Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists faces federal trial
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Several scholars are expected to testify how the policy and subsequent arrests have prompted them to abandon their activism for Palestinian human rights and criticizing Israeli government's policies.
Advertisement
Since Trump took office, the U.S. government has used its immigration enforcement powers to crack down on international students and scholars at several American universities.
Trump and other officials have accused protesters and others of being 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Many protesters have said they were speaking out against Israel's actions in the war.
Plaintiffs single out several activists by name, including Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who was released last month after spending 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump 's clampdown on campus protests.
Advertisement
The lawsuit also references Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was released in May from a Louisiana immigration detention. She spent six weeks in detention after she was arrested walking on the street of a Boston suburb. She claims she was illegally detained following an op-ed she co-wrote last year that criticized the school's response to Israel's war in Gaza.
The plaintiffs also accuse the Trump administration of supplying names to universities who they wanted to target, launching a social media surveillance program and used Trump's own words in which he said after Khalil's arrest that his was the 'first arrest of many to come.'
The government argued in court documents that the plaintiffs are bringing a First Amendment challenge to a policy 'of their own creation.'
'They do not try to locate this program in any statute, regulation, rule, or directive. They do not allege that it is written down anywhere. And they do not even try to identify its specific terms and substance,' the government argues. 'That is all unsurprising, because no such policy exists.'
They argue the plaintiffs case also rest on a 'misunderstanding of the First Amendment, 'which under binding Supreme Court precedent applies differently in the immigration context than it otherwise does domestically."
But plaintiffs counter that evidence at the trial will show the Trump administration has implemented the policy a variety of ways, including issuing formal guidance on revoking visas and green cards and establishing a process for identifying those involved in pro-Palestinian protests.
Advertisement
'Defendants have described their policy, defended it, and taken political credit for it,' plaintiffs wrote. 'It is only now that the policy has been challenged that they say, incredibly, that the policy does not actually exist. But the evidence at trial will show that the policy's existence is beyond cavil.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
34 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Dear Kamala Harris, don't run for office. There's a far more important job for you
From: Joe Mathews Please don't run for governor in 2026. Don't bother running for president in 2028. Instead, take a job more important than either of those posts. It's a job that would fit you even better than the Chloé suits you wore during last year's campaign. It's a job that doesn't exist, but one that California will need to survive this awful moment. Madame Vice President, please use your stature to convince the state to establish the California Autonomy Authority — as an independent commission or part of the executive branch — with you as its founding director. California needs a new agency with broad powers to defend itself against the existential threat of a criminal, authoritarian American nation-state. President Donald Trump's regime has effectively declared war against Californians. Trump dispatched secret police to seize Californians off the streets, deployed troops to back up the secret police, canceled our environmental laws, and illegally cut off funding for vital programs. While Trumpists attack us constantly, we Californians have no full-time body to defend ourselves in this war. Instead, our officials are forced to split their attention between governing their own jurisdictions and defending against federal attacks. In Los Angeles, the federal secret police started arresting people before local leadership, preoccupied with fire rebuilding, knew they were there. Gov. Gavin Newsom has struggled to reconcile the monumental job of managing California's housing and climate crises with the new full-time job of fighting against the federal invasion. His shifting public stances (He's fighting Trump! He's reaching out to Trump!) and presidential ambitions sow cynicism rather than trust. Attorney General Rob Bonta is in a similar bind, juggling litigation against the U.S. with serving as the state's top law enforcement official. We need our public officials to focus on their actual jobs. And we need someone else to take charge of protecting our democracy and defending California against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Your whole career has prepared you for this urgent assignment. Your deep experience in local law enforcement — as San Francisco district attorney — should help you convince local governments, especially local police, to collaborate in defense against Trump. Your six years as California attorney general, representing the entirety of the state government, gave you visibility on state vulnerabilities that Trump might exploit. Your four years in the White House as vice president taught you how intelligence agencies, departments, the military and the U.S. government respond in crises — all lessons that can be applied now in defense of California. You also built contacts across this country (from your presidential campaign) and in world capitals (from your VP travels) that could support California in this moment. In this novel role, you'd combine your public service experiences. For starters, this is a crime-fighting job. Trump is a convicted felon who is violating the law and the Constitution, and his administration, which embraces corruption, has likely been infiltrated by criminals or foreign enterprises seeking advantage. Using the authority's subpoena power, you should investigate and expose criminality — because the Trump-controlled U.S. Department of Justice won't. You also could identify and seek prosecution or civil remedies against masked federal agents who violate Californians' rights. In the process, your authority would create a record of the U.S. regime's crimes to support future federal or international prosecutions, or even a truth-and-reconciliation commission. The job would also involve policymaking. You would determine which laws or governing structures offer California and its local governments the most protection against federal attack. To do that, you might end up creating new agencies in California and possibly other allied states, to replace the federal departments Trump is dismantling. To make this work, you must commit to a term of at least five years. That way, you can serve as the bridge between Newsom, who leaves office at the end of 2026, and the next governor — thus discouraging the Trump administration from exploiting California's transfer of power. And since your term would go to 2030, two years beyond the 2028 presidential election, you'd make clear that California won't stop defending its autonomy even after Trump is gone. Yes, taking this new gig would mean not running for governor or president. But that's not a big sacrifice. Your donors are unenthusiastic about the governor's race, and polls show California voters are at best lukewarm about you. And the Trump people are already busy making sure the 2028 presidential election won't be free or fair. (Betting markets actually give Trump better odds of winning an unconstitutional third term than of any Democrat winning the election.) So, stop debating between running to serve the state (in two years) or the nation (in four). Instead, and right now, start creating and leading a new authority to serve both.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Our View: For your vote to count in 2026, you MUST vote early
One thing is certain about the approaching midterm elections. Nothing is certain — especially about how and if people will be able to vote. The only thing voters and candidates can do is prepare for the unexpected that is likely to accompany the 2026 elections. By now, many candidates have declared their intensions to compete in local, state and federal races. Also, by now, election critics and conspiracy buffs are taking aim at how candidates compete and how people vote. Just days after Donald Trump's inauguration for a second term, the president signed an executive order — Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections. The order, which has been placed on hold by numerous lawsuits, is a sweeping revamping of elections rules across the nation. Continuing to insist that the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to President Joe Biden, was 'stolen,' Trump particularly is targeting mail-in ballots and states that count ballots received days after Election Day. California is one of many states that count ballots postmarked on or before Election Day, but arrive after the close of polls. Trump and his supporters contend counting votes received after Election Day violates the Constitution's election deadline requirements. States and voting rights groups contend the Constitution gives only state legislatures and Congress, under limited circumstances, authority to set election rules. The U.S. Supreme Court last month agreed to consider whether a challenge in Illinois can proceed in a case that is among several Republican-backed lawsuits seeking to impose an Election Day deadline for mail ballots. A lawsuit filed in March by California Republican Congressman Darrell Issa is one of the lawsuits. Notoriously slow California drew heat in 2024 as the eyes of the nation focused on the outcome of several close congressional races that determined Republicans' narrow control of the House of Representatives. Even in Republican-dominated Kern County, critics wrongly accused Kern County election officials and volunteers of wrongdoing. There are many reasons why some states can report election results faster than others. Some states, like California, have passed laws to make it easier for people to vote. Others make it more difficult. California, the nation's most populous state, has the largest number of registered voters — nearly 23 million. That is nearly equivalent to the total combined number of voters in Florida and Georgia. California has a universal mail voting system. Every registered voter automatically receives a ballot in the mail for each election. Processing mailed ballots is more time consuming than counting a ballot cast in-person. Signatures on each return envelope must be verified against registration records. While mailed ballots can be returned days in advance of an election, many are turned in at the last minute, or brought in-person to a poll site on Election Day. Ballots that need to be 'cured' because of a detail omission and 'provisional' ballots cast on Election Day also require special handling. Postmarked military ballots and ballots cast by citizens living abroad can arrive after Election Day and be counted. Despite legally allowed delays, California election officials note about 97% of the vote count is completed within a week of Election Day. But it is those squeaker races that drag on for days and days that get the attention that gives California a bad rap. Because of its top-two election system and the lack of political gerrymandering, California has a lot of those races. Agreeing that steps could be taken to speed up California's vote count, Marc Berman, D-Menlo Park, has authored a bill to keep the state's 30-day certification period, but require county elections officials to finish counting most ballots within 13 days. That deadline will not affect the legal requirements to process late mailed ballots, cure ballots, process provisional ballots or count overseas ballots. It also will not quell the challenges — from the president and critics — to election laws that encourage voting. Voters and candidates must be prepared for the likelihood that challenges will continue and that the 'rules of the 2026 political game' will change. For all mailed ballots to be counted, they must be returned far in advance of Election Day. Candidates must develop an early voting strategy.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's mass deportation is backfiring
President Donald Trump and his administration continue to bet big on the issue that, more than any other, appeared to help him win him a second term in 2024: immigration. The administration and its allies have gleefully played up standoffs between federal immigration agents and protesters, such as the one Thursday during a raid at a legal marijuana farm in Ventura County, California. And as congressional Republicans were passing a very unpopular Trump agenda bill last month, Vice President JD Vance argued that its historic expansion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and new immigration enforcement provisions were so important that 'everything else' was 'immaterial.' But this appears to be an increasingly bad bet for Trump and Co. It's looking more and more like Trump has botched an issue that, by all rights, should have been a great one for him. And ICE's actions appear to be a big part of that. The most recent polling on this comes from Gallup, where the findings are worse than those of any poll in Trump's second term. The nearly monthlong survey conducted in June found Americans disapproved of Trump's handling of immigration by a wide margin: 62% to 35%. And more than twice as many Americans strongly disapproved (45%) as strongly approved (21%). It also found nearly 7 in 10 independents disapproved. These are Trump's worst numbers on immigration yet. But the trend has clearly been downward – especially in high-quality polling like Gallup's. An NPR-PBS News-Marist College poll conducted late last month, for instance, showed 59% of independents disapproved of Trump on immigration. And a Quinnipiac University poll showed 66% of independents disapproved. Trump has managed to become this unpopular on immigration despite historic lows in border crossings. And the data suggest that's largely tied to deportations and ICE. To wit: 59% overall and 66% of independents disapproved of Trump's handling of deportations, according to the Quinnipiac poll. 56% overall and 64% of independents disapproved of the way ICE was doing its job, according to Quinnipiac. 54% overall and 59% of independents said ICE has 'gone too far' in enforcing immigration law, per the Marist poll. (Even 1 in 5 Republicans agreed.) Americans disapproved 54-45% of ICE conducting more raids to find undocumented immigrants at workplaces, according to a Pew Research Center poll last month. Americans also appear to disagree with some of the more heavy-handed aspects of the deportation program: They disapproved 55-43% of significantly increasing the number of facilities to hold immigrants being processed for deportation, per Pew – even as the Trump administration celebrates Florida's controversial new 'Alligator Alcatraz.' They said by a nearly 2-to-1 margin that it's 'unacceptable' to deport an immigrant to a country other than their own, per Pew – another key part of the administration's efforts. They also disapproved, 61-37%, of deporting undocumented immigrants to a prison in El Salvador – the place where the administration sent hundreds without due process, in some cases in error (such as with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who has since been returned). There's a real question in all of this whether people care that much. They might disapprove of some of the more controversial aspects of Trump's deportations, but maybe it's not that important to them – and they might even like the ultimate results. That's the bet Trump seems to be making: that he can push forward on something his base really wants and possibly even tempt his political opponents to overreach by appearing to defend people who are in the country illegally. But at some point, the White House has got to look at these numbers and start worrying that its tactics are backfiring. Gallup shows the percentage of Americans who favor deporting all undocumented immigrants dropping from 47% last year during the 2024 campaign down to 38% now that it's a reality Trump is pursuing. And all told, Trump's second term has actually led to the most sympathy for migrants on record in the 21st century, per Gallup. Fully 79% of Americans now say immigration is a 'good thing,' compared with 64% last year. The writing has been on the wall that Americans' support for mass deportation was subject to all kinds of caveats and provisos. But the administration appears to have ignored all that and run headlong into problems of its own creation.
