-Know request, police misconduct personnel files cannot be categorically withheld from the public under a different and separate criminal discovery statute — RSA 105:13-b).
  • Union Leader Corp. and ACLU-NH v. Town of Salem, 173 N.H. 345 (2020) (overruling 1993 Fenniman decision in holding that the public’s interest in disclosure must be balanced in determining whether the “internal personnel practices” exemption applies to requested records); Union Leader Corp. and ACLU-NH v. Town of Salem, No. 218-2018-cv-01406 (Rockingham Cty. Super. Ct. Jan. 21, 2021) (on remand, holding that almost all of an internal audit concerning the culture and internal affairs practices of the Salem Police Department should be public).
  • Seacoast Newspapers, Inc. v. City of Portsmouth, 173 N.H. 325 (2020) (overruling 1993 Fenniman decision in holding that the “internal personnel practices” exemption only narrowly covers “records pertaining to the internal rules and practices governing an agency’s operationsand employee relations, not information concerning theperformance of a particular employee”).
  • New Hampshire Center for Public Interest Journalism, et al./ACLU-NH v. N.H. Department of Justice, 173 N.H. 648 (2020) (holding that a list of over 275 New Hampshire police officers who have engaged in misconduct that reflects negatively on their credibility or trustworthiness is not exempt from disclosure under RSA 105:13-b or the “internal personnel practices” and “personnel file” exemptions; remanding for application of public interest balancing test).
  • John Does v. City of Manchester, No. 216-2022-CV-00508 (Hillsborough Cty. Super. Ct., N. Dist., Jan. 26, 2023) (ordering disclosure of supervisors’ names who saw racist text from a fellow officer and did nothing on the ground that “[w]hether the supervisors’ inaction in response to [the] text constitutes acceptance or tacit support of racist or ‘grossly inappropriate and racially insensitive’ behavior, or is emblematic of systemic racism within the Manchester Police Department, is a matter fit for public discourse”).
  • Stone v. City of Claremont, 319 A.3d 1274 (N.H. 2024) (ordering disclosure of disciplinary records concerning former Claremont police officer where the operative agreement did not prohibit disclosure of the requested records).
  • ACLU-NH and Union Leader Corp. v. Salem Police Dep’t, No. 218-2021-cv-00026 (Rockingham Cty. Super. Ct. July 20, 2021) (holding that police investigatory records should be publicly disclosed concerning an off-duty officer who evaded police during a high-speed chase but was not criminally charged until years later); State of New Hampshire v. Verrocchi, No. 218-2020-cr-00077 (Rockingham Cty. Super. Ct. June 17, 2021) (ordering unsealing of arrest warrant affidavit concerning investigation of this incident).
  • State v. Letendre, No. 219-2020-cr-0792 (Strafford Cty. Super. Ct. Feb. 4, 2021) (holding that disclosure of 49-page investigatory report documenting police misconduct would not infringe on right of defendant officer to receive a fair trial).
  • Officer A.B. v. Grafton County Attorney’s Office, No. 18-cv-1437 (Grafton Cty. Super. Ct. Apr. 11, 2019) (holding that officer who engaged in misconduct could not be removed by court from the EES List).

IMMIGRANTS’ RIGHTS

  • N.H. Indonesian Cmty. Support v. Trump, No. 25-cv-38-JL-TSM, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24055, __ F. Supp. 3d __ (D.N.H. Feb. 11, 2025) (preliminarily enjoining President’s birthright citizenship executive order “with respect to the plaintiffs, and with respect to any individual or entity in any matter or instance within the jurisdiction of this court, during the pendency of this litigation”). 
  • Liu v. Noem, No. 25-cv-133-SE, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80713 (D.N.H. Apr. 29, 2025) (granting preliminary injunction order where government unilaterally and without notice terminated the ability of an international student at Dartmouth College to engage in studies).
  • Robson Xavier Gomes, et al. v. Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 460 F. Supp. 3d 132 (D.N.H. 2020) (holding that medically vulnerable civil immigration detainees at the Strafford County Department of Corrections are constitutionally entitled to bail hearings amid the COVID-19 pandemic); Robson Xavier Gomes, et al. v. Acting Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 561 F. Supp. 3d 93 (D.N.H. 2021 (certifying class of civil immigration detainees at the Strafford County Department of Corrections seeking individual bail hearings to determine whether they should be released amid the COVID-19 pandemic because of the inability to be 6-feet apart from other detainees).
  • State of New Hampshire v. McCarthy, et al., No. 469-2017-cr-01888, et al., (N.H. 2nd Cir. Ct., Dist. Div., Plymouth May 1, 2018), reconsideration denied on Aug. 21, 2018 (holding that border patrol checkpoints conducted by Customs and Border Patrol, in conjunction with the local police, in Woodstock, NH 90 driving miles from the border violated Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the Fourth Amendment).
  • Drewniak/Fuentes v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:20-cv-852-LM (D.N.H.) (in lawsuit challenging CBP’s use of interior immigration checkpoints in New Hampshire, CBP agreed to refrain from operating the Woodstock checkpoint until January 1, 2025 in exchange for the voluntary dismissal of the lawsuit).
  • Guerra-Castaneda v. United States of America, 656 F. Supp. 3d 356 (D. Mass. 2023) (allowing wrongful deportation claim to proceed where ICE improperly deported a man in September 2019 despite two federal court orders stating that he should remain in the U.S. while his asylum case is pending).
  • Awawdeh v. Town of Exeter, et al., No. 18-cv-852-LM (D.N.H.) (settled lawsuit for $39,175 and policy change where the Exeter Police Department unlawfully arrested for ICE a man on the suspicion that he was in the United States unlawfully after the man assisted the Department with a criminal investigation by providing translation services).
  • Velasco Perea v. Town of Northwood, et al., No. 18-cv-1066-LM (D.N.H.) (settled lawsuit for $12,500 and policy change where the Northwood Police Department unlawfully arrested for ICE a documented man on the suspicion that he was in the United States unlawfully).
  • Godoy-Ramirez v. Town of Merrimack, No. 1:19-cv-01236-JD (D.N.H.) (settled lawsuit for $60,000 and policy change where the Merrimack Police Department unlawfully held for ICE for more than an hour a passenger in a car that had broken down on the side of the road).  
  • Hernandez-Lara v. Lyons, 10 F.4th 19 (1st Cir. 2021) (holding that ICE violated client’s due process rights when it conducted a bond hearing where she had the burden of showing that she was not a danger and not a flight risk; further ruling that due process requires that the burden of justifying detention has to be on the government by a preponderance of the evidence).
  • Hernandez-Lara v. Barr, 962 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2020) (concluding that immigration judge violated immigrant’s statutory right to counsel by not providing immigrant sufficient time to obtain counsel).
  • Rivera-Medrano v. Garland, 47 F.4th 29 (1st Cir. 2022) (holding that the BIA abused its discretion in failing to remand an immigration proceeding to an immigration judge where the BIA did not meaningfully consider the potentially material impact of new evidence — namely, a psychological assessment report — presented by the traumatized asylum seeker or provide a reasoned explanation as to why such new evidence would not have changed the outcome). 
  • Chavez v. Garland, 51 F.4th 424 (1st Cir. 2022) (in granting part of petition for review, holding in an asylum case that “we are compelled to reject as impermissible [the BIA’s 2008 Matter of E-A-G-, 24 I&N Dec. 591 (BIA 2008)] holding that a group made up of those who are incorrectly perceived to be members of a gang is categorically barred from recognition as a particular social group under the INA,” and noting that “the reasons for finding that actual members of a gang are barred from recognition [in seeking asylum] simply ‘do not apply’ to those incorrectly perceived to be gang members”).
  • H.H. v. Garland, 51 F.4th 8 (1st Cir. 2022) (granting petition for review in a case brought under the Convention Against Torture where the Immigration Judge “applied the incorrect legal standard in assessing whether [the petitioner] would more likely than not be tortured with the ‘consent or acquiescence’ of the Honduran government, and that the BIA erred in its review of the [Immigration Judge’s] decision”; holding that “the ‘willful acceptance’ standard set forth in [the BIA’s 2000 precedent] is inconsistent with the text of the [Convention Against Torture], as well as the clear intent of Congress, and is not required to establish acquiescence to torture,” and concluding that “a showing of willful acceptance is not necessary to establish ‘acquiescence’ to torture under the” Convention Against Torture).
  • Hussein v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, No. 18-cv-921-JL (D.N.H. Nov. 6, 2018) (ruling that ICE’s decision to detain client in immigration custody for 9 months without a bond hearing was unconstitutional and violated procedural due process, and ordering that a bond hearing be conducted).
  • Compere v. Nielsen, 358 F. Supp. 3d 170 (D.N.H. 2019) (ruling that the government’s plan to deport Mr. Compere to Haiti while his motion to reopen was pending violated his rights under federal law; further ruling that, because habeas corpus is the only means available to Mr. Compere to protect his right to continue litigating his motion to reopen, the Suspension Clause of the U.S. Constitution prevents the jurisdiction-stripping provisions in federal law from being used to deny the Court’s jurisdiction).
  • Korat v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 19-cv-111 (D.N.H.) (secured citizenship for an Army Specialist from India who enlisted through a specialized military program that aims to recruit skilled immigrants in exchange for expediting the citizenship process, but had his naturalization delayed for approximately two years).
  • Ahmed-Cali v. U.S. Attorney General, No. 19-cv-426-JL (D.N.H.) (secured release of Somalian immigrant who had been in continuous detention since 2016 – totaling two years and seven months — after he fled Somalia and sought asylum in the U.S. due to threats against his family).
  • Perez-Trujillo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 10 (1st Cir. 2021) (in part, in granting 2017 petition for review, holding that “the BIA was required to consider in an individualized manner the hardship that [the immigrant] might suffer if he were required to return to El Salvador but … failed to undertake such consideration in reversing the immigration judge’s grant of his application for adjustment of status”).
  • Adeyanju v. Garland, 27 F.4th 25 (1st Cir. 2022) (granting petition for review, in part, where the BIA “failed to adequately employ clear-error review and thus committed legal error” with respect to two conclusions made by BIA).   
  • G.P. v. Garland, No. 21-2002, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 17828 (1st Cir. July 13, 2023) (in granting petition for review, holding that “the BIA’s decision affirming the IJ’s analysis, which gave limited weight to [the expert’s] testimony and rejected his opinion regarding G.P.’s risk of torture, is not supported by substantial evidence in the record”) (unpublished).
  • Ferreira v. Garland, 97 F.4th 36 (1st Cir. 2024) (granting petition for review in part and vacating the BIA’s decision as to Ferreira’s gender-based particular social group persecution claim).
  • ACLU-NH v. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:23-cv-00282-JL (settled FOIA lawsuit where Border Patrol released data showing that there have been only 21 encounters and apprehensions during the 15 months from October 2022 to December 2023).
  • Paye v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2024) (vacating agency’s order of removal because the agency, in failing to address the applicant’s claim that fleeing as a child to escape ethnic cleansing and genocide was evidence of past persecution, deprived the applicant of a presumption under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.13(b)(1) of likely future persecution).
  • Morgan v. Garland, 120 F.4th 913 (1st Cir. Nov. 5, 2024) (granting noncitizen’s petition for review  seeking Convention Against Torture relief because the IJ and BIA applied an impermissibly narrow definition of acquiescence, requiring active cooperation rather than mere inaction or breach of duty to intervene).
  • Escobar Larin v. Garland, 122 F.4th 465 (1st Cir. 2024) (granting petition for review challenging agency’s rejection of asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention Against Torture claims where the agency erred in disposing of the asylum seeker’s mental health-based claims in light of newly-developed serious mental illness after arrival in the United States).

PRISONERS’ RIGHTS

  • Avery v. Commissioner of N.H. Dep’t of Corrections, 173 N.H. 726 (2020) (holding that sovereign immunity does not apply to a claim to enforce a consent agreement entered into by the State to require certain services to state correctional detainees; as amicus).
  • Y.F. v. State of New Hampshire, No. 15-cv-00510-PB (D.N.H.) (challenge to state prison mail policy banning inmates from receiving all original handwritten drawings and pictures in the mail; under settlement, State agreed to allow certain original handwritten drawings and pictures that are done in pen or pencil).

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

  • Appeal of Farmington School District, 168 N.H. 726 (2016) (holding that the Farmington School Board improperly declined to renew a guidance counselor’s employment contract after the counselor sought independent legal counsel and successfully obtained a temporary restraining order before the Strafford County Superior Court to protect her student’s right to privacy that was going to be imminently violated by the Farmington High School Principal; as amicus).

https://www.aclu-nh.org/en/biographies/gilles-bissonnette

Safety Without Borders

by | Apr 29, 2025 | Uncategorized

As an immigrant worker, it’s essential to understand your rights in the workplace. No matter your immigration status, you are entitled to protections that ensure your safety and well-being on the job. Here are your key rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA):

  • A safe and healthy workplace: You have the right to work in an environment free from recognized hazards that could cause serious harm.
  • Protection under OSHA standards: You are entitled to protection under OSHA regulations without needing to disclose your immigration status during workplace inspections.
  • Access to resources and legal protections: If you face unsafe or exploitative conditions, you may qualify for resources such as T and U visas, which can help protect you legally.
  • Safety training in your language: You have the right to receive safety training and information about workplace hazards in a language you understand.
  • Report hazards without fear: You can report unsafe conditions to your employer or OSHA without fear of retaliation or immigration enforcement actions.

Remember: OSHA is responsible for ensuring workplace safety — not immigration enforcement (DHS/ICE). It is also important to note that your employer is legally responsible for providing a safe workplace. If they fail to meet this obligation, you have the right to speak up and seek the protections you deserve.

Reporting Unsafe Working Conditions: A Guide for Immigrant Workers

Your safety at work is paramount, and as an immigrant worker, you have the right to report unsafe working conditions without fear — your immigration status does not matter. Here’s how you can take action:

Home

https://nationalcosh.org/Safety-Without-Borders

Know Your Rights: Trump’s Registration Requirement for Immigrants

by | Apr 16, 2025 | Uncategorized

https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Know-Your-Rights-Noncitizen-Registry-03.10.2025.pdf

1
Know Your Rights: Trump’s Registration Requirement for
Immigrants
On February 25, 2025, the Trump administration announced it would require some
undocumented immigrants to register with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On
March 7, it shared a new rule explaining how the system will work. This new rule will start on
April 11. The announcement raises many concerns, especially because similar registration
processes have been used in the past to target vulnerable groups.
Signing up to register could be very dangerous for undocumented immigrants. It could
lead to detention, deportation, and possibly criminal prosecution. Government officials
have said clearly that they plan to use the information they get from registration to find and
arrest people, deport them, or pressure them to leave the United States on their own.
This document provides information for community members about the registration process.
This is not legal advice, and we encourage undocumented community members to consult with
a trusted immigration attorney to understand the risks registration might present for them.
What is noncitizen registration?
The Trump administration is using a World War II-era law to try to make immigrant families
give their personal information, including their addresses, to immigration officials. This
process is called registration. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has said that the
goal of registration is to find and deport undocumented immigrants who register, or pressure
them to leave the U.S. on their own. DHS has also threatened that people who don’t register
could face criminal charges and has suggested that families leave the United States on their
own to avoid being deported or prosecuted.
Who is the government telling to register their information?
The government’s new rule says that adults and children over 14 years old who entered the
U.S. without permission and haven’t had contact with immigration authorities must now
register. If you’ve ever applied for an immigration status or benefit or been in deportation
proceedings, you might already be considered to have registered – see more information
below. The government is also telling parents or legal guardians of children under 14 years
old who entered without permission and have never had any contact with immigration
authorities to register their children. Finally, the government is telling all non-citizens who it
says are required to register to tell the government within ten days of any change of address.
Who is considered to have already registered?
The government considers many groups of people, including some people without lawful
status, to have already registered with the government. According to the new rule the
2
government published, the following groups of people are considered to have already
registered, although it’s best to talk to an experienced immigration lawyer to understand your
specific situation.
 Green card holders (lawful permanent residents)
 People who were granted parole, including advance parole (even if that parole has
expired)
 People who came to the U.S. on a nonimmigrant or immigrant visa (even if it has
expired)
 People who are already in immigration court (removal) proceedings
 People granted employment authorization on any basis (even if it has expired)
 Refugees
 People who applied for lawful permanent residence (even if the application was denied)
 People who have border crossing cards or entered the U.S. as a “crewman”
Is the government instructing people with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA), Temporary Protected Status (TPS), or people applying for asylum to
register?
If a DACA recipient, a TPS recipient, or a person seeking or granted asylum has applied for
and received an Employment Authorization Document (even if it is expired) they are
considered registered under this policy. The government does not consider an application for
DACA, TPS, or asylum, or a grant of DACA, TPS, or asylum to meet the registration
requirement in and of itself. However, the rule explicitly lists an Employment Authorization
Document as a document that shows evidence of registration. People with DACA or TPS who
have not been granted an Employment Authorization Document but who have been granted
advance parole may also count as already registered. The Rule instructs people who applied
for and/or received DACA, TPS, or asylum but did not receive an Employment Authorization
Document to complete the new registration process.
What is the actual process of registration?
The new registration rule explains how the process of registration will work for people who
decide to register. The first step is to create an online account with U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS). The second step is to fill out and submit a new form through
that account called Form G-325R, which asks for personal information (more details on this
below). After the form is submitted, USCIS will send the person registering an appointment
notice to get fingerprinted at a USCIS service center. At the appointment, officials will collect
fingerprints, photos, and a signature. The government will then run background checks,
including a criminal history check. Once that’s done, the government creates a “Proof of
Alien Registration” document, which will then be available in the person’s USCIS online
account.
3
What is the process for children?
The rule instructs young people aged 14 and older to complete the same registration process
as described above for adults. For children approaching the age of 14, the Rule says those who
meet the registration requirements must submit their own registration form and be
fingerprinted within 30 days of reaching their 14th birthday. For children under the age of 14
who meet the registration requirements, the Rule instructs their parent(s) or legal guardian(s)
to register for them, including by creating an online account with USCIS for them. For
children under 14, there is no fingerprinting requirement and the “Proof of Alien
Registration” document will be made available in the child’s USCIS account after the G-325R
is submitted.
Is there a deadline for complying with registration?
The new rule doesn’t give a specific deadline for registration. However, it says that children
who are instructed to register must do so and get fingerprinted within 30 days of their 14th
birthday. The rule also says that people who are instructed to register must also report
changes of address to the government within 10 days of changing their address.
What information goes into registration?
Registration means filling out and submitting through an online USCIS account the new Form
G325-R. This Form asks for detailed personal information about the person completing the
form and their family, including:
 Name
 Mailing and physical address and address history in the U.S. for the past five years
 Date of birth and country of birth
 Country of citizenship or nationality
 Immigration history, including date of arrival in the U.S.
 “Activities” the person has done in the U.S. and activities they plan to do in the future,
and how long the person expects to stay in the U.S.
 Biographic information including gender, ethnicity, race, height, weight, and eye and
hair color
 Detailed criminal arrest and conviction history
 Detailed biographic information regarding the person’s spouse, father, and mother,
including name, date of birth, and country of birth
Is there a fee for the new form G-325R?
No, there is currently no fee for the registration process. The government says in the new rule
that it is considering in the future charging a $30 fee for the fingerprinting process but has
not done so yet.
4
What happens if I register my information?
What could happen will depend on your individual situation. Both complying with
registration and failing to comply may have negative, life lasting consequences. The
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security has publicly stated that the goal of the
registration process is to force people to leave the United States.
If you are undocumented and have not had contact with immigration authorities before,
registering could have immigration and criminal consequences.
 Immigration consequences: The government could – and has stated that it likely would –
try to arrest and deport you using the information you provide when you register.
Depending on your individual situation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
might send you a letter telling you to report to an ICE office. When you report, ICE might
detain you or put you in deportation proceedings. If you can’t show you have been in the
U.S. for longer than two years, ICE could put you in “expedited removal,” a fast-track
deportation process that allows ICE to deport people quickly without any chance to go
before a judge.
 Criminal consequences: Coming forward to register may also make you vulnerable to the
government charging you with a migration-related criminal offense. If you have been in
the U.S. for less than five years and entered without inspection, you might be vulnerable
to being charged with the federal crime of illegal entry. If you were deported from the
U.S. before and later returned by crossing the border without authorization, the
government might be able to charge you with the federal crime of illegal reentry.
What happens if I do not register my information?
The government has also threatened consequences for people who are instructed to register
but don’t, including criminal and immigration penalties.
 Criminal consequences: The government has threatened to bring criminal charges against
people who are instructed to register but do not do so, and the Trump administration has
told its federal prosecutors to make these charges a priority. This could mean that any
contact with law enforcement, including ICE or local police, could lead to criminal
charges for failing to register in addition to immigration detention and possible
deportation. Specifically, the government is threatening to prosecute people with a few
different charges connected to the registration requirement, all federal misdemeanor
offenses:

  1. failure to register, which can be punished with a fine up to $5,000 or up to six
    months imprisonment;
  2. failure to carry proof of registration, which can be punished with a fine up to
    $5,000 or up to 30 days imprisonment; and
    5
  3. failure to notify the government within 10 days of a change of address, which
    can be punished with a fine of up to $200 or up to 30 days imprisonment.
    There is also a separate criminal offense and deportation ground for registering using
    false statements.
     Immigration consequences: Most immigration benefits or visas are “discretionary,”
    meaning the government can use someone’s past negative action to deny them the
    immigration benefit or visa. If you do not register and later apply for an immigration
    benefit or visa, the government might deny that benefit or visa for failing to register.
    If I already registered or register in the future, do I need to carry certain papers?
    Yes. Failing to carry a noncitizen registration document is a federal misdemeanor crime. The
    government is threatening to prosecute anyone who is a non-citizen who is stopped or arrested
    and does not have proof of registration. People who have proof of registration (see below) may
    want to carry this proof with them for this reason. Everyone living in the U.S. still has basic
    rights under the U.S. Constitution, including undocumented immigrants. You have the right to
    remain silent and may refuse to speak to immigration officers. You have the right to speak to a
    lawyer if arrested. Read this document for more information about your rights if stopped by
    immigration.
    What documents count as proof of registration?
    The new “Proof of Alien Registration” document will count as proof that someone has
    registered under the process. Many non-citizens in the United States already have a document
    that shows proof of registration, however. The rule includes two slightly different lists of
    “registration forms” and forms that are “evidence of registration.” It is likely that both sets of
    documents will count as proof of registration.
     “Registration forms” include:
    o I-94 Arrival-Departure Record
    o I-485 Application for Status as a Permanent Resident and Form I-698
    Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident
    o I-590 Registration for Classification as a Refugee
     “Evidence of registration” listed in the regulations includes:
    o I-94 Arrival-Departure Record
    o I-551 Permanent Resident Card (“Green Card”)
    o I-766 Employment Authorization Document (EAD)
    o I-862 Notice to Appear and I-863 Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge
    o I-185 Border Crossing Card and I-186 Border Crossing Card for citizens of
    Canada and Mexico
    How has noncitizen registration been used in the past?
    The Trump administration is using a 1940 law, the Alien Registration Act, which required all
    non-U.S. citizens – not just those without authorized immigration status – to register with the
    6
    federal government at their local post office. That process offered people the chance to get
    legal status in the United States but also set the stage for the government to detain many
    thousands of people of Japanese descent during World War II.
    The U.S. government also used registration to target community members from Muslim
    majority countries after September 11th, with a program known as the “National Security
    Entry-Exit Registration System” (NSEERS). NSEERS targeted noncitizen men and youth from
    24 Muslim-majority countries and North Korea for registration and tracking. The government
    forced 83,000 people to register and put 13,000 of them in deportation proceedings,
    supercharging racial profiling and tearing families apart.
    Should I talk to a lawyer?
    Yes. Community members with questions about registration and how it might impact them
    should consult trusted immigration lawyers and monitor trusted sources of information. A
    lawyer can advise you on your rights and any potential legal risks.
    Immigration law is extremely complex. For example, U.S. immigration law says that someone
    who has stayed in the U.S. for more than a year in undocumented status (“unlawful presence”)
    is barred from reentering the U.S. for 10 years. This makes it complicated to figure out if
    people can return after voluntarily departing, as the administration is encouraging people to
    do. Speak with a lawyer to understand your rights and options.
    More information on the history and evolution of noncitizen registration can be found in
    NILC’s FAQ.

    Know Your Rights!

    by | Mar 27, 2025 | Uncategorized

    We need to be sure that everyone in NH knows their rights, everyone in our community, Immigrants and Citizens alike!

    ACLU NH has a great page and is a great resource for NH-specific information!

    There are a number of specific areas and situations where you need to protect yourself and know your rights!

    If you have a direct interaction with Immigration Control & Enforcement. This is not just important to folks with documentation status issues, they are stopping and detaining others, especially those in the BIPOC community.

    If you have children and have a risk of being detained, there is some planning and paperwork you should do. Who will pick up your kids from school? what forms do you need to provide to the school to allow others to pick up your kids? Who will have guardianship if something happens to you? If you work in a School, Kindergarten, Preschool or Daycare can you mention this to those that may need to know?

    If you are seeking asylum or are working on changing your documentation status and need a lawyer where do you go?

    There is also special training for Bystander training, what can you do if you witness a situation between enforcement and a community member without getting yourself in trouble or making the situation worse for the individual?

    If you would like to work with others to respond when there is an incident around a community member being targeted. There are folks in NH working on this, the best group to reach out to is Granite State Organizing Project (GSOP). Groups are organized in different communities in NH. In addition to this work GSOP facilitates the Immigrant Solidarity Network, that meets monthly and holds a vigil at the Local Ice office at the Norris Cotton Federal Building, 275 Chestnut St, Manchester, NH 03101, on the First Tuesday of each month at 9 am, join us to support immigrants, this is a common time that community members are asked to come in for ICE appointments. The intent is to show support and provide information to appointment attendees. This is followed by the monthly Immigrant Solidarity Network meeting.

    There are two types of Bystander Training:
    – Organized response or Witness Bystander training.
    – For the average person.

    There is also training for Schools, Churches, Hospitals and other employers, These trainings are unique to each area. The organizations should be planning and communicating with their members, attendees or employees to explain what they should do in response to Federal Law Enforcement coming to their locations. Where are Federal Law Enforcement officers allowed to go? Etc.

    A Toolkit for Organizations Responding to Mass Worksite Immigration Raids

    There can also be training for individuals who’s employer doesn’t offer these trainings so that people know what they can and can’t do. One area that comes up is what is a “Private Area” for any of these locations vs. Public Areas.

    For all of these trainings and for other questions contact Granite State Organizing Project. (603) 668-8250 gsopstaff@granitestateorganizing.org

    also you can contact info@aclu-nh.org for legal and other questions.

    Other Sources of Information.

    National Immigration Law Center: Know Your Rights
    Immigrant Legal Resource Center
    American Immigration Lawyers Association

    Project Home, a pro immigrant group in the Keene/Cheshire County area has created the following repository of links and information around know your rights.https://www.monadnockimmigration.org/resources

    Translate »