Georgetown fellow detained over alleged Hamas ties was targeted for wife's Palestinian heritage: Lawsuit
The Trump administration appears to be targeting a Georgetown University fellow due to his wife's identity as a Palestinian and her constitutionally protected speech, a lawsuit alleges.
On March 17, Badar Khan Suri, a visiting scholar with lawful status, was arrested outside of his apartment building and charged with removability and detained, according to a complaint obtained by ABC News.
The Department of Homeland Security alleges Suri was spreading Hamas propaganda and accused him of having ties to the terror group.
"This was done pursuant to a policy to retaliate against and punish noncitizens like Mr. Suri solely for their family ties to those who may have either expressed criticism of U.S. foreign policy as it relates to Israel," attorneys representing Suri said in the complaint. Suri's wife is a U.S. citizen, his attorneys said.
On Monday, according to the complaint, law enforcement agents who identified themselves as members of DHS, told Suri that the government had revoked his visa and did not permit Suri's wife to hand over his passport and other documents.
"The agents had face coverings and Ms. Saleh could only see their eyes," attorneys said in the complaint.
Two hours after he was removed, Suri called his wife to let her know he was being transferred to a detention center in Farmville, Virginia, his attorneys said.
"The Rubio Determination and the government's subsequent actions... and plans to whisk him 1,600 miles away in the same manner as the government did in the case of Mr. Mahmoud Khalil, isolating him from his wife, children, community and legal team, are plainly intended as retaliation and punishment for Mr. Suri's protected speech," the complaint says, referring to the recent arrest of Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil.
MORE: Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil calls himself a 'political prisoner' in new letter
Attorneys for Suri are requesting the court in Alexandria, Virginia, to assume jurisdiction and vacate the Trump administration's "unlawful policy of targeting noncitizens for removal based on First Amendment-protected speech advocating for Palestinian rights/and or their family relationships."
DHS said Suri was "actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media," according to a statement. The department alleges Suri had close connections to a "known or suspected terrorist" who is a senior adviser to Hamas.
Suri's attorneys have not yet commented on the allegations to ABC News.
Georgetown University said Suri is an Indian national who was granted a visa to enter the United States to continue his doctoral research on peacebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We are not aware of him engaging in any illegal activity, and we have not received a reason for his detention," the university said in a statement. "We support our community members' rights to free and open inquiry, deliberation and debate, even if the underlying ideas may be difficult, controversial or objectionable. We expect the legal system to adjudicate this case fairly."
Georgetown fellow detained over alleged Hamas ties was targeted for wife's Palestinian heritage: Lawsuit originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
By Dietrich Knauth President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind "its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County" and return them to his command. WHAT LAWS DID TRUMP CITE TO JUSTIFY THE MOVE? Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' WHAT ARE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE LAW CITED IN TRUMP'S ORDER? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press. Experts have said that Trump's decision to have U.S. troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration's policies. IS TRUMP'S MOVE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGAL CHALLENGES? Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says "orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States," but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. COULD CALIFORNIA SUE TO CHALLENGE TRUMP'S MOVE? California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said. WHAT OTHER LAWS COULD TRUMP INVOKE TO DIRECT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR OTHER U.S MILITARY TROOPS? Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against U.S. citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial. But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans Offer Cowardly Lack Of Pushback To Hegseth Suggesting Marines Could Quell Protests
Congressional Republicans have offered a disturbing lack of pushback to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggesting that active-duty Marines could be sent to quell immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles. 'I don't think that's heavy-handed,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said when asked about Hegseth's proposal on ABC News's 'This Week.' Hegseth raised the idea in a post on X Saturday evening, writing, 'If violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized.' His remarks come after President Donald Trump ordered National Guard troops to Los Angeles on Saturday, a move that's not typically made without the support of a state's governor, which he does not currently have. The White House has claimed that it took this step because it's addressing violence at these protests that targeted ICE offices and agents, while California leaders have said that they don't needthe troops. The deployment of active-duty Marines would be another major escalation and a move that's rarely employed by a president in response to protests. 'The deployment of active-duty troops under federal authority in response to civil unrest is a rare step, one that usually requires the president to find under the Insurrection Act that they are needed to enforce the law or restore order,' write The Wall Street Journal's Eliza Collins and Nancy A. Youssef. 'The George H.W. Bush administration deployed US Marines to help restore order after violent protests erupted in California in the wake of the 1992 acquittal of four police officers in the beating of Rodney King…[marking] the last invocation of the Insurrection Act.' During Trump's first term, Defense Secretary Mark Esper stated that active duty military should only be used to respond to protests in 'the most urgent and dire of situations,' and that 'we are not in one of those situations now,' breaking with the president. Rather than criticizing Hegseth's post about Marines, however, Johnson and other Republicans have either been open to the idea or declined to denounce it. 'You don't think sending Marines into the streets of an American city is heavy handed?' ABC News anchor Jonathan Karl asked Johnson. 'We have to be prepared to do what is necessary and I think the notice that that might happen might have the deterring effect,' Johnson responded. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) also declined to repudiate the idea directly, when asked about it on CNN's 'State of the Union.' Instead, he said 'it won't be necessary,' because the National Guard's response will be sufficient. And Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) downplayed the role of the Marines in a possible response without rejecting Hegseth's statement out of hand. 'Active-duty Marines are not going to be put into local law enforcement,' Lankford said on NBC News's 'Meet the Press.' 'They would be in support roles on it, as we have at the border. We have active-duty military at the border, but they're not doing law enforcement tasks. They're doing logistical tasks behind the scenes.' 'Local law enforcement should take care of this, but again when you're seeing burning cars and federal law enforcement and law enforcement being attacked on the streets…we want to make sure those protests don't spiral out of control,' Lankford said. Democrats have emphasized that Trump's use of the National Guard is only adding tension in Los Angeles, and have been incredulous at the possibility of active-duty military being sent in as well. 'The Secretary of Defense is now threatening to deploy active-duty Marines on American soil against its own citizens,' Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote in a Sunday post on X. 'This is deranged behavior.'
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
ABC News suspends Terry Moran over post calling Trump a ‘world-class hater'
ABC News on Sunday suspended senior national correspondent Terry Moran after he sharply criticized President Trump and his top aide, Stephen Miller, in a social media post earlier that day. In the since-deleted post on the social platform X — screenshots of which were shared on social media — Moran called Trump and Miller, deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, 'world-class hater[s].' 'Miller is a man who is richly endowed with the capacity for hatred. He's a world-class hater,' Moran wrote in the X post. 'You can see this just by looking at him because you can see that his hatreds are his spiritual nourishment. He eats his hate.' 'Trump is a world-class hater,' Moran continued in the post. 'But his hatred only a means to an end, and that end [is] his own glorification. That's his spiritual nourishment.' The critical post caught the attention of conservative X users, including White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, who took a screenshot of the post, calling it 'unhinged and unacceptable.' 'We have reached out to @ABC to inquire about how they plan to hold Terry accountable,' Leavitt added in the post Sunday morning. In an interview that morning on Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures,' Leavitt repeated her criticism of the ABC journalist and hinted at a private conversation the White House had with the network. 'We have reached out to ABC. They have said they will be taking action, so we will see what they do,' she said. An ABC News spokesperson said in a statement shortly thereafter that Moran had been suspended, pointing to the post as the impetus for the disciplinary action. 'ABC News stands for objectivity and impartiality in its news coverage and does not condone subjective personal attacks on others,' the spokesperson said in a statement. 'The post does not reflect the views of ABC News and violated our standards — as a result, Terry Moran has been suspended pending further evaluation.' Moran joined ABC News in 1997. He landed a high-profile interview with the president in the Oval Office a few months ago. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
