UI plaintiffs fear ICE may be creating new, unlawful policies to facilitate deportation
(Main photo courtesy of the University of Iowa; form courtesy of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security)
Lawyers for four University of Iowa international students fighting their potential deportation are now telling a federal judge they fear federal officials may have crafted a new, unlawful policy to revoke their status as students.
Last month, the four students sued Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director of ICE Todd Lyons in federal court.
According to their lawsuit, each of the plaintiffs was admitted to the United States on an F-1 student visa. The lawsuit alleges that on April 10, 2025, ICE abruptly canceled, without explanation, the plaintiffs' status as students within DHS' Student and Exchange Visitor Information Systems, or SEVIS, database.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
A few days later, the lawsuit claims, three of the plaintiffs' visas were revoked without explanation. The three each received identical messages from U.S. embassies, warning them that 'remaining in the United States can result in fines, detention, and/or deportation.'
The lawsuit alleges that Homeland Security has initiated a national policy of 'coercing international students into self-deportation by leveraging ambiguous student-status revocations, coupled with visa revocation notices and threatening language.'
On April 24, the judge in the case entered a temporary restraining order blocking Homeland Security from detaining or deporting the plaintiffs. The judge is still considering a motion to convert that order to a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.
Late last week, lawyers for Homeland Security submitted to the court a sworn statement from James Hicks, a division chief for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program within ICE.
In his statement, Hicks said the SEVIS database has restored the plaintiffs' status as students to 'active' in keeping with the court's temporary restraining order. Hicks said that while outsiders can't see it, there is a new notation added in each student's electronic record indicating their active status was restored retroactively to the original date of termination.
Lawyers for the students, however, appear to be less than satisfied by Hicks' assurances.
'Defendants have not backdated the restoration of plaintiffs' SEVIS status in a manner visible to designated school officers and other immigration agencies,' they responded in a court filing. They noted that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services — which is a different entity from the similarly named Immigration and Customs Enforcement — 'may deny a benefit based on a student's failure to maintain status, and the Department of State, which could deny or revoke a visa at any time, including for failure to maintain status.'
Unless the students' SEVIS record is modified in a way that is visible to all end-users of the system, Homeland Security and ICE are out of compliance with the court's temporary restraining order, attorneys for the students argue.
Homeland Security's promise that it will not attempt again to terminate the four individuals' status as students provides little protection, they add, pointing to a new policy at ICE and the agency's limited promise that it won't try again to terminate the UI students' status in a manner that's 'based solely' on the criminal record check that triggered the initial attempt.
On April 26, 2025, they point out, ICE implemented a new policy introducing two new grounds for student termination — visa revocation and failure to maintain status – that could now be applied to the four UI students.
ICE and Homeland Security, the students' lawyers have told the court, 'have given no assurance that they will not terminate on these grounds.' The two federal agencies, they add, are 'staying notably silent on their new, unlawful grounds for termination.'
The students' lawyers cite ICE's shifting policies as further evidence of the need for a preliminary injunction in the case.
The four plaintiffs in the case are Sri Chaitanya Krishna Akondy, an Indian national now working for the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services; Prasoon Kumar, an Indian national and chemical engineering student; Songli Cai, a Chinese national and third-year undergraduate student; and Haoran Yang, a Chinese national and third-year undergraduate and pre-doctorate student.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
29 minutes ago
- CNBC
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to L.A. protests
President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C. to respond to demonstrations that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors who refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who, under normal circumstances, would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to "address the lawlessness" in California, the Democratic governor said the move was "purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions." Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. The National Guard is a hybrid entity serving state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to "execute the laws of the United States," with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes "shall be issued through the governors of the States." It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could use force while filling that "protection" role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. "There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves," Vladeck wrote. The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for various emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreement of the governors of the responding states. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after Minneapolis police officers killed George Floyd. Many of the governors agreed to send troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis — an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked "only in the most urgent and dire of situations." Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, "I'm not waiting." Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on "The Charlie Kirk Show," in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized "if violence continues."
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ICE Mistakenly Detains U.S. Marshal in Arizona
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were left red-faced in Arizona after detaining a man who 'fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE'—before quickly releasing him when they worked out who he was. After stopping the man in the lobby of a federal building that houses Tucson's immigration court, officers realized the case of mistaken identity and let him go with no arrest made. That's because the man in question is a U.S. Marshal. 'A Deputy U.S. Marshal who fit the general description of a subject being sought by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was briefly detained at a federal building in Tucson after entering the lobby of the building,' the U.S. Marshals Service said in a statement. 'The Deputy U.S. Marshal's identity was quickly confirmed by other law enforcement officers, and he exited the building without incident.' The agency did not state when the incident happened or provide any further details. U.S. Marshals are law enforcement officers who carry out a range of tasks in service to the U.S. federal judiciary and act as the enforcement arm of the federal court system. U.S. Marshals are stationed in Tucson's federal buildings, where they provide security services. ICE agents have been under pressure to ramp up their deportation efforts by the Trump administration. Last week, ICE boasted that they had detained a 'record' 2,200 people in a single day, but White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller sees room for much improvement with those numbers. In May, Miller and Homeland Security boss Kristi Noem reportedly instructed officers to begin making 3,000 arrests per day or risk losing their jobs. According to a report released at that time, Miller apparently urged agents to 'turn the creative knob up to 11' by grabbing bystanders off the street and detaining people without a warrant in order to meet their quotas. ICE acting director Todd Lyons said in April that he wanted deportations run 'like a business,' aiming to replicate the vast capabilities of Amazon by becoming 'Prime, but with human beings.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US Rep. Keating demands answers from ICE after roundups on Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket
U.S. Rep. Bill Keating is demanding answers from federal officials about the specifics of last month's roundup of immigrants on Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and Plymouth by agents of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Officers with ICE and other federal agencies detained about 40 individuals and arrested 12 on Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket on May 27. On May 30, ICE agents conducted a sweep in Plymouth. All three areas are in Keating's Ninth Congressional District. Keating is uphappy over the information blackout by federal agencies over those caught up in the ICE detentions. 'The lack of transparency — the failure to notify local law enforcement, the failure to release any concrete information about the detentions, the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain clothed officers and masks — is making our communities less safe,' Keating wrote in a June 2 letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, acting director of ICE Todd Lyons and FBI Director Kash Patel. No information has been given on the specific number or identities of those detained or arrested. Keating wants a full list of detainees and any criminal charges against them. According to reports from two police departments and the Town of Plymouth, ICE did not provide prior notice that its agents would be in those areas for enforcement action, Keating wrote. In his letter, Keating said his constituents are concerned that the ICE enforcement actions were not targeted, but focused on pulling over commercial vehicles. The actions have left communities scared and fearful for their safety, regardless of immigration status, he wrote. In his letter, Keating seeks answers by June 6 to nearly 20 questions, among them: What methods ICE and federal agents used to determine which vehicles to pull over? What steps agents used to determine the legal status of occupants in vehicle stopped? What protocols are in place to prevent wrongful detentions? How many vehicles were stopped? Were any individuals detained in these actions the target of a warrant or detainer order? Federal officials defended the detainments, saying the "enforcement action" is about public safety. At a June 2 press conference in Boston, acting ICE Director Lyons said 1,500 criminal and illegal aliens have been arrested in Massachusetts since May 1 during what he called Operation Patriot. Leah B. Foley, United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, said those arrested violated immigration laws and some went on to commit crimes. Patricia H. Hyde, field office director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations in Boston, said 1,461 criminal alien offenders were arrested in May in Massachusetts. Of those, 790 had 'significant criminality,' including allegations of rape, murder, drug trafficking, sexual, child and spousal abuse. No further details were given. Hyde criticized the actions of some state and local agencies who did not notify ICE when undocumented immigrants were arrested or brought to state courts on charges. She cited an example of an immigrant who had been deported from the country four times, who racked up three OUI charges when in the country and was released without ICE being notified. 'When state and local jurisdictions don't cooperate with ICE and let bad actors back into the community, that is sanctuary,' she said. The state was identified as a 'sanctuary jurisdiction' by the Trump administration in late May. It was included on a list of places published by the Department of Homeland Security that are allegedly 'deliberately obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws.' That list has subsequently been removed from the DHS website. A Massachusetts Trial Court policy on interactions with ICE says court personnel shall not initiate communication with ICE officers or employees unless a defendant is brought into state court on a special writ of habeas corpus, called an ICE Habe. 'Court leaders in the Executive Office of the Trial Court developed the policy in accordance with the Supreme Judicial Court decision in Lunn v. Commonwealthand Massachusetts law,' wrote court spokesperson Erika Gully-Santiago in a June 3 email. In that decision, the court concluded that court officers lack the authority '...to arrest an individual pursuant to a request contained in a Federal civil immigration detainer to hold that individual for up to two days after he or she would otherwise be entitled to release from State custody; further, this court declined to adopt, as a matter of Massachusetts law, the theory of inherent authority to carry out such detainer requests as a basis for authorizing civil immigration arrests...' The Trial Court declined a request for an interview. Denise Coffey writes about business, tourism and issues impacting the Cape's residents and visitors. Contact her at dcoffey@ . Thanks to our subscribers, who help make this coverage possible. If you are not a subscriber, please consider supporting quality local journalism with a Cape Cod Times subscription. Here are our subscription plans. This article originally appeared on Cape Cod Times: Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard ICE arrests: Keating calls for answers
