Lawsuit Seeks to Release Family of Suspect in Colorado Attack
Lawyers representing the wife and children of the man charged with attacking an event honoring Israeli hostages sued the U.S. government on Wednesday, seeking to release the family from custody and block their deportation, according to a court filing.
Hayam El Gamal, the wife of Mohamed Sabry Soliman, the Egyptian man accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at a crowd in Boulder, Colo., on Sunday, was arrested on Tuesday along with her five children by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.
The lawsuit was filed by Ms. El Gamal's immigration lawyers and others seeking to help the family. The suit says that Ms. El Gamal and her five children entered the United States on tourist visas in 2022. The children are between 4 and 17 years old, according to the lawsuit.
The filing, in Federal District Court in Colorado, said that Ms. El Gamal 'was shocked to learn' that her husband 'was arrested for having committed a violent act against a peaceful gathering of individuals commemorating Israeli hostages.'
Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, said her agency would be investigating what the family knew about the attack before it happened.
'Today the Department of Homeland Security and ICE are taking the family of suspected Boulder, Colo., terrorist and illegal alien Mohamed Soliman into ICE custody,' Ms. Noem said on social media on Tuesday.
Later that day, the White House indicated in a social media message that the family could be deported imminently. On Wednesday, the Department of Homeland Security said that ICE was 'processing Soliman's family members for removal proceedings from the U.S.'
The filing on Wednesday said Ms. El Gamal was a network engineer who has lived in Colorado Springs for nearly three years and had applied for a U.S. work visa. Her husband, Mr. Soliman, also entered the country in 2022 with a tourist visa and quickly applied for asylum. His visa expired in early 2023, U.S. officials said, but he overstayed it.
The lawsuit says that the family is part of his asylum application and that it is pending. It also includes emails that Ms. El Gamal purportedly sent to her immigration lawyer on Tuesday, the day she was arrested.
'Hi please call urgently Florence Colorado ice office,' one email reads.
Eric Lee, one of the lawyers representing Ms. El Gamal, said the family was being detained at a family detention center in Texas.
The lawsuit requests that a federal judge order the release of Ms. El Gamal and her family.
'Punishing individuals for the alleged actions of their relatives is a feature of premodern justice systems or police state dictatorships, not democracies,' Mr. Lee said in an interview. 'The detention and attempted removal of this family is an assault on core democratic principles and should provoke widespread opposition in the population, immigrant and nonimmigrant alike.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Stephen Miller Breaks Silence With ‘Pork' Prod at Elon Musk
Stephen Miller has broken his silence after Elon Musk turned on his billionaire bestie, Donald Trump. The deputy chief of staff, usually a prolific social media poster, had been silent for hours online after the volcanic fall out between the two men, despite social media erupting with Musk's bombshell allegations including a claim that the president was named in the Jeffrey Epstein files. It comes as Miller's wife, Katie, followed Elon Musk out of the White House and DOGE duties last month, reportedly for a new job working with the tech billionaire. While Miller did not tag Musk or mention any of the billionaire's personal claims about Trump in a belated Thursday night post, he instead took a jab by referencing a comment made by the 53-year-old earlier this week. 'The only 'new' spending in the bill is to defend the homeland and deport the illegals—paid for by raising visa fees. All the other provisions? Massive spending cuts. There is no 'pork' in the bill. Just campaign promises," Miller wrote. Miller was quoting a pointed comment made by Musk which claimed Trump's bill is a 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill,' adding it 'is a disgusting abomination.' The Trump confidante followed the veiled comment with another late-night post that read, 'Still trying to figure out what the objection is to a bill that combines record tax cuts with record spending cuts with record deportations.' Miller's relative silence on the issue was in stark contract with his flurry of posts throughout the week as the Musk and Trump drama boiled over, and the Trump adviser went on a posting spree in an attempt to save the bill's reputation. Miller also pulled out on a scheduled appearance on Larry Kudlow's Fox News show on Thursday afternoon, with the host apologizing for him. 'We lost Mr Miller to a meeting in the Oval Office,' Kudlow said. 'Perfectly understandable, when I was in government it would happen all the time, you'd have to kill a TV show, you're at the president's beck and call.' Miller then appeared in a White House discussion alongside Senior White House officials Taylor Budowich, Russ Vought and James Braid discuss Trump's 'big, beautiful bill.' The half-hour YouTube video was posted Thursday night, with Miller the first to speak. 'The most important thing in politics in American is honoring the promises you make to the American people, the sacred trust between the voter and the man they elect, in this case the president of the United States,' Miller said, noting the president made numerous promises on the campaign trail that 'are codified in this legislation.' Miller reposted numerous videos uploaded from the discussion to X by the White House's Rapid Response team. Musk earlier unfollowed Miller's account on X on Thursday, in an unfollowing spree that also included right-wing media personality Charlie Kirk. Appearing on Kirk's podcast on Thursday, Kirk said to Miller, 'I want you to say again that this would be one of the greatest legislative accomplishments in Republican party history.' Miller began the interview by telling Kirk, 'You've been such a critical element of the success of the MAGA movement. I hope your audience appreciates how much we appreciate you.' The interview descended into both men talking up the 'big beautiful bill.' 'If Ronald Reagan had just done no tax on tips, they'd still be giving speeches today about it at the Reagan Library,' Miller claimed. 'There'd be whole statues, there'd be museum displays, they'd have entire industries built off just telling the story of when Reagan did no tax on tips. Isn't that right Charlie?" The 30-minute discussion did not mention Elon Musk calling the bill a 'disgusting abomination' or his wife Katie's employment status. Miller did say he was 'optimistic' the bill would be passed 'because I have faith in the power of the Trump voter.'
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Committing to the Chicago Principles of free speech is the only way forward for higher education
I've been a faculty member at the University of Chicago for 27 years; for 12 of them, I was married to the university's late president, Robert J. Zimmer. Bob was well known for his endorsement of the 'Chicago Principles' addressing academic free speech, which were formulated by a faculty committee he appointed in 2014. Now, in 2025, at a time when opposing ideological forces threaten to rip higher education apart altogether, it's clearer than ever we need to observe these principles if we are to maintain our universities as places for inquiry and learning rather than the nurturing of ideologies. First of all, let's be clear. Academic free speech and public free speech are not the same, and the Chicago Principles refer to the former, repeating a view of speech on campus with roots deep in the university's history. 'There is not an institution of learning in the country in which freedom of teaching is more absolutely untrammeled than in the University of Chicago,' remarked university President William Rainey Harper in 1902. Thirty years later, at a time of tension over a communist speaker on campus, President Robert M. Hutchins wrote that students 'should have freedom to discuss any problem that presents itself.' Today, when being either for or against the position of our national government comes with undue risk and when free speech seems to many to be an insoluble problem, these principles — what they allow and what they do not — offer us simple guidelines as the American university faces two crises, both political in nature. The first crisis is one of free speech — and free thought — under attack. Faculty across the country face constraints on the ability to express a liberal opinion on any controversial matter, especially if related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) or other 'woke' topics. One of my friends from another university worries that despite her U.S. passport (she's originally Japanese) the ICE men will kidnap her off the street because her work is in gender, disability and health. She doesn't expect her administration to step in if she's detained — too many college administrations are primarily worried about losing additional government funding. My friend is not being paranoid, and that's pretty terrifying in a country known for tolerance and freedom. Professors and students have been shut down or removed (or have fled the U.S.) for their views. Just think of Rümeysa Öztürk, whose great crime appears to have been co-authoring a pro-Palestinian op-ed for her school newspaper while on a valid F-1 visa. Never mind the Chicago Principles, ICE's overreach in her case violates the First Amendment: The government shall not interfere with freedom of expression. Öztürk was not disruptive or violent. She simply published a point of view. Are we willing to let go of this democratic cornerstone that enables public discourse and government accountability? Don't we want to push back even a little? The second crisis is arguably one of pushing free speech too far. Some students and faculty on campuses around the country seem to be confusing vandalism and disruption with the function of learning. Is using a bullhorn an example of academic free speech? If you thereby chill the main function of a university, offering an education, by disrupting classes and students, the Chicago Principles would say it's not. Nor is taking over a campus quad, vandalizing university property, throwing paint or harassing people you disagree with. Free speech on campus is enabled by certain limits of time, place and manner that keep it manageable for all. The university 'may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment … or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the university.' Without such limits a university will have difficulty following its calling. If the future of the university itself is now at stake, as so many seem to agree, it would be a good time to reinstate our commitment to these principles. University presidents need not have to decide whether or not to call in the police if tent cities spring up on campus and administrative buildings are taken over. It should never get to that stage in the first place. ____ Shadi Bartsch is a professor in humanities at the University of Chicago and former director of the Institute on the Formation of Knowledge. _____
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tesla shares rebound on news of Musk and Trump talks after explosive feud cost firm $99bn in a day
Tesla shares are poised to jump as much as 5.7 per cent when stock markets open in the US later today after the business took a $99bn (£73bn) hit following an explosive feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk. The share price of the electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer tanked from more than $322 at the start of Thursday's trading to $284 at the end of the day, more than a 14 per cent drop as a result of a back-and-forth argument between the pair, which covered everything from government contracts to the Epstein files. However, a ceasefire of sorts appears to have been brokered, and the two are due to meet on Friday - resulting in some investors surging back into Tesla stock. Even so, with futures markets showing around a 5.7 per cent rise in pre-trading just before 9am BST, that still means the market capitalisation of Tesla - the measure of its overall value by share price - will have dropped a full $99bn in a day. After-hours trading shows the buying and selling of shares outside of regular stock market opening hours, mostly dominated by big corporate investors. That is reflected in the futures price, which shows the stock price that a company will 'open' at. The large sell-off means Tesla has again lost its status as a $1tn company, though it still ranks in the top ten largest American companies. The one-day cost to Mr Musk's net worth personally was around $34bn (£25bn), according to Bloomberg's Billionaires Index, at the time stock markets closed in the US. He remains the richest person on the planet by a distance. Separate from share price woes, Mr Trump's tax and spending Bill could be set to cost Tesla. Eliminating tax incentives for US buyers purchasing EVs, in addition to a similar scheme in California, could cost Tesla more than $3bn, analysts estimate. Outside of Tesla, Mr Musk's other business interests could be hard-hit too if the US president presses ahead with his threats to cancel government contracts with SpaceX. Other car manufacturers across the UK and Europe have not reacted with notable share price changes after the feud took place outside their trading hours on Thursday. German-listed Volkswagen, BMW and Mercedes were largely flat in early trading, with the UK's Aston Martin Lagonda up 2 per cent. Ferrari is listed in New York and is up 0.4 per cent in pre-trading, with General Motors at 0.5 per cent and Toyota's US listing set to open 0.3 per cent up.
