What's next for Rümeysa Öztürk?
US District Judge William K. Sessions III, who ordered Öztürk's release last week after a hearing in Vermont, has yet to issue a final ruling on Öztürk's claims that the government detained her solely because she coauthored a pro-Palestinian op-ed in the campus newspaper, violating her First Amendment and due process rights. He has scheduled a hearing on the matter for May 22 in federal court in Burlington, VT.
What is the status of
Advertisement
The immigration case against Öztürk will continue, regardless of what happens in federal district court, as long as the government pursues it. Öztürk may continue to oppose her deportation during proceedings in immigration court. However, according to Stokes, her recent release could shift those proceedings from Louisiana, where she was detained after her arrest, to Massachusetts. Immigration cases are typically heard in the venue where the respondent, in this case
Öztürk, is living. Since Öztürk has returned to Massachusetts, her case should be heard in immigration court in Boston or Chelmsford, Stokes said.
Advertisement
Still, Stokes said the government may oppose moving the immigration proceedings to Massachusetts, given that Louisiana courts
'I dont think the government has leg to stand on, but wouldnt put it past them to oppose a change of venue from Louisiana,' Stokes said.
What options does Öztürk have if her deportation is ordered by an immigration judge?
She may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, then to a federal appeals court, and ultimately the US Supreme Court. The route the immigration case would take through the federal appeals court process would depend on where her immigration case is ultimately heard. If it is heard in Massachusetts, as Stokes expects, then the case could go before the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.
What happens next in Öztürk's suit filed in US District Court in Vermont?
Öztürk filed the case in federal court alleging the government retaliated against her solely because she co-authored a pro-Palestinian op-ed in the Tufts newspaper. Her immediate request was to be released from detention while her legal challenges plays out. The case was
That case will continue to move forward. Once Sessions issues a final ruling on whether the government violated Öztürk's constitutional rights, the losing party may appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New York City, and ultimately the US Supreme Court. Still, without a stay of Sessions' decision, Öztürk will remain free during that time.
Advertisement
Shelley Murphy can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
28 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Can the Ivy League band together to fight Trump's attacks on higher education?
Harvard University has suffered most of President Trump's blows, with the president stripping Advertisement At other schools, university presidents are giving interviews and campus speeches critical of the White House. Professors are unionizing to advocate for their research and students. And many alumni groups are spearheading public awareness campaigns to pressure their alma maters to fight back against Trump. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Because 'The fight is going to be won among the public,' said Jon Fansmith, vice president of the nonprofit American Council on Education. The Trump administration has arguied elite universities force-feed students leftist ideology and allowed antisemitism to run rampant since the Israel-Hamas war began in October 2023. The administration has announced investigations of colleges and universities allegedly discriminating against white people and cut off or threatened to cut federal funding to many schools. Advertisement At Columbia University, leaders in March said they would comply with the administration's demands after officials froze hundreds of millions of dollars in funding because the administration said the school failed to protect Jewish students from discrimination. But that didn't seem to appease the White House, which announced last week it was targeting the school's accreditation, which could ultimately result in Columbia losing federal financial aid for its students. In April, several Big Ten conference schools formally signed on to a 'The Trump administration has no intention of backing down, and the only thing that will work to oppose him is strong collective action where we have each other's backs,' said Lieberwitz, whose university had Students on the campus at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J., on March 7. HANNAH BEIER/NYT University presidents speak out Ivy League university presidents have responded differently to allegations of antisemitism on campus and the Trump administration's attempts to control how they run their schools. A Eisgruber, a constitutional law scholar, has been particularly outspoken, slamming Advertisement 'It's really important for conservative views to be welcome on a campus, but that's different from insisting on ideological balance on a campus,' Eisgruber told the host of The Daily this spring. After Harvard lost billions in science funding in April, Eisgruber posted 'Princeton stands with Harvard,' on his LinkedIn profile. At Brown University, the school's highest governing body recently extended president Christina Paxson's term through June 2028 in a show of confidence. Eisgruber's and Paxson's long tenures put them in better positions to speak out, higher education advocates told the Globe this spring. Other Ivies have recently been plagued by turnover among leaders, including high-profile oustings over responses to pro-Palestinian protests and allegations of antisemitism. The presidents of Yale, Cornell, and the University of Pennsylvania were installed this spring. 'The other university presidents are not standing up for Harvard because they don't want to be the next one on Trump's list,' said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Presidents, a union. University presidents are also strategizing with lawmakers in Washington D.C., professors told the Globe. The largest public outcry from university presidents came on April 22, when hundreds signed a public statement with the American Association of Colleges & Universities against 'unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Dartmouth president Sian Beilock was the only Ivy president to not sign, despite being urged to by professors and alumni, said Derek Jennings, an active member of the Native American Alumni Association of Dartmouth. The school's director of media relations, Jana Barnello, said like other schools, Dartmouth has filed supporting declarations in lawsuits over the funding cuts. Advertisement Professors rally to organize against Trump While university presidents seem to be taking a more careful and calculated approach, many professors rapidly organized this spring, forming union chapters in an attempt to defend their research. 'The level of increased faculty activism at Dartmouth is demonstrating that those of us who value the ideals and values of higher education are not waiting for administrators to lead on this,' said Bethany Moreton, who helped launch Dartmouth's chapter of the American Association of University Presidents in May 2024. Membership has since ballooned to 150, she said. Across the Ivy League, researchers said they're best suited to publicly advocate for their work, describing their life-saving findings and discoveries at rallies and in letters to lawmakers, groups told the Globe. While some observers warn of a potential brain drain among professors to Canada or Europe in response to Trump's cuts to research funding, some said Trump's attacks are creating more unity among colleagues than they've seen in years. 'If the intention was to divide faculty and pit us against each other with all the threats, it's really not working,' said Princeton English professor Meredith Martin. 'We care so much about our students that, if anything, this is bringing us together and making us stronger.' During the recent school year, membership in AAUP surged to 50,000, from 42,000, with almost all of that after Trump's inauguration in January, according to the group, and is the largest spike since its founding a century ago. Alumni stand up for schools Alumni are also pushing administrators at their alma maters to do more to stand up for their schools' autonomy. Harvard's alumni campaign, Crimson Courage, met Friday in a packed auditorium on the Cambridge campus to discuss how it is 'reaching out beyond Harvard to build the campaign,' an event description said. Advertisement The group Stand Up for Princeton and Higher Education amassed more than 9,000 alumni supporters in the past five weeks. Some held signs and wore buttons while walking the P-rade route on May 24. The group's In Connecticut, the group Stand Up for Yale sent a Similar alumni groups are taking shape across the Ivy League, with several urging university presidents to sign on to group statements, alumni told the Globe. Schools must band together formally, experts say Many graduates said their support is for all of higher education, not just their alma maters. At the recent Princeton reunion after the P-rade, a Yale Divinity School student caught up with a University of Chicago Law School graduate over barbecue. Outside nearby Firestone Library, recent graduates of Yale's and Harvard's law schools enveloped in hugs. 'The education my peers and I received was life changing, and our schools know this and are not backing down on ensuring future students get the same opportunities,' said Joshua Faires, who has an undergraduate degree from Princeton and a master's degree in sociology from Columbia University. HoSang, from Yale's AAUP chapter, said Trump knows higher education institutions depend on each other and share one 'ecosystem,' and so a threat against one is a threat to all, he said. Advertisement 'There is no saving Yale, Harvard, or Princeton without standing up for all of higher education,' HoSang said. Still, faculty and alumni need more support from administrators, some warned —all the way from the presidents at the top, said Wolfson, the national AAUP president. 'I think they need to be bold,' Wolfson said. 'And this is hard to do but I'll say it anyway: They need to put their institution second, and then need to put higher education — as a critical sector in US society — first.' Claire Thornton can be reached at
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Americans are divided over religious freedom. The Supreme Court? Not as much
Thursday was a surprising day at the Supreme Court, and a religion case was part of the action. The justices released six unanimous or near-unanimous decisions, including in a closely watched battle over the scope of faith-based tax breaks. In that religion case, the full court agreed that Wisconsin officials were unlawfully privileging certain religious nonprofits over others by basing access to religious exemptions on how they expressed their beliefs. Organizations that served only members of their own religion or that openly evangelized were typically eligible for the tax break, while organizations that served all comers with no strings attached often were deemed not religious enough to qualify. 'It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain 'neutrality between religion and religion.' There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one,' Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the Supreme Court's opinion, which reversed a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling against a group of Catholic nonprofits. The decision is significant, since it could lead to changes to religious exemptions nationwide. But the fact that it was unanimous isn't as surprising as it may, at first, have appeared. If there's a case to be made that the Supreme Court's ruling was unexpected, it centers on the role religious freedom advocates played in the battle. Faith-related groups did not speak with one voice on how the justices should interpret the First Amendment. They put together competing legal briefs and press releases. More liberal organizations and individuals supported Wisconsin's narrow religious exemption, arguing that an overly broad tax break would harm workers, including people of faith. More conservative groups, on the other hand, said religious freedom law requires broad exemptions, which enable faith-based organizations to operate according to their beliefs. While these arguments were specific to the Supreme Court case on Catholic nonprofits, they should be familiar to anyone who follows faith-related policy debates. Religious groups and faith-related advocacy organizations no longer agree on what religious freedom means — nor on whether or not conservative Christians, in particular, are demanding too many concessions in the public square. Those disagreements help explain why different religious freedom advocates held very different views on President Donald Trump and Kamala Harris during last year's election, as the Deseret News previously reported, and why some faith groups support a push to limit the application of a landmark religious freedom law. More liberal advocates generally believe religious liberty protections work best when they're balanced with other types of protections, including LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws, while more conservative advocates generally say religious freedom should win out. If you dig into the justices' track record on religion over the 20 years Chief Justice John Roberts has led the court, you'll find several rulings that reflect this tension. Among other issues, the court has split along ideological lines in cases involving school prayer, state funding for religious schools and the Affordable Care Act's birth control mandate. In these decisions and others, the court's conservative majority embraced a broad interpretation of religious exercise protections, while the court's more liberal justices called for limitations on religious freedom in their dissents. These split decisions are often what people think of when they think of the Supreme Court and religion — but they're actually the exception, not the rule. From Roberts' confirmation in September 2005 to April 2021, religious freedom claims succeeded in front of the Supreme Court 13 times. Nine of those 13 rulings were either unanimous or from a mixed 7-2 majority, according to a Deseret News analysis from 2021. In the four years since that analysis was released, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of religion claims in merits cases seven more times. Four of the decisions were unanimous, while a fifth was 8-1. In other words, the justices are finding ways to bridge the gap between conservative and liberal takes on religious freedom, including in cases involving LGBTQ rights. When you consider the court's record on religion, Thursday's unanimous ruling no longer seems surprising. But it might still feel worth celebrating, especially if you're worried about the state of the religious freedom landscape. Before the Supreme Court enters its summer recess in early July, the justices will have one more opportunity to model consensus-building in a religious freedom case. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the court is considering whether the First Amendment gives religious parents a right to opt their kids out of reading or hearing books about LGBTQ issues. During oral arguments in April, the court appeared divided along ideological lines, as the Deseret News reported at the time. More liberal justices seemed to support the school district, which said that religious freedom protects you from being coerced into changing your beliefs, not from being exposed to other ideas. More conservative justices seemed to support the families, who felt like their religious teachings were being drowned out. It wasn't immediately clear what a compromise ruling would look like. But even as Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked tough questions of the school district's attorney, he reminded everyone to keep searching. 'The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents is to look for the win/win,' he said.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bill limiting protests at public universities awaits Gov. Abbott's approval
The Brief A new bill, SB 2972, limiting protests on Texas public university campuses has passed both the Senate and House. The bill prohibits activities like using amplified sound during class, protesting in the last two weeks of the semester, and wearing masks to conceal identity. Critics, including the ACLU of Texas, argue the bill violates First Amendment rights. AUSTIN - A bill that passed through the Texas legislature last weekend would prohibit certain times and locations of protests on public university campuses. Critics worry the bill is in direct violation of the First Amendment, as well as the Texas Constitution. Senate Bill 2972 defines "expressive activities" in the same manner as the First Amendment and the Texas Constitution, directly citing those documents to include assemblies, protests, speeches, the distribution of written materials, the carrying of signs, and the circulation of petitions. Under the new bill, the following would be prohibited at Texas universities: Using devices to amplify sound during class hours while engaging in expressive activities. Engaging in expressive activities during the last two weeks of the semester. Camping or setting up tents on campus. Wearing a mask or other disguise while engaging in expressive activities. Lowering the U.S. flag with the intent to raise another flag. Engaging in expressive activities between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Note that these are limited and expanded upon individually within the bill's text. The Senate passed the bill 21-10 on May 14. The House passed it 97-39 on May 28. What they're saying The bill's text says it may not be construed to limit freedom of speech or expression as protected by the First Amendment or Texas Constitution. Critics wonder how this is possible, saying the bill in its entirety is an imposition of prohibitions on rights defined in those texts. Caro Achar, the engagement coordinator for free speech at the ACLU of Texas, released the following statement to that point. "S.B. 2972 threatens the free expression of all Texans, regardless of political beliefs. This bill imposes broad restrictions that allow school officials to restrict how, when, and where Texans can speak on campus — undermining the First Amendment rights of students, faculty, staff, and the general public." Dig deeper The new bill comes on the heels of recent major protests on Texas university campuses, largely related to the conflict between Israel and Palestine, as well as developments with mass deportations. At one UT Austin protest in April 2024, 79 pro-Palestine protesters were taken into custody. The university was later found to have violated several institutional rules when handling the incident. Feds to screen social media of migrants, foreign students for antisemitic activity Columbia must notify students before handing records to Congress amid antisemitism probe ICE detains U of M student at Twin Cities campus, officials say What's next SB 2972 now awaits Gov. Greg Abbott's signature. According to the ACLU, he is expected to sign it into law. If he neither signs nor vetoes the bill, it will become law without his action. The Source Information in this article comes from Texas Legislature Online, the ACLU of Texas and previous coverage by FOX 7.
