Tag: Mahmoud

  • FIRE statement on immigration judge’s ruling that deportation of Mahmoud Khalil can proceed

    FIRE statement on immigration judge’s ruling that deportation of Mahmoud Khalil can proceed

    This afternoon, an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that Mahmoud Khalil’s deportation could proceed under immigration law. But the fight over the constitutionality of that law continues.

    The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the secretary of state nearly unchecked authority to deport a legal permanent resident on nothing more than his whim if the secretary believes the person poses “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” 

    Below is FIRE’s statement, attributable to Legal Director Will Creeley:

    Can expressing an opinion that the government doesn’t like justify a green card holder’s arrest, detention, and deportation? That’s what this case comes down to — and it’s a question the courts must answer. The government is holding up a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that purports to say “yes.” But the principles enshrined in the First Amendment say “no.”

    Allowing a single government official sweeping and nearly unchecked power to pick and choose individuals to deport based on beliefs alone, without alleging a single crime, crosses a line that should never be crossed in a free society. 

    The only “crime” the government has offered was that Mahmoud Khalil expressed a disfavored political opinion. If that’s a crime in America, every single one of us is guilty.

    Source link

  • Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, DEI, law firms, and more

    Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, DEI, law firms, and more

    We explore how censorship is impacting institutions —
    from universities to law firms to the Maine House of
    Representatives.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    01:40 Federal government cuts Columbia’s funding

    16:57 Updates on the Mahmoud Khalil case

    27:01 Ed Martin’s Georgetown letter

    34:59 Trump targeting law firms

    55:01 Maine House censure of Rep. Laurel Libby

    01:03:37 Outro

    Guests:

    – Will
    Creeley    , FIRE’s legal director

    – Conor
    Fitzpatrick    , FIRE’s supervising senior attorney

    – Lindsie
    Rank    , FIRE’s director of campus rights advocacy

    Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
    get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
    more. If you became a FIRE Member
    through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
    Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email
    sotospeak@thefire.org.

    Show notes:

    – “DOJ,
    HHS, ED, and GSA announce initial cancelation of grants and
    contracts to Columbia University worth $400 million    ” U.S.
    Department of Justice (2025)

    –
    HHS, ED, and GSA follow up letter to Columbia    . U.S.
    Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Department of
    Education, U.S. Government Services Administration (2025)

    – “Columbia
    yields to Trump in battle over federal funding    ” The Wall
    Street Journal (2025)

    – “Advancing
    our work to combat discrimination, harassment, and antisemitism at
    Columbia    ” Columbia University (2025)

    – “Columbia
    caves to feds — and sets a dangerous precedent    ” FIRE
    (2025)

    – “ED,
    HHS, and GSA Respond to Columbia University’s Actions to Comply
    with Joint Task Force Pre-Conditions    ” U.S. Department of
    Education (2025)

    – “FIRE
    demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud
    Khalil    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “Brief
    of Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary
    Injunction – Khalil v. Joyce    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “We will be
    revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in
    America so they can be deported.    ” Secretary of State Marco
    Rubio via X (2025)

    – “‘ICE proudly
    apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign
    Pro-Hamas student on the campus of @Columbia University. This is
    the first arrest of many to come.    ‘ President Donald J.
    Trump” The White House via X (2025)

    – “WATCH: White
    House downplays stock market declines as ‘a snapshot’    ” PBS
    NewsHour (2025)

    – “Secretary
    Rubio’s remarks to the press    ” U.S. Department of State
    (2025)

    – “Mahmoud
    Khalil. Notice to appear.    ” Habeeb Habeeb via X (2025)

    – “Alien
    and Sedition Acts    ” National Archives (1798)

    –
    Ed Martin’s letter to Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor    .
    (2025)

    –
    Dean Treanor’s response to Ed Martin.     (2025)

    – “Trump,
    Perkins Coie and John Adams    ” The Wall Street Journal
    (2025)

    – “Suspension
    of Security Clearances and Evaluation of Government
    Contracts    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Addressing
    Risks from Perkins Coie LLP    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Addressing
    risks from Paul Weiss    ” The White House (2025)

    – “Lawyers
    who anger the Feds face new penalties by decree    ” The CATO
    Institute (2025)

    – “Today,
    President Donald J. Trump agreed to withdraw his March 14, 2025
    Executive Order regarding the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
    Garrison LLP law firm (‘Paul, Weiss’), which has entered into the
    following agreement with the President…    ” President Trump
    via TruthSocial (2025)

    – “Head
    of Paul, Weiss says firm would not have survived without deal with
    Trump    ” The New York Times (2025)

    – “House
    resolution relating to the censure of Representative Laurel D.
    Libby of Auburn by the Maine House of Representatives    ”
    Maine House of Representatives (2025)

    – “Maine’s
    censure of lawmaker for post about trans student-athlete is an
    attack on free speech    ” FIRE (2025)

    – “Maine
    State Rep. Laurel Libby disagreed with biological males competing
    in women’s sports, and now, the Maine State House is censuring
    her.    ” Sen. Kennedy via X (2025)

    – “The
    open society and its enemies    ” Karl Popper (1945)

    – “Cyber
    rights: Defending free speech in the digital age    ” Mike
    Godwin (1995)

    Source link

  • FIRE and civil liberties groups challenge ‘unconstitutional retaliation’ against Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE and civil liberties groups challenge ‘unconstitutional retaliation’ against Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE along with the National Coalition Against Censorship, The Rutherford Institute, PEN America, and First Amendment Lawyers Association today filed a “friend of the court” brief arguing that the jailing of Mahmoud Khalil violates the First Amendment. What follows is the brief’s summary of argument.

    America’s founding principle, core to who and what we are as a Nation, is that liberty comes not from the benevolent hand of a king, but is an inherent right of every man, woman, and child. That includes “the opportunity for free political discussion” as “a basic tenet of our constitutional democracy.” (Cox v. Louisiana). And “a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” (Terminiello v. City of Chicago). For these reasons, along with all citizens, “freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” (Bridges v. Wixon).

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio, however, is attempting to deport a permanent resident, Mahmoud Khalil, not because the government claims he committed a crime or other deportable offense, but for the seemingly sole reason that his expression stirred the Trump administration to anger. The Secretary claims he can deport Mr. Khalil under a Cold War–era statute giving the secretary of state the power to deport anyone he “personally determines” is contrary to America’s “foreign policy interest.” And he argues this power extends even to deporting permanent residents for protected speech. It does not.

    The First Amendment’s protection for free speech trumps a federal statute. (United States v. Robel). Accepting Secretary Rubio’s position would irreparably damage free expression in the United States, particularly on college campuses. Foreign students would (with good reason) fear criticizing the American government during classroom debates, in term papers, and on social media, lest they risk deportation. That result is utterly incompatible with the longstanding recognition that “[t]he essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident,” and that “students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.” (Sweezy v. New Hampshire).

    Secretary Rubio claims (as do all censors) that this time is different, that the supposed repulsiveness of Mr. Khalil’s pro-Palestine (and, as Secretary Rubio alleges, pro-Hamas) views cannot be tolerated. But “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive.” (Texas v. Johnson) (holding the First Amendment protects burning the American flag in protest); see also (Snyder v. Phelps) (holding the First Amendment protects displaying “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” posters outside a military funeral).

    Allowing the Secretary of State to deport any non-citizen whose views, in his subjective judgment, are against America’s foreign policy interests places free expression in mortal peril. China’s Constitution, for example, provides that “when exercising their freedoms and rights, citizens . . . shall not undermine the interests of the state.” As China’s experience shows, allowing the government to step in as censor when it believes speech threatens the government’s interests is a loophole with infinite diameter. It has no place in America’s tradition of individual liberty.

    The only court to address the deportation provision Secretary Rubio relies upon to deport Mr. Khalil reached a similar conclusion, holding the law unconstitutional. As that court explained, “If the Constitution was adopted to protect individuals against anything, it was the abuses made possible through just this type of unbounded executive authority.” (Massieu v. Reno).

    The “First Amendment does not speak equivocally. It prohibits any law ‘abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.’ It must be taken as a command of the broadest scope that explicit language, read in the context of a liberty-loving society, will allow.” (Bridges v. California) (invalidating criminal convictions, including of a non-citizen, based on protected speech). Our “liberty-loving society” does not permit deportation as a punishment solely based on expression the government disfavors. The Court should grant Mr. Khalil’s motion.

    Source link

  • FIRE and coalition partners file brief rebuking the U.S. government for attempting to deport Mahmoud Khalil for his protected speech

    FIRE and coalition partners file brief rebuking the U.S. government for attempting to deport Mahmoud Khalil for his protected speech

    WASHINGTON, March 20, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a brief Thursday with a clear message: Jailing people for their political expression betrays America’s commitment to free speech.

    FIRE’s brief — joined by a coalition of civil liberties groups — explains the First Amendment violations stemming from the Trump administration’s unconstitutional detention of and attempts to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, for his expression. After 12 days in detention, the government still has not charged Khalil with a crime. 

    The “friend of the court” brief from FIRE, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the Rutherford Institute, PEN America, and the First Amendment Lawyers Association argues the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Khalil constitutes textbook viewpoint discrimination and retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

    “Khalil’s arrest, which President Donald Trump heralded as the ‘first of many to come,’ is an affront to the First Amendment and the cherished American principle that the government may not punish people based on their opinions,” said Conor Fitzpatrick, FIRE supervising senior attorney.

    In its attempt to deport Khalil, the government has thus far focused solely on Khalil’s protected speech rather than charging him with criminal behavior. An administration official told The Free Press that the “allegation here is not that he was breaking the law,” and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Khalil faces deportation because he was “siding with terrorists” and “distributed pro-Hamas propaganda flyers with the logo of Hamas.”

    The Supreme Court held in 1945 that non-citizens are entitled to full First Amendment protections. And those protections cover unpopular expression, especially when that expression is political speech. The Supreme Court held in its landmark Texas v. Johnson decision that “if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive.”

    The administration is relying on a rarely used Cold War-era statute that empowers the secretary of state to deport a lawfully present non-citizen if the secretary determines their “presence or activities” has a “potentially serious” effect on America’s foreign policy. The administration claims that authority extends even to deporting green card holders for protected speech.

    FIRE disagrees. The statute is unconstitutionally vague and gives the secretary of state unfettered discretion to deport lawful permanent residents without giving them notice of what conduct triggers expulsion. Not only does the First Amendment trump a Cold War-era statute, but the sweeping authority the administration claims it confers “places free expression in mortal peril,” as FIRE’s brief argues.

    The brief also explains that the contours of the United States’ foreign policy are ever-changing and provide no meaningful guidance as to what opinions lawful permanent residents may or may not voice. If lawfully present non-citizens can be deported simply for endangering American “foreign policy,” the only sure way to avoid deportation is to self-censor and not voice any opinions. 

    “No one in the United States of America should fear a midnight knock on their door because they voiced an opinion the government doesn’t like,” Fitzpatrick said. “Accepting Secretary Rubio’s position would irreparably damage free expression in the United States.”

    FIRE’s brief analogized the administration’s approach to Article 51 of the Chinese Constitution, which warns that exercising “freedom” must not conflict with the “interests” of the government. “Allowing the government to step in as a censor when it believes free speech threatens the government’s interests is a loophole with an infinite diameter,” Fitzpatrick said. “It has no place in America’s tradition of individual liberty.”

    If Khalil’s deportation proceeds, the chilling effect will be profound for other international students who are presently studying at American universities. 

    “Other foreign college students will have good reason to fear criticizing the American government during classroom debates, in term papers, and on social media,” FIRE attorney Colin McDonell said. “Holding students engaged in basic political expression to different standards based on their citizenship status is poisonous to free speech on campus.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:
    Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215.717.3473 x335; media@thefire.org

    Source link

  • On Mahmoud Khalil | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    On Mahmoud Khalil | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    First Amendment lawyer
    Marc Randazza     and immigration lawyer
    Jeffrey Rubin     join the show to discuss the arrest,
    detention, and possible deportation of green card holder Mahmoud
    Khalil.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    00:53 Latest updates on Khalil

    02:51 First Amendment implications

    06:08 Legal perspectives on deportation

    11:54 Chilling effects on free expression

    21:06 Constitutional rights for non-citizens

    24:03 The intersection of free speech and immigration
    law

    27:02 Broader implication of immigration policies

    37:51 Outro

    Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and
    get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and
    more. If you became a FIRE Member
    through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to
    Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email
    sotospeak@thefire.org.

    Show notes:

    – “We will be
    revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in
    America so they can be deported.    ” Secretary of State Marco
    Rubio via X (2025)

    – “‘ICE proudly
    apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a radical foreign
    Pro-Hamas student on the campus of @Columbia University. This is
    the first arrest of many to come.    ‘ President Donald J.
    Trump” The White House via X (2025)

    – “WATCH: White
    House downplays stock market declines as ‘a snapshot’    ” PBS
    NewsHour (2025)

    – “Secretary
    Rubio’s remarks to the press    ” U.S. Department of State
    (2025)

    – “Mahmoud
    Khalil. Notice to appear.    ” Habeeb Habeeb via X (2025)

    Source link

  • Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech

    Trump administration’s reasons for detaining Mahmoud Khalil threaten free speech

    It’s been three days since the government arrested and detained Mahmoud Khalil for deportation. This afternoon, the administration finally stated the basis for its actions. Its explanation threatens the free speech of millions of people.

    Yesterday, an administration official told The Free Press, “The allegation here is not that [Khalil] was breaking the law.” This was confirmed today by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who announced Khalil is being targeted under a law that she characterized as allowing the secretary of state to personally deem individuals “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States of America.”

    Leavitt said Khalil “sid[ed] with terrorists,” “organized group protests” that “disrupted college campus classes and harassed Jewish American students and made them feel unsafe,” and distributed “pro-Hamas propaganda.” She also said the Department of Homeland Security is trying to track down “other individuals who have engaged in pro-Hamas activity” at Columbia University.

    The law Leavitt appears to be citing requires the secretary of state to have “reasonable ground to believe” the person’s “presence or activities in the United States . . . would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

    The administration is wielding this standard — deportation for people whose activities could cause “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” — to arrest and detain an individual graduate student. In explaining how he met this standard, the administration did not allege Khalil committed a crime. But it did explicitly cite the content of his speech,  characterizing it as “anti-American” and “pro-Hamas.” Protesting government policy is protected by the First Amendment, as is rhetorical support for a terrorist group (if not directly coordinated with it, which the government has not alleged here).

    Disrupting college classes and harassing students is not protected expression, to be sure, and Leavitt stated that Khalil organized protests that may have done so. But the administration has not detailed Khalil’s specific actions with respect to those protests, so it remains unclear whether Khalil himself violated any campus rules against discriminatory harassment. Whether any such violation justifies detention and deportation is a separate question. In either adjudication, Khalil must be afforded due process. 

    There are millions of people lawfully present in the United States without citizenship. The administration’s actions will cause them to self-censor rather than risk government retaliation. Lawful permanent residents and students on visas will fear a knock on the door simply for speaking their minds. 

    If constitutionally protected speech may render someone deportable by the secretary of state, the administration has free rein to arrest and detain any non-citizen whose speech the government dislikes. The inherent vagueness of the “adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” standard does not provide notice as to what speech is or is not prohibited. The administration’s use of it will foster a culture of self-censorship and fear. 

    This is America. We don’t throw people in detention centers because of their politics. Doing so betrays our national commitment to freedom of speech.

    FIRE social media post about the government’s detention of Mahmoud Khalil, March 10, 2025.

    Source link

  • FIRE demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE demands answers from Trump admin officials on arrest of Mahmoud Khalil

    FIRE Letter to Trump Administration Officials on Detention of Mahmoud Khalil

    March 10, 2025

    The Honorable Marco Rubio
    Secretary of State
    U.S. Department of State
    2201 C St., NW
    Washington, DC 20520

    The Honorable Kristi Noem
    Secretary of Homeland Security
    U.S. Department of Homeland Security
    Office of the Executive Secretary 
    Mail Stop 0525  
    Washington, DC 20528 

    The Honorable Pamela Bondi
    Attorney General
    U.S. Department of Justice
    950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
    Washington, DC 20530

    Mr. Todd Lyons
    Acting Director, ICE Leadership
    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    500 12th St., SW 
    Washington, DC 20536

    Dear Secretary Rubio, Attorney General Bondi, Secretary Noem, and Acting Director Lyons:

    On March 8, agents from the Department of Homeland Security arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United States who has been involved in activism related to the current conflict in Gaza.[1] According to Mr. Khalil’s attorney, the agents who arrested him initially said his visa had been revoked.[2] Upon being informed that Mr. Khalil is a lawful permanent resident, whose status therefore cannot be revoked by unilateral DHS action, the agents arrested him anyway. When Mr. Khalil’s attorney asked to see a warrant for his arrest, DHS declined to produce one.[3] As of this writing, Mr. Khalil remains in DHS detention.

    Mr. Khalil recently received a graduate degree from Columbia University, where he has participated in student protests intended to express opposition to policies of the U.S. and Israeli governments. On March 9, DHS stated that Mr. Khalil’s arrest was made “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism,” and that “Khalil led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”[4] Secretary Rubio, alluding to Mr. Khalil’s arrest, stated, “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.”[5] On March 10, President Trump remarked on Mr. Khalil’s arrest, noting that the government intends to seek removal of any foreign students who engage in “pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity.”[6]

    Demonstrations occurring on Columbia’s campus since Oct. 7, 2023, have included both constitutionally protected speech and unlawful conduct, but the government has not made clear the factual or legal basis for Mr. Khalil’s arrest. The statements the government has released suggest its decision may be based on his constitutionally protected speech. This lack of clarity is chilling protected expression, as other permanent residents cannot know whether their lawful speech could be deemed to “align to” a terrorist organization and jeopardize their immigration status.

    The federal government must not use immigration enforcement to punish and filter out ideas disfavored by the administration. It must also afford due process to anyone facing arrest and detention, and must be clear and transparent about the basis for its actions, to avoid chilling protected speech. To that end, we request answers to the following questions: 

    • What was the specific legal and factual basis for Mr. Khalil’s arrest on March 8?
    • What is the specific legal and factual basis for Mr. Khalil’s detention?
    • What is the specific legal and factual basis on which you are seeking revocation of Mr. Khalil’s green card?
    • Will Mr. Khalil be afforded the due process protections required by U.S. law?
    • Is it your intention to seek the revocation of lawful immigration status on the basis of speech protected by the First Amendment?[7]

    We request a substantive response to this letter no later than close of business on Tuesday, March 11, 2025. Any delay in resolving these questions risks further chilling protected speech.

    Sincerely,

    Carolyn Iodice
    Legislative and Policy Director
    Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression

    Notes

    [1] Ginger Adams Otis, ICE Arrests Columbia Student Who Helped Lead Pro-Palestinian Protests, Wall St. J. (March 9, 2025, 10:07 pm), https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/dhs-detains-columbia-student-who-helped-lead-pro-palestinian-protests-fbbd8196.

    [2] Eliza Shapiro, Immigration Authorities Arrest Pro-Palestinian Activist at Columbia, N.Y. Times (March 9, 2025), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/09/nyregion/ice-arrests-palestinian-activist-columbia-protests.html.

    [3] Canada’s New Leader, ICE Arrest Columbia Student, Congress and The Budget, NPR (March 10, 2025, 6:05 AM), https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1237260282.

    [4] Homeland Security (@DHSgov), X (March 9, 2025, 9:29PM), https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1898908955675357314.

    [5] Marco Rubio (@marcorubio), X (March 9, 6:10PM), https://x.com/marcorubio/status/1898858967532441945.

    [6] Donald Trump (@realDonaldTrump), Truth Social (March 10, 2025, 1:05PM), https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114139222625284782.

    [7] Note there is no categorical exception to the First Amendment for speech that “aligns to” or even expresses explicit support for a foreign terrorist organization.

    Source link