Students sue University of Texas, Abbott over protest arrests
Multiple current and former students at the University of Texas at Austin have sued the university and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) after the arrests of pro-Palestinian protesters last year.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, accuses the school and governor of violating the students' First Amendment rights and Title VI during the mass arrests on April 24, 2024.
The complaint came from four former and current students and was filed by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).
It alleges there was an 'arrest quota' and police used excessive tactics such as tackling protesters, leaving marks on students with zip ties and taking the hijab off of a Muslim woman.
'This lawsuit is about more than a single protest; it's about safeguarding two of the most sacred rights in our democracy — free speech and peaceful assembly,' said Abed Ayoub, ADC national executive director.
'Standing beside these courageous students means defending the very pillars of our Constitution and preserving the ideals that define us as Americans. Their bravery in the face of intimidation exemplifies the best of who we are, and this monumental case will help ensure that our fundamental liberties remain strong for generations to come,' Ayoub added.
The students are seeking a judgment that the actions of the school and governor were unconstitutional, reverse any disciplinary actions taken against the students and compensation for punitive damages and attorney fees.
The Hill has reached out to the university and Abbott's office for comment.
Last year's pro-Palestinian protests are getting renewed attention as their international participants are being targeted for deportation by the Trump administration, which accuses the activists of supporting Hamas and posing a threat to U.S. foreign policy.
On Wednesday, a judge ordered the release of Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia University student and Palestinian demonstrator who had been arrested at what was supposed to be a naturalization interview.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
8 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
The 911 presidency: Trump flexes emergency powers in his second term
WASHINGTON (AP) — Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's leveling punishing tariffs , deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations , Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. 'What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president,' said Ilya Somin, who is representing five U.S. businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the U.S. is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. 'The temptation is clear,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program and an expert in emergency powers. 'What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now.' Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. 'It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit,' Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. 'And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action.' The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. 'President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden — wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces 'an unusual and extraordinary threat' from abroad 'to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.' In analyzing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on U.S. soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the U.S. economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act , to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers — including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited — that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-Sept. 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort , forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. 'Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges,' said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. 'Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act.' Trump, Yoo said, 'has just elevated it to another level.' Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. 'We believe — and we're right — that we are in an emergency,' Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. 'You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies,' Vance said. 'I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain.' Vance continued, 'These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency.' Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. 'He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards,' said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a 'path toward autocracy and suppression.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
David Huerta, president of SEIU California, detained during L.A. ICE raids
Service Employees International Union California President David Huerta was injured and detained while documenting an immigration enforcement raid in downtown Los Angeles Friday, labor union officials said — prompting protests and calls for his release. Huerta, 58, was treated at a hospital and then transferred to the Metropolitan Detention Center in downtown L.A., where he remained in custody as of 5:30 p.m., according to a spokesperson for the labor union. Protesters spray-painted the center with messages such as 'F— ICE,' 'Burn Prisons' and 'Abolish ICE.' 'What happened to me is not about me; This is about something much bigger,' he said in a statement from the hospital. 'This is about how we as a community stand together and resist the injustice that's happening. Hard-working people, and members of our family and our community, are being treated like criminals. We all collectively have to object to this madness because this is not justice.' The labor union said in a statement that Huerta was detained while 'while exercising his First Amendment right to observe and document law enforcement activity.' Federal authorities, however, said Huerta deliberately obstructed federal agents' access to a worksite where they were executing a warrant by blocking their vehicle. Agents executed four search warrants across L.A. Friday related to the suspected harboring of people illegally in the country, according to Yasmeen Pitts O'Keefe, a spokesperson for Homeland Security Investigations, a branch of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. 'Let me be clear: I don't care who you are — if you impede federal agents, you will be arrested and prosecuted,' U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli wrote in a statement on X. 'No one has the right to assault, obstruct, or interfere with federal authorities carrying out their duties.' Elected officials representing Los Angeles at the city, county, state and federal levels released a flurry of statements condemning Huerta's arrest, criticizing the raids and decrying the Trump administration's escalation of deportations. 'SEIU California President David Huerta was injured by federal agents and wrongfully detained,' said L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn. 'I am calling for his immediate release. This is a democracy. People have a right to peacefully protest, to observe law enforcement activity, and to speak out against injustice.' Gov. Gavin Newsom called Huerta a respected leader, patriot and advocate for working people. 'No one should ever be harmed for witnessing government action,' he wrote on X. Essayli said Huerta was arrested on suspicion of interfering with federal officers and will be arraigned Monday. 'There is not a First Amendment right to physically obstruct law enforcement officers from executing a duly issued warrant,' said Harmeet Dhillon, the U.S. assistant attorney general for civil rights. Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) called for Huerta's immediate release, saying he was 'violently thrown to the ground' by ICE agents. 'We are better than this and every American should be alarmed,' McGuire said in a statement. Aside from Huerta, 44 people were administratively arrested during Friday's immigration action, O'Keefe said. Hundreds of people rallied outside the Los Angeles Federal Building, condemning the crackdown and demanding Huerta's release. By 6:30 p.m., a crowd of more than 100 people had gathered outside an immigration services building and detention center downtown, with several protesters wearing T-shirts with the words, 'ICE out of L.A.' Mandy Bell, a 65-year-old Koreatown resident, said she saw a video from the protests earlier in the day and was eager to join. 'Immigrants are not the enemy,' she said. 'I didn't think the raids would come here. It's so wrong, so I'll be out here. I gotta find out when the next protest is.' The Los Angeles Police Department declared an unlawful assembly and ordered the crowd to disperse around 7 p.m. At 7:30 p.m., around eight police vehicles and a group of about 50 officers in riot gear closed in on a group of protesters on North Alameda Street, while a secondary group of protesters further back shouted 'shame on you' at the officers. 'We're out here because people are living in fear right now,' one protester shouted at an officer. 'You know someone who is.'
an hour ago
Trump banned travel from 12 countries, but included some exceptions to avoid legal battles
MIAMI -- The new travel ban on citizens of 12 countries that restricted access to people from seven others includes some exceptions, part of the administration's efforts to withstand the legal challenges that a similar policy known as the 'Muslim ban' faced during Donald Trump's first administration. The ban announced Wednesday applies to people from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The restrictions are for people from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela, who are outside the United States and don't hold a visa. Some exceptions apply only to specific countries, like Afghanistan. Others are for most of the countries on the list, or are more general and unclear, like the policies for foreign visitors planning to come to the U.S. for the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, two of the events President Donald Trump has said he is more excited to host. Some experts agree that the current ban includes exceptions and has fixed some issues that were subject to litigation in the first travel ban. 'Absolutely, the administration is trying to avoid the problems that they had with the first proclamation,' said Jeff Joseph, president-elect at the American Immigration Lawyers Association. He anticipated, nonetheless, that lawsuits are 'going to come anyway.' In one of the most confusing moments of his first administration, Trump issued an executive order in 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. People from those countries were barred from getting on flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after landing. Among them were students, faculty, businesspeople, tourists and people visiting family. The order, dubbed as 'Muslim ban' by critics, faced legal challenges in the courts for about a year and was amended twice after opponents argued in the courts that it was unconstitutional and illegal. A version of the first travel ban was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. The new ban takes effect Monday at 12 a.m. It does not have an end date. __Green card holders __Dual citizens, including U.S. citizens who have citizenship of the banned countries __Some athletes and their coaches traveling to the U.S. for the World Cup, Olympics or other major sporting events __Afghans who worked for the U.S. government or its allies in Afghanistan or are holders of special visas __Iranians from an ethnic or religious minority who are fleeing prosecution __Certain foreign national employees of the U.S. government that have served abroad for at least 15 years, and their spouses and children __People who were granted asylum or admitted to the U.S. as refugees before the travel ban took effect __People with U.S. family members who apply for visas in connection with their spouses, children or parents __Diplomats and foreign government officials on official visits __People traveling to the U.N. headquarters in New York on official U.N. business __Representatives of international organizations and NATO on official visits in the United States __Children adopted by U.S. citizens Trump said nationals of the countries included in the ban pose 'terrorism-related' and 'public safety' risks, as well as risks of overstaying their visas. Some of these countries, he said, had 'deficient' screening or have refused to take back their citizens. The Proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests. Critics of the 2017 ban said that it was racial and targeted Muslim countries. Now the policy is broader and includes countries like Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela — nations that don't have many Muslims. This will make the argument about racial animus, said Joseph, the immigration attorney. The government has also included potential end dates, and the State Department will evaluate the proclamation every 90 days and determine if it should be extended. The list can be changed, the administration said in a document, if authorities in the designated countries make 'material improvements' to their own rules and procedures. New countries can be added 'as threats emerge around the world.' The travel ban has barred most Afghans hoping to resettle in the U.S. permanently and those hoping to come temporarily, but there are several exemptions. One of them is for special immigrant visa holders who supported the United States' two-decades-long war in Afghanistan. Another exception applies to all countries on the travel ban and allows spouses, children and parents of U.S. citizens to enter the U.S. The U.S. government can decide to admit or decline their entrance on a case-by-case basis, considering if they serve a 'United States national interest.' Iran, a soccer power in Asia, is the only targeted country to qualify so far for the World Cup that will be co-hosted by the United States, Canada and Mexico next year. Cuba, Haiti and Sudan are in contention. Sierra Leone might stay involved through multiple playoff games. Burundi, Equatorial Guinea and Libya have very outside shots. But all should be able to send teams if they qualify because the new policy makes exceptions for 'any athlete or member of an athletic team, including coaches, persons performing a necessary support role, and immediate relatives, traveling for the World Cup, the Olympics, or other major sporting event as determined by the secretary of state.' About 200 countries could send athletes to the Summer Games, including those targeted in the travel restrictions, and the exceptions should apply to them if the ban is still in place in its current form. Fans from the target countries willing to travel to the World Cup and the Olympics are not mentioned in the exceptions. Traveling from abroad for the World Cup and the Summer Games is expensive. In many cases, those who can afford the travel are wealthy individuals or people living in the diaspora, who may have different visa options.
