Can Trump deport visa holders over their speech? Federal judge will soon decide
BOSTON − Do visa and green card holders have First Amendment rights to express views on controversial foreign policy issues, particularly on college campuses?
That question was at the heart of a two-week trial that concluded July 21 between the Trump administration and the State Department and a group of university professors from across the nation − including at Harvard University.
It is a major First Amendment case with implications across higher education and beyond. It took place one courtroom over from another involving the administration and its federal research funding cuts aimed at Harvard, a case where lawyers also raised key First Amendment issues.
The administration has argued that it can deport visa and green card holders under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which has a provision granting the secretary of state the authority to remove people from the country if they undermine its foreign policy interests.
But the trial in American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, which began on July 7, raised questions about whether the administration was violating the First Amendment by retaliating against people for their political speech.
The lawsuit − filed March 25 on behalf of the association's campus chapters at Harvard, New York and Rutgers universities, along with the Middle East Studies Association − accused the administration of fostering a 'climate of repression and fear on university campuses.'
The trial came amid the backdrop of a high-profile case involving Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian activist. Last month, a federal judge in New Jersey ordered Khalil released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.
That judge had previously ruled that the government's actions were chilling Khalil's right to free speech. The Trump administration has said the basis for its March 8 detention was Khalil's supposed alignment with Hamas, a designated terrorist group.
Trump administration 'systematically violating the First Amendment,' lawyers say
Here in Boston, closing arguments took place before U.S. District Judge William Young, a Harvard Law School graduate.
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, along with co-counsel Sher Tremonte LLP, represented the association of professors in the case, and Young first asked them what evidence they had to support the notion that an 'ideological deportation' policy exists.
Alexandra Conlon, a Sher Tremonte lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said that was proven by the administration revoking visas and green cards based on noncitizens' pro-Palestinian activism. In doing so, she said, the federal government was 'systematically violating the First Amendment' and seeking to chill speech it disagrees with.
She said the administration conflates antisemitism with pro-Palestine, anti-Israel or anti-war viewpoints.
Ramya Krishnan, an attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute , went on to argue that legal precedent affirms noncitizens' right to First Amendment protections. Further, she said, lawyers representing the administration hadn't proven that its actions against noncitizen activists were necessary for national security.
Noncitizens don't have the same First Amendment rights, administration argues
Justice Department attorney Ethan Kanter, representing the Trump administration, argued noncitizens do not have First Amendment rights to the same extent as U.S. citizens. While they may have such rights in some capacity, he said, they are 'context dependent and in relation to the compelling government interest at play.'
He cited a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2024 that allowed the state of Ohio to ban foreign nationals from contributing to political campaigns while litigation continued. The court said the state was likely to succeed on the merits of the case, saying the state's law was narrowly tailored to serve the government's compelling interest in preventing foreign influence on elections.
William Kanellis, another attorney representing the administration, at one point referenced the novel 'Don Quixote.' He cited a particular story in which Quixote mistakes windmills for giants and tries to fight them, leading to him falling off his horse.
The plaintiffs had similarly 'been knocked off their horse' in the trial, he said, adding that the notion of an 'ideological deportation policy' was, like Don Quixote's vision, based on the plaintiffs' 'imagination and creative conjuring.'
If such a broad policy existed, he said, 'you'd see many more arrests.'
In their complaint, the plaintiffs requested that Young, among other actions, recognize the existence of an "ideological deportation policy' and deem it, along with 'threats to arrest, detain and deport noncitizen students and faculty,' to be unconstitutional. They asked for the policy to be set aside and for Young to bar the administration from making such threats moving forward.
Closing arguments lasted about 90 minutes. Young said he appreciated the 'vigorous advocacy' and 'high level of civility' shown by the legal counsel and witnesses throughout the trial. He said he now has the responsibility to consider all arguments and deliver a 'fair and just' ruling.
Young previously blocked the administration's termination of National Institutes of Health grants that cut funding for research related to minority communities. In that case, he'd said that the funding cut 'represents racial discrimination,' the New York Times reported.
BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.
USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
American Press
22 minutes ago
- American Press
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out the massive financial penalty a state judge imposed on President Donald Trump, while narrowly upholding a finding he engaged in fraud by exaggerating his wealth for decades. The ruling spares Trump from a potential half-billion-dollar fine but bans him and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Trump, in a social media post, claimed 'total victory.' 'I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,' he wrote. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A sharply divided panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division couldn't agree on many issues raised in Trump's appeal, but a majority said the monetary penalty was 'excessive.' After finding Trump flagrantly padded financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. Additional penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — bring the total to $527 million, with interest. An 'excessive' fine 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of three opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron's other punishments, upheld by the appeals court, have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and the president was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which split on the merits of the lawsuit and Engoron's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for an appeal to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. Trump and his co-defendants, the judges wrote, can seek to extend the pause on any punishments taking effect. The panel was sharply divided, issuing 323 pages of concurring and dissenting opinions with no majority. Rather, some judges endorsed parts of their colleagues' findings while denouncing others, enabling the court to rule. Two judges wrote that they felt New York Attorney General Letitia James' lawsuit against Trump and his companies was justifiable and that she had proven her case but the penalty was too severe. One wrote that James exceeded her legal authority in bringing the suit, saying that if any of Trump's lenders felt cheated, they could have sued him themselves, and none did. One judge wrote that Engoron erred by ruling before the trial began that the attorney general had proved Trump engaged in fraud. In his portion of the ruling, Judge David Friedman, who was appointed to the court by Republican Gov. George Pataki, was scathing in his criticism of James for bringing the lawsuit. 'Plainly, her ultimate goal was not 'market hygiene' … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump's political career and the destruction of his real estate business,' Friedman wrote. 'The voters have obviously rendered a verdict on his political career. This bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.' In a statement, James focused on the part of the case that went her way, saying the court had 'affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud.' 'It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,' James said. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. Claims of politics at play Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. At the conclusion of the civil trial in January 2024, Trump said he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' The Republican has repeatedly maintained the case and the verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney Abbe D. Lowell has said investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing last September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old and that James had misused a consumer protection law to sue Trump over private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said that while Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, his exaggerations led lenders to make riskier loans and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net worth numbers. Legal obstacles The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider. Trump still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. Trump also is appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims.
Los Angeles Times
22 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Uganda agrees to take deported migrants from U.S. if they don't have criminal records
KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda has agreed to a deal with the United States to take deported migrants as long as they don't have criminal records and are not unaccompanied minors, the foreign ministry said Thursday. The ministry said in a statement that the agreement had been concluded but that terms were still being worked out. It added that Uganda prefers that the migrants sent there be of African nationalities, but did not elaborate on what Uganda might get in return for accepting deportees. The U.S. Embassy in Uganda declined to comment on what it called 'diplomatic negotiations,' but said that diplomats were seeking to uphold President Trump's 'policy of keeping Americans safe.' The Trump administration has been seeking ways to deter migrants from entering the country illegally and to deport those who already have done so, especially those with criminal records and including those who cannot easily be deported to their home country. Human rights activists criticized the deportee deal as possibly going against international law. Henry Okello Oryem, Uganda's state minister for foreign affairs, on Wednesday had denied that any agreement on deportees had been reached, though he said his government was in discussions about 'visas, tariffs, sanctions, and related issues.' He also suggested that his country would draw the line at accepting people associated with criminal groups. 'We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?' he said at the time. Oryem and other Ugandan government officials declined to comment Thursday. Opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi suggested that such a deal with the United States would give the Ugandan government legitimacy ahead of elections, and urged Washington not to turn a blind eye toward what he described as human rights and governance issues in Uganda. Uganda's leaders will rush into a deal to 'clear their image now that we are heading into the 2026 elections,' Nkunyingi said. Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opio likened a deportee deal to human trafficking, and said it would leave the status of the deportees unclear. 'Are they refugees or prisoners?' he said. 'The proposed deal runs afoul of international law. We are sacrificing human beings for political expediency; in this case because Uganda wants to be in the good books of the United States,' he said. 'That I can keep your prisoners if you pay me; how is that different from human trafficking?' In July, the U.S. deported five men with criminal backgrounds to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini and sent eight more to South Sudan. The men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to Eswatini are being held in solitary confinement until they can be deported to their home countries, which could take up to a year. A legal challenge in the U.S had halted the deportation process of the eight men in South Sudan but a Supreme Court ruling eventually cleared the way for them to be sent to South Sudan. Uganda has had challenges with the U.S. after lawmakers passed an anti-homosexuality bill in 2023 that punishes consensual same-sex conduct with penalties including life imprisonment. Washington threatened consequences and the World Bank withheld some funding. In May 2024, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Uganda's parliamentary speaker, her husband and several other officials over corruption and serious abuses of human rights.
Los Angeles Times
22 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Palestinian factions in Beirut begin handing over weapons at refugee camp
Palestinian factions began handing over some of the weapons held in a refugee camp on the outskirts of Beirut to the Lebanese army Thursday, an initial step in implementing a plan officials announced three months earlier for removing arms from the camps. It was a modest first step. One pickup left the camp loaded with light weapons packed in bags. The butts of machine guns could be seen protruding from some of the sacks. It remains unclear whether all factions will abide by the decision. Representatives of Hamas and the allied Palestinian Islamic Jihad did not respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for Hamas sent a statement signed by 'the Palestinian Factions in Lebanon' that called Thursday's handover of weapons 'an internal organizational matter within the Fatah movement' that 'has no connection, near or far, to the issue of Palestinian weapons in the camps.' It added, 'Our weapons have always been and will always be linked to the right of return and the just Palestinian cause and will remain so as long as the occupation remains on Palestinian soil.' The decision to remove weapons from the camps was announced in May during a visit by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to Lebanon, during which he and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun announced that arms would be consolidated under the authority of the Lebanese government. The step of removing weapons from the camps was seen as a precursor to the much more difficult step of disarming the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which last year fought a bruising war with Israel that ended in a ceasefire in November. The group has been under domestic and international pressure since then to give up its remaining arsenal, which it has so far refused to do. Implementation of the plan for the Palestinian camps was delayed amid disagreements among and within the various Palestinian factions operating in Lebanon, which include Abbas' Fatah movement, the rival Hamas group and a range of other Islamist and leftist groups, over the mechanism for handing over the weapons. Ramez Dimashkieh, head of the Lebanese-Palestinian Dialogue Committee, a government body that serves as an interlocutor between Palestinian refugees and officials, said in a statement that the handover of weapons Thursday at the Burj al-Barajneh camp south of Beirut 'will be the first step, with further batches to be delivered in the coming weeks from Burj al-Barajneh camp and the rest of the camps,' the statement said. Nabil Abu Rdeneh, a spokesperson for Abbas, said in a statement that weapons were also handed over Thursday at al-Bass camp in southern Lebanon and would continue in other camps in implementation of the agreement between Abbas and the Lebanese government. U.S. envoy Tom Barrack congratulated the Lebanese government and Fatah 'for their agreement on voluntary disarmament in Beirut camps.' In a post on X, he called it 'a historic step toward unity and stability, showing true commitment to peace and cooperation.' However, the extent to which the decision would actually be implemented remained unclear. Some officials with the Palestinian factions said only 'illegal' weapons would be handed over, not those belonging to organized factions. They also said personal light weapons would not be included. Badih al-Habet, a spokesperson for Fatah in Beirut, told reporters that Aoun had acknowledged that 'personal weapons are part of Arab and national culture.' Sewell and Sharafeddine write for the Associated Press.
