Tag Archives: Mahmoud Khalil

NBC News: Stanford student newspaper sues Trump officials over immigration law that they say led to chilling of free speech

Posted on by
Reply

The Stanford Daily accused the administration of using immigration provisions to threaten deportation, leading to censorship and violating First Amendment rights.

Stanford University’s student newspaper sued the Trump administration Wednesday over two provisions in federal immigration law that it says the officials have wielded against those with pro-Palestinian views.

The Stanford Daily, in addition to two former college students, filed the lawsuit against Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, accusing the administration of using the provisions to threaten deportation and the revocation of visas. They say the situation has led to censorship and violations of free speech rights.

The paper’s staff members who are on visas have self-censored and declined assignments related to the war in Gaza, fearful that their reporting could jeopardize their lawful immigration status, the lawsuit said.

“In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which is helping represent the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “Free speech isn’t a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

A senior State Department official declined to comment and directed NBC News to comments Rubio has about visa holders and complying with U.S. law.

In April, Rubio wrote in an opinion piece published on Fox News that he would be taking a “zero-tolerance approach to foreign nationals who abet terrorist organizations.”

“The Supreme Court has made clear for decades that visa holders or other aliens cannot use the First Amendment to shield otherwise impermissible actions taken to support designated foreign terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizballah, or the Houthis, or violate other U.S. laws,” Rubio said.

Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, described the lawsuit as “baseless.”

“There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,” she said in a statement.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs take aim at the Deportation Provision and Revocation Provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The first provision allows the secretary of state to deport noncitizens if the secretary “personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” The second gives the secretary the power to revoke a visa or documentation at his or her discretion.

As the lawsuit points out, the Trump administration has cited the Deportation Provision as the basis for trying to deport Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil, who was arrested and detained for more than three months. Similarly, the administration used the Revocation Provision to detain Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who has also since been released.

Because of the administration’s use of the statutes, the lawsuit said, the Stanford Daily has received a number of requests from lawfully present noncitizens to have their names, quotes or photos removed from articles. Many international students have stopped speaking to the paper’s journalists, and current and former writers have asked for their opinion editorials to be taken down, the lawsuit said.

“The First Amendment cements America’s promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,” the lawsuit said. “And when a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights, the Constitution prevails.”

One of the unnamed plaintiffs appeared on the Canary Mission, the suit said. The website, run by an anonymous group, has published a detailed database of students, professors and others who it says have shared anti-Israel and antisemitic viewpoints. It has been accused of doxxing and harassment, in addition to launching personal attacks that depict pro-Palestinian activists as being in “support of terrorism,” the Middle East Studies Association of North America said. The plaintiff has stopped publishing and “voicing her true opinions” on the Palestinian territories and Israel, the suit said.

Canary Mission has told NBC News that it documents people and groups who “promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews” across the political spectrum. It did not respond to criticisms of its work.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that block the officials from using the provisions against them based on engaging in what they consider protected speech.

“There’s real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,” Greta Reich, the Stanford Daily’s editor-in-chief, said in a statement. “The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.”

Stanford student newspaper sues Trump officials over immigration law that has chilled free speech
The Stanford Daily accused the administration of using immigration provisions to threaten deportation, leading to censorship and violating First Amendment rights.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stanford-student-newspaper-sues-trump-officials-immigration-law-rcna223477

Independent: Married immigrants trying to get green cards could be deported, new Trump-era guidance says

Posted on by
Reply

Immigration authorities now say people seeking permanent lawful status through a citizen spouse or family member can still be removed

Immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens have long expected that they won’t be deported from the country while going through the process of obtaining a green card.

But new guidance from Donald Trump’s administration explicitly states that immigrants seeking lawful residence through marriage can be deported, a policy that also applies to immigrants with pending requests.

Immigration authorities can begin removal proceedings for immigrants who lack legal status and applied to become a lawful permanent resident through a citizen spouse, according to guidance from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued this month.

The policy also applies to immigrants with pending green cards through other citizen family members.

People who entered the country illegally aren’t the only ones impacted. Under new guidance, immigrants trying to get lawful status through a spouse or family member are at risk of being deported if their visas expired, or if they are among the roughly 1 million immigrants whose temporary protected status was stripped from them under the Trump administration.

Immigrants and their spouses or family members who sponsor them “should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal,” the policy states.

The changes were designed to “enhance benefit integrity and identify vetting and fraud concerns” and weed out what the agency calls “fraudulent, frivolous, or non-meritorious” applications, according to USCIS.

“This guidance will improve USCIS’ capacity to vet qualifying marriages and family relationships to ensure they are genuine, verifiable, and compliant with all applicable laws,” the agency said in a statement.

Those changes, which were filed on August 1, are “effective immediately,” according to the agency.

Within the first six months of 2025, immigrants and their family members filed more than 500,000 I-130 petitions, which are the first steps in the process of obtaining legal residency through a spouse or family member.

There are more than 2.4 million pending I-130 petitions, according to USCIS data. Nearly 2 million of those petitions have been pending for more than six months. It is unclear whether those petitions involve immigrants who either lost their legal status or did not have one at the time they filed their documents.

Immigrants and their spouses or family members who sponsor them “should be aware that a family-based petition accords no immigration status nor does it bar removal,” the policy states.

The changes were designed to “enhance benefit integrity and identify vetting and fraud concerns” and weed out what the agency calls “fraudulent, frivolous, or non-meritorious” applications, according to USCIS.

“This guidance will improve USCIS’ capacity to vet qualifying marriages and family relationships to ensure they are genuine, verifiable, and compliant with all applicable laws,” the agency said in a statement.

Those changes, which were filed on August 1, are “effective immediately,” according to the agency.

Within the first six months of 2025, immigrants and their family members filed more than 500,000 I-130 petitions, which are the first steps in the process of obtaining legal residency through a spouse or family member.

There are more than 2.4 million pending I-130 petitions, according to USCIS data. Nearly 2 million of those petitions have been pending for more than six months. It is unclear whether those petitions involve immigrants who either lost their legal status or did not have one at the time they filed their documents.

Previously, USCIS would notify applicants about missing documents or issue a denial notice serving as a warning that their case could be rejected — with opportunities for redress.

Now, USCIS is signaling that applicants can be immediately denied and ordered to immigrant courts instead.

Outside of being born in the country, family-based immigration remains the largest and most viable path to permanent residency, accounting for nearly half of all new green card holders each year, according to USCIS data.

“This is one of the most important avenues that people have to adjust to lawful permanent status in the United States,” Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School, told NBC News.

Under long-established USCIS policies, “no one expected” to be hauled into immigration court while seeking lawful status after a marriage, Mukherjee said. Now, deportation proceedings can begin “at any point in the process” under the broad scope of the rule changes, which could “instill fear in immigrant families, even those who are doing everything right,” according to Mukherjee.

Obtaining a green card does not guarantee protections against removal from the country.

The high-profile arrest and threat of removing Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil put intense scrutiny on whether the administration lawfully targeted a lawful permanent resident for his constitutionally protected speech.

And last month, Customs and Border Protection put green card holders on notice, warning that the government “has the authority to revoke your green card if our laws are broken and abused.”

“In addition to immigration removal proceedings, lawful permanent residents presenting at a U.S. port of entry with previous criminal convictions may be subject to mandatory detention,” the agency said.

Another recent USCIS memo outlines the administration’s plans to revoke citizenship from children whose parents lack permanent lawful status as well as parents who are legally in the country, including visa holders, DACA recipients and people seeking asylum.

The policy appears to preempt court rulings surrounding the constitutionality of the president’s executive order that unilaterally redefines who gets to be a citizen in the country at birth.

That memo, from the agency’s Office of the Chief Counsel, acknowledges that federal court injunctions have blocked the government from taking away birthright citizenship.

But the agency “is preparing to implement” Trump’s executive order “in the event that it is permitted to go into effect,” according to July’s memo.

Children of immigrants who are “unlawfully present” will “no longer be U.S. citizens at birth,” the agency declared.

Trump’s order states that children whose parents are legally present in the country on student, work and tourist visas are not eligible for citizenship

USCIS, however, goes even further, outlining more than a dozen categories of immigrants whose children could lose citizenship at birth despite their parents living in the country with legal permission.

That list includes immigrants who are protected against deportation for humanitarian reasons and immigrants from countries with Temporary Protected Status, among others.

The 14th Amendment plainly states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

The Supreme Court has upheld that definition to apply to all children born within the United States for more than a century.

But under the terms of Trump’s order, children can be denied citizenship if a mother is undocumented or is temporarily legally in the country on a visa, and if the father isn’t a citizen or a lawful permanent resident.

More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship every year under Trump’s order, according to plaintiffs challenging the president’s order.

A challenge over Trump’s birthright citizenship order at the Supreme Court did not resolve the critical 14th Amendment questions at stake. On Wednesday, government lawyers confirmed plans to “expeditiously” ask the Supreme Court “to settle the lawfulness” of his birthright citizenship order later this year.

This is an abomination that will turn many thousands of lives upside down, separate countless couples and families who don’t have the resources to reunite and restart the immigration paperwork from overseas.

Married immigrants trying to get green cards could be deported, new Trump policy says
Immigration authorities now say people seeking permanent lawful status through a citizen spouse or family member can still be removed

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-uscis-green-card-deportations-married-immigrants-b2803296.html

NBC News: Calls to strip Zohran Mamdani’s citizenship spark alarm about Trump weaponizing denaturalization

Posted on by
Reply

Past administrations, including Obama’s, have sought to denaturalize U.S. citizens, such as terrorists and Nazis. But advocates worry he could target political opponents.

Immediately after Zohran Mamdani became the presumptive Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City last month, one Republican congressman had a provocative suggestion for the Trump administration: “He needs to be DEPORTED.”

The Uganda-born Mamdani obtained U.S. citizenship in 2018 after moving to the United States with his parents as a child. But Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., argued in his post on X that the Justice Department should consider revoking it over rap lyrics that, he said, suggested support for Hamas.

The Justice Department declined to comment on whether it has replied to Ogles’ letter, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said of his claims about Mamdani, “Surely if they are true, it’s something that should be investigated.”

Trump himself has claimed without evidence that Mamdani is an illegal immigrant, and when erstwhile ally Elon Musk was asked about deporting another naturalized citizen, he suggested he would consider it.

The congressman’s proposal dovetails with a priority of the Trump administration to ramp up efforts to strip citizenship from other naturalized Americans. The process, known as denaturalization, has been used by previous administrations to remove terrorists and, decades ago, Nazis and communists.

But the Trump DOJ’s announcement last month that it would “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings” has sparked alarm among immigration lawyers and advocates, who fear the Trump administration could use denaturalization to target political opponents.

Although past administrations have periodically pursued denaturalization cases, it is an area ripe for abuse, according to Elizabeth Taufa, a lawyer at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

“It can be very easily weaponized at any point,” she said.

Noor Zafar, an immigration lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, said there is a “real risk and a real threat” that the administration will target people based on their political views.

Asked for comment on the weaponization concerns, a Justice Department spokesperson pointed to the federal law that authorizes denaturalizations, 8 U.S.C. 1451.

“We are upholding our duty as expressed in the statute,” the spokesperson said.

Immigrant groups and political opponents of Trump are already outraged at the way the Trump administration has used its enforcement powers to stifle dissent in cases involving legal immigrants who do not have U.S. citizenship.

ICE detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist engaged in campus protests critical of Israel, for more than 100 days before he was released. Turkish student Rümeysa Öztürk was also detained for two months over her pro-Palestinian advocacy.

More broadly, the administration has been accused of violating the due process rights of immigrants it has sought to rapidly deport over the objection of judges and, in cases involving alleged Venezuelan gang members and Salvadoran man Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Supreme Court.

Denaturalization cases have traditionally been rare and in past decades focused on ferreting out former Nazis who fled to the United States after World War II under false pretenses.

But the approach gradually changed after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Aided by technological advances that made it easier to identify people and track them down, the number of denaturalization cases has gradually increased.

It was the Obama administration that initially seized on the issue, launching what was called Operation Janus, which identified more than 300,000 cases where there were discrepancies involving fingerprint data that could indicate potential fraud.

But the process is slow and requires considerable resources, with the first denaturalization as a result of Operation Janus secured during Trump’s first term in January 2018.

That case involved Baljinder Singh, originally from India, who had been subject to deportation but later became a U.S. citizen after assuming a different identity.

In total, the first Trump administration filed 102 denaturalization cases, with the Biden administration filing 24, according to the Justice Department spokesperson, who said figures for the Obama administration were not available. The new Trump administration has already filed five. So far, the Trump administration has prevailed in one case involving a man originally from the United Kingdom who had previously been convicted of receiving and distributing child pornography. The Justice Department declined to provide information about the other new cases.

Overall, denaturalization cases are brought against just a tiny proportion of the roughly 800,00 people who become naturalized citizens each year, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

‘Willful misrepresentation’

The government has two ways to revoke citizenship, either through a rare criminal prosecution for fraud or via a civil claim in federal court.

The administration outlined its priorities for civil enforcement in a June memo issued by Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, which listed 10 potential grounds for targeting naturalized citizens.

Examples range from “individuals who pose a risk to national security” or who have engaged in war crimes or torture, to people who have committed Medicaid or Medicare fraud or have otherwise defrauded the government. There is also a broad catch-all provision that refers to “any other cases … that the division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.”

The denaturalization law focuses on “concealment of a material fact” or “willful misrepresentation” during the naturalization proceeding.

The ACLU’s Zafar said the memo leaves open the option for the Trump administration to at least try to target people based on their speech or associations.

“Even if they don’t think they really have a plausible chance of succeeding, they can use it as a means to just harass people,” she added.

The Justice Department can bring denaturalization cases over a wide range of conduct related to the questions applicants for U.S. citizenship are asked, including the requirement that they have been of “good moral character” in the preceding five years.

Immigration law includes several examples of what might disqualify someone on moral character grounds, including if they are a “habitual drunkard” or have been convicted of illegal gambling.

The naturalization application form itself asks a series of questions probing good moral character, such as whether the applicant has been involved in violent acts, including terrorism.

The form also queries whether people have advocated in support of groups that support communism, “the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship” or the “unlawful assaulting or killing” of any U.S. official.

Failure to accurately answer any of the questions or the omission of any relevant information can be grounds for citizenship to be revoked.

In 2015, for example, Sammy Chang, a native of South Korea who had recently become a U.S. citizen, had his citizenship revoked in the wake of his conviction in a criminal case of trafficking women to work at a club he owned.

The government said that because Chang had been engaged in the scheme during the time he was applying for naturalization, he had failed to show good moral character.

But in both civil and criminal cases, the government has to reach a high bar to revoke citizenship. Among other things, it has to show that any misstatement or omission in a naturalization application was material to whether citizenship would have been granted.

In civil cases, the government has to show “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt” in order to prevail.

“A simple game of gotcha with naturalization applicants isn’t going to work,” said Jeremy McKinney, a North Carolina-based immigration lawyer. “It’s going to require significant materiality for a judge to strip someone of their United States citizenship.”

Targeting rap lyrics

In his June 26 tweet, Ogles attached a letter he sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi asking her to consider pursuing Mamdani’s denaturalization, in part, because he “expressed open solidarity with individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses prior to becoming a U.S. citizen.”

Ogles cited rap lyrics that Mamdani wrote years ago in which he expressed support for the “Holy Land Five.”

That appears to be a reference to five men involved in a U.S.-based Muslim charitable group called the Holy Land Foundation who were convicted in 2008 of providing material support to the Palestinian group Hamas. Some activists say the prosecution was a miscarriage of justice fueled by anti-Muslim sentiment following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Ogles’ office and Mamdani’s campaign did not respond to requests seeking comment.

Speaking on Newsmax in June, Ogles expanded on his reasons for revoking Mamdani’s citizenship, suggesting the mayoral candidate had “failed to disclose” relevant information when he became a citizen, including his political associations. Ogles has alleged Mamdani is a communist because of his identification as a democratic socialist, although the latter is not a communist group.

Anyone speaking on Newsmax these days is an irrelevant fruitcake.

The Trump administration, Ogles added, could use a case against Mamdani to “create a template for other individuals who come to this country” who, he claimed, “want to undermine our way of life.” (Even if Mamdani were denaturalized, he would not, contrary to Ogles’ claim, automatically face deportation, as he would most likely revert his previous status as a permanent resident.)

In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on June 29, Mamdani said calls for him to be stripped of his citizenship and deported are “a glimpse into what life is like for many Muslim New Yorkers and many New Yorkers of different faiths who are constantly being told they don’t belong in this city and this country that they love.”

Targeting Mamdani for his rap lyrics would constitute a very unusual denaturalization case, said Taufa, the immigration lawyer.

But, she added, “they can trump up a reason to denaturalize someone if they want to.”

McKinney, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the relatively low number of denaturalization cases that are filed, including those taken up during Trump’s first term, shows how difficult it is for the government to actually strip people of their citizenship.

“But what they can be very successful at is continuing to create a climate of panic and anxiety and fear,” he added. “They’re doing that very well. So, mission accomplished in that regard.”

Calls to strip Zohran Mamdani’s citizenship spark alarm about Trump weaponizing denaturalization
Past administrations, including Obama’s, have sought to denaturalize U.S. citizens, such as terrorists and Nazis. But advocates worry he could target political opponents.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/calls-strip-zohran-mamdanis-citizenship-trump-denaturalization-power-rcna216653

Macon Telegraph: ‘Corrupt Kleptocracy’: AOC’s Outcry Against Trump Bill

Posted on by
Reply

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has raised concerns about the newly-passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” which has allocated $170 billion to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The funding will support President Donald Trump-era immigration initiatives, including billions for detention facilities and the border wall. She warned that the bill will lead to increased ICE enforcement and negatively impact vulnerable communities.

Ocasio-Cortez strongly criticized the passage of Trump’s bill, particularly condemning its provisions related to ICE. Ocasio-Cortez warned of a potential “explosion” in ICE’s operations.

Ocasio-Cortez argued that the expansion of ICE would create a situation far worse than the current one, emphasizing that it has made the agency larger than the FBI, DEA, U.S. Bureau of Prisons, and other federal agencies combined.

Ocasio-Cortez stated, “I don’t think anyone is prepared for what they just did w/ ICE.” She added, “This is not a simple budget increase. It is an explosion.”

Ocasio-Cortez condemned the bill for its lack of safeguards and expressed dismay at how it may harm vulnerable individuals. She said, “People are going to die. Livelihoods gone. All to feed a corrupt kleptocracy.”

‘Corrupt Kleptocracy’: AOC’s Outcry Against Trump Bill

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/corrupt-kleptocracy-aoc-s-outcry-against-trump-bill/ss-AA1IwnAy

NBC News: Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released after months in detention

Posted on by
Reply

Minutes after the Columbia University activist was released, the Trump administration filed an appeal of his release.

Pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil was released from detention Friday evening, ending more than three months of custody in a test of the executive branch’s power to unilaterally act against legal U.S. residents.

…

Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin lashed out at “rogue” U.S. District Court Judge Michael Farbiarz, saying he had no authority to order Khalil’s release.

“This is yet another example of how out of control members of the judicial branch are undermining national security,” McLaughlin said. “Their conduct not only denies the result of the 2024 election, it also does great harm to our constitutional system by undermining public confidence in the courts.”

Government attorney Dhruman Sampat had argued that Congress has given the executive branch sweeping powers to determine who could be removed from the county.

The courts should not have the authority to interfere, Sampat said.

With regard to permanent residents, this presumed “authority” is total b*llsh*t!

Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released after months in detention
Minutes after the Columbia University activist was released, the Trump administration filed an appeal of his release.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/rcna214163

Raw Story: Trump rebuked as judge bars re-arrest of another student activist

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge has once again handed President Donald Trump a loss in the administration’s efforts to deport international student activist Mohammed Hoque.

According to Politico legal affairs reporter Josh Gerstein, Judge Jerry Blackwell of the District of Minnesota granted Hoque’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, preventing him from being re-detained.

Hoque, a Bangladeshi national studying at Minnesota State University-Mankato involved in pro-Palestine activism, was arrested earlier this year, allegedly over the revocation of his visa. Authorities reportedly followed him home from class and arrested him in front of his family.

Blackwell ordered his release last month after the federal government failed to prove it had a political reason for locking him up and terminating his Student and Exchange Visitor Program, or SEVIS, status.

In issuing the habeas grant, Blackwell further slammed the Trump administration for targeting Hoque over First Amendment-protected political activity.

“The record separately establishes that Petitioner’s SEVIS termination violates DHS policies. The first is a policy against targeting protected speech,” wrote Blackwell. “The second is a policy that visa revocation does not justify SEVIS termination … Not only does agency policy preclude the practice, it contravenes federal law.”

Trump rebuked as judge bars re-arrest of another student activist
A federal judge has once again handed President Donald Trump a loss in the administration’s efforts to deport international student activist Mohammed Hoque.According to Politico legal affairs reporter Josh Gerstein, Judge Jerry Blackwell of the District of Minnesota granted Hoque’s petition for a wr…

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-deportation-2672387306

Guardian: Australian deported from US says he was ‘targeted’ due to writing on pro-Palestine student protests

Posted on by
Reply

Alistair Kitchen says he was detained and questioned about views on Israel and Palestine before being deported from LA to Melbourne

An Australian man who was detained upon arrival at Los Angeles airport and deported back to Melbourne says United States border officials told him it was due to his writing on pro-Palestine protests by university students.

…

The 33-year-old said he was “clearly targeted for politically motivated reasons” and said officials spent more than 30 minutes questioning him about his views on Israel and Palestine including his “thoughts on Hamas”.

Kitchen said officials asked him for his “thoughts about the conflict in a very broad sense”, including about student protesters, what Israel “should have done differently” and “how I would resolve the conflict”.

“It was quite an in-depth probing of my views on the war,” he said.

Kitchen said he was deported and landed back in Melbourne on Saturday morning.

Australian deported from US says he was ‘targeted’ due to writing on pro-Palestine student protests
Alistair Kitchen says he was detained and questioned about views on Israel and Palestine before being deported from LA to Melbourne

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/15/australian-deported-from-us-says-he-was-targeted-due-to-writing-on-pro-palestine-student-protests

Axios: Judge denies Mahmoud Khalil’s release after Trump admin submits new filing

Posted on by
Reply

A federal judge has declined to release Columbia University alumnus Mahmoud Khalil from federal detention after the Trump administration submitted a last-minute filing.

Why it matters: The administration’s tug-of-war with courts over Khalil represents a historic test for immigrants’ speech rights – namely, those of permanent residents – particularly where they concern pro-Palestinian speech.

Driving the news: The federal government on Friday said that continuing to detain Khalil does not violate the court’s Wednesday injunction, because Khalil’s detainment is now based on “other grounds,” such as being undocumented when he entered the U.S.

How many millions of our $$ will be wasted harassing this poor guy and his family?

Judge denies Mahmoud Khalil’s release after Trump admin submits new filing
The Trump admin argued that the judge’s injunction “does not interfere” with authority to detain Khalil on other grounds.

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/13/trump-admin-refuses-to-release-mahmoud-khalil-despite-judges-order

CBS News: Columbia University acting president booed during graduation speech

Posted on by
Reply

Columbia University acting President Claire Shipman was greeted with boos and chants of “free Mahmoud” as she took the lectern to speak at the school’s graduation ceremony on Tuesday.

Videos posted to social media showed Shipman pausing while students heckled her before she could begin speaking.

“I know that many of you feel some amount of frustration with me and I know you feel it with the administration. And I know that we have a strong, strong tradition of free speech at this university. And I am always open to feedback, which I am getting right now,” Shipman said at the start of her remarks, allowing for another round of boos after each sentence.

Later in her speech, Shipman was interrupted by students chanting “free Mahmoud,” in reference to Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate student who was detained by immigration authorities in March in New York City and remains in custody in Louisiana. 

What do you expect when you suck up to Trump and help his ICE Gestapo arrest and deport your students?

You asked for it! You got it! Toyota!

Columbia University acting president booed during graduation speech, faces chants of “free Mahmoud”
Columbia University acting President Claire Shipman was greeted with boos and chants of “free Mahmoud” as she took the lectern to speak at the school’s graduation ceremony.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/columbia-university-acting-president-booed-during-graduation-speech

USA Today: ‘Spaghetti against the wall?’ Trump tests legal strategies as judges block his policies

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is fighting to kill 40 court orders blocking its new policies.

  • Solicitor General John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to halt nationwide injunctions against Trump policies but said if class-action lawsuits took their place, he would oppose them too.
  • Legal experts said if the Supreme Court abolishes nationwide injunctions, Trump could cut his losses by limiting the reach of court rulings that go against him.

As the Trump administration fights to kill 40 court orders blocking some of his most controversial or aggressive new policies, legal experts say the government’s strategy is to break the cases apart, into individual disputes, to delay an eventual reckoning at the Supreme Court.

One called President Donald Trump’s legal strategy a “shell game.” Another said government lawyers were “throwing spaghetti against the wall” to see what sticks.

“Their bottom line is that they don’t think these cases should be in court in the first place,” said Luke McCloud, a lawyer at Williams and Connolly who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Brett Kavanaugh when he was on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. “They are looking for a procedural mechanism that will make it the most challenging to bring these sorts of cases.”

‘Spaghetti against the wall?’ Trump tests legal strategies as judges block his policies
Some of Trump’ most aggressive policy changes are being blocked by judges all the way to the Supreme Court. To some, the response feels like a shell game.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/17/trump-legal-strategies-federal-judges-injunctions/83673013007