Latest news with #KnightFirstAmendmentInstitute
Al Jazeera
27-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Has the US cancelled free speech?
Why are US professors suing to challenge the Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestine activism? Several groups of professors in the United States are suing the Trump administration over its policy of arresting, detaining, cancelling visas, and deporting students who participate in pro-Palestinian advocacy. The crackdown on free speech is creating a chilling effect across US academia, argues Jamil Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which is one of the organisations that brought the lawsuit. Jaffer tells host Steve Clemons that the issue is much wider than the rights of non-citizens in the country. The government's actions have the effect of 'stifling a political viewpoint that the government doesn't like'.
The Herald Scotland
22-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Boston trial over Trump's push to deport campus activists concludes
It is a major First Amendment case with implications across higher education and beyond. It took place one courtroom over from another involving the administration and its federal research funding cuts aimed at Harvard, a case where lawyers also raised key First Amendment issues. The administration has argued that it can deport visa and green card holders under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which has a provision granting the secretary of state the authority to remove people from the country if they undermine its foreign policy interests. But the trial in American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, which began on July 7, raised questions about whether the administration was violating the First Amendment by retaliating against people for their political speech. The lawsuit - filed March 25 on behalf of the association's campus chapters at Harvard, New York and Rutgers universities, along with the Middle East Studies Association - accused the administration of fostering a "climate of repression and fear on university campuses." The trial came amid the backdrop of a high-profile case involving Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian activist. Last month, a federal judge in New Jersey ordered Khalil released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. That judge had previously ruled that the government's actions were chilling Khalil's right to free speech. The Trump administration has said the basis for its March 8 detention was Khalil's supposed alignment with Hamas, a designated terrorist group. Trump administration 'systematically violating the First Amendment,' lawyers say Here in Boston, closing arguments took place before U.S. District Judge William Young, a Harvard Law School graduate. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, along with co-counsel Sher Tremonte LLP, represented the association of professors in the case, and Young first asked them what evidence they had to support the notion that an "ideological deportation" policy exists. Alexandra Conlon, a Sher Tremonte lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said that was proven by the administration revoking visas and green cards based on noncitizens' pro-Palestinian activism. In doing so, she said, the federal government was "systematically violating the First Amendment" and seeking to chill speech it disagrees with. She said the administration conflates antisemitism with pro-Palestine, anti-Israel or anti-war viewpoints. Ramya Krishnan, an attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute , went on to argue that legal precedent affirms noncitizens' right to First Amendment protections. Further, she said, lawyers representing the administration hadn't proven that its actions against noncitizen activists were necessary for national security. Noncitizens don't have the same First Amendment rights, administration argues Justice Department attorney Ethan Kanter, representing the Trump administration, argued noncitizens do not have First Amendment rights to the same extent as U.S. citizens. While they may have such rights in some capacity, he said, they are "context dependent and in relation to the compelling government interest at play." He cited a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2024 that allowed the state of Ohio to ban foreign nationals from contributing to political campaigns while litigation continued. The court said the state was likely to succeed on the merits of the case, saying the state's law was narrowly tailored to serve the government's compelling interest in preventing foreign influence on elections. William Kanellis, another attorney representing the administration, at one point referenced the novel "Don Quixote." He cited a particular story in which Quixote mistakes windmills for giants and tries to fight them, leading to him falling off his horse. The plaintiffs had similarly "been knocked off their horse" in the trial, he said, adding that the notion of an "ideological deportation policy" was, like Don Quixote's vision, based on the plaintiffs' "imagination and creative conjuring." If such a broad policy existed, he said, "you'd see many more arrests." In their complaint, the plaintiffs requested that Young, among other actions, recognize the existence of an "ideological deportation policy" and deem it, along with "threats to arrest, detain and deport noncitizen students and faculty," to be unconstitutional. They asked for the policy to be set aside and for Young to bar the administration from making such threats moving forward. Closing arguments lasted about 90 minutes. Young said he appreciated the "vigorous advocacy" and "high level of civility" shown by the legal counsel and witnesses throughout the trial. He said he now has the responsibility to consider all arguments and deliver a "fair and just" ruling. Young previously blocked the administration's termination of National Institutes of Health grants that cut funding for research related to minority communities. In that case, he'd said that the funding cut "represents racial discrimination," the New York Times reported. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
USA Today
08-07-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Trial starts over Trump's efforts to deport foreign-born student protesters: What to know
The two-week, non-jury trial over President Donald Trump's attempt to deport foreign-born individuals based on their pro-Palestinian activism kicked off in a Boston courtroom on July 7. The trial comes weeks after Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil was released from the Louisiana detention facility where he'd been held for more than three months. The Trump administration has maintained it has a right to arrest and deport individuals whom they believe undermine the country's foreign policy interests. But others have said the administration's actions are a clear violation of the First Amendment and could have significant implications for the future of free speech in the U.S. Here's what to know as the trial for American Association of University Professors v. Rubio unfolds: Who's involved in the lawsuit? The Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed the lawsuit on March 25 on behalf of the American Association of University Professors, the association's campus chapters at Harvard University, New York University and Rutgers University, and the Middle East Studies Association. Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Todd Lyons, acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are listed as defendants in their official capacities. What happened on day one? Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that efforts to detain and deport noncitizens based on their political beliefs violate the First Amendment's right to free speech, the Washington Post reported. Ramya Krishnan, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute who gave an opening statement on behalf of the plaintiffs on July 7, told USA TODAY the administration is unconstitutionally "using immigration law as a cudgel against speech that it doesn't like" and that the case therefore has implications for "everyone." She told USA TODAY the administration's actions are akin to those associated with authoritarian regimes and have "no place in a democracy." She referenced a moment in which, according to Politico, Justice Department attorney Victoria Santora said the First Amendment applies to both citizens and noncitizens but later backtracked to say 'there are nuances to the First Amendment." The judge "wasn't really given a straight answer" when he asked for further detail about that nuance and indicated it would be a topic they would revisit during the trial, Krishnan said. The plaintiffs hosted a news conference and rally on July 7 after the court adjourned for the day. What do the plaintiffs want? The plaintiffs have requested, among other actions, that the judge declare the administration's "ideological deportation policy' and 'threats to arrest, detain and deport noncitizen students and faculty' as unconstitutional. They asked for the policy to be set aside and for the judge to bar the administration from making such threats moving forward. How does the administration justify the deportations? The Trump administration has cited a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the secretary of state the right to remove a person from the country if they undermine its foreign policy interests. "The Trump administration reserves the right to ensure that foreign nationals do not pose a threat to the foreign policy or national security interests of the United States," White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told USA TODAY on July 7. Trump has referred to student protesters as 'terrorist sympathizers' and accused them, along with an array of colleges and universities, of antisemitism. The Department of Homeland Security has denied that the administration's actions are unconstitutional. 'Sec. Noem has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for antisemitic violence and terrorism – think again,' spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in an April news release announcing that the department would be 'considering aliens' antisemitic activity' online in determining an applicant's eligibility for immigration benefits. 'You are not welcome here.' The State Department told USA TODAY it doesn't comment on ongoing litigation. Why is it a First Amendment issue? The complaint accused the administration of fostering a 'climate of repression and fear on university campuses.' It said the administration's actions have had a chilling effect on noncitizen students and faculty. Some have stopped going to protests, for example, while others have started avoiding posting their political opinions on social media, the complaint said. 'The agencies' policy, in other words, is accomplishing its purpose: it is terrorizing students and faculty for their exercise of First Amendment rights in the past, intimidating them from exercising those rights now, and silencing political viewpoints that the government disfavors,' the complaint said. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Freedom (FIRE) is not involved in the case, but it is monitoring the proceedings and the 'dangerous precedent' it says the administration is seeking to establish. 'When noncitizens are punished for engaging in peaceful, protected expression simply because the administration doesn't like their views, the threat to the rest of us should be immediately apparent,' said FIRE's legal director Will Creeley. 'An administration that cracks down on peaceful expression isn't likely to stop with noncitizens.' Who's the judge? U.S. District Judge William Young marked his 40th anniversary on the federal bench this year. One of his former clerks described him as a 'model for lawyers everywhere' at an event celebrating the milestone, according to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. This isn't the first time he's overseen a case involving the Trump administration. In June, he blocked the administration's termination of National Institutes of Health grants that slashed funding for research pertaining to minority communities. 'I am hesitant to draw this conclusion, but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it: that this represents racial discrimination,' Young said, according to the New York Times. Young graduated from Harvard Law School in 1967, according to the district court's website. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Trial starts over Trump admin crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists
Plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration campaign of arresting and deporting faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations argued on Monday it was an orchestrated effort that has stifled free speech at universities around the country. The lawsuit, filed by several university associations against President Donald Trump and members of his administration, is one of the first to go to trial. Plaintiffs want US District Judge William Young to rule the policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. Not since the McCarthy era have immigrants been the target of such intense repression for lawful political speech, Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told the court. The policy creates a cloud of fear over university communities, and it is at war with the First Amendment. The First Amendment forecloses viewpoint discrimination; it forecloses retaliation; and it forecloses government threats meant to coerce silence. In response, lawyers for the government argued that no such policy exists and that the government is enforcing immigration laws legally and is doing so to protect national security. There is no policy to revoke visas on the basis of protected speech, Victoria Santora told the court. The evidence presented at this trial will show that plaintiffs are challenging nothing more than government enforcement of immigration laws. Since Trump took office, the US 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 October 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. The lawsuit also references Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was released in May from 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 accused the Trump administration of supplying names to universities whom they wanted to target and launching a social media surveillance program. They used Trump's own words in which he said after Khalil's arrest that his was the first arrest of many to come. The first witness in the case, Megan Hyska, a green card holder from Canada who is a philosophy professor at Northwestern University, detailed how the efforts to deport Khalil and Ozturk prompted her to significantly scale back her activism. Before Trump took office, she had supported student encampments at Northwestern, had taken part in scores of protests against police brutality and in support of Palestinians and had been active in the Chicago chapter of Democratic Socialists of America. But after Khalil and Ozturk were detained, Hyska testified, she refrained from publishing an opinion piece critical of the Trump administration, chose not to take part in some anti-Trump protests and has decided against traveling back to Canada. It became apparent to me, after I became aware of a couple of high profile detentions of political activists, that my engaging in public political dissent would potentially endanger my immigration status, Hyska said. A government lawyer tried to undermine her testimony, confirming that she had not been contacted by anyone from the government asking her to stop her activism. The lawyer also referenced two letters Hyska had signed after the arrest of the activists to suggest she continued to be politically active prompting Hyska to say those letters were directed to Northwestern administrators, not the general public. The second witness, Nadje Al-Ali, a green card holder from Germany who is a professor at Brown University, also detailed how the immigration policy had a chilling effect on her work. Following the arrest of Khalil and Ozturk, Al-Ali said she canceled a planned research trip and a fellowship to Iraq and Lebanon over fears stamps from those two countries would raise red flags upon her return to the United States. She also dropped plans to write an article that was to be a feminist critique of Hamas and declined to take part in anti-Trump protests. I felt it was too risky, Al-Ali said of the Hamas article. I felt that would increase my visibility and profile and risk I would be associated with pro-Palestinian speech and be targeted. The trial continues Tuesday with Al-Ali on the stand. Several more witnesses are expected to testify tis week about the impact the immigration campaign has had on their activism.
Japan Today
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Japan Today
Federal trial starts over Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists
People show their support for a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's policy of targeting students for deportation who took part in pro-Palestinian demonstrations on Monday, July 7, 2025, at the federal courthouse in Boston. (AP Photo/Michael Casey) By MICHAEL CASEY Plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration campaign of arresting and deporting faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations argued Monday it was an orchestrated effort that has stifled free speech at universities around the country. The lawsuit, filed by several university associations against President Donald Trump and members of his administration, is one of the first to go to trial. Plaintiffs want U.S. District Judge William Young to rule the policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. 'Not since the McCarthy era have immigrants been the target of such intense repression for lawful political speech,' Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told the court. 'The policy creates a cloud of fear over university communities, and it is at war with the First Amendment. The First Amendment forecloses viewpoint discrimination; it forecloses retaliation; and it forecloses government threats meant to coerce silence.' In response, lawyers for the government argued that no such policy exists and that the government is enforcing immigration laws legally and is doing so to protect national security. 'There is no policy to revoke visas on the basis of protected speech,' Victoria Santora told the court. 'The evidence presented at this trial will show that plaintiffs are challenging nothing more than government enforcement of immigration laws.' 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. The lawsuit also references Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was released in May from 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 accused the Trump administration of supplying names to universities whom they wanted to target and launching a social media surveillance program. They used Trump's own words in which he said after Khalil's arrest that his was the 'first arrest of many to come.' The first witness in the case, Megan Hyska, a green card holder from Canada who is a philosophy professor at Northwestern University, detailed how the efforts to deport Khalil and Ozturk prompted her to significantly scale back her activism. Before Trump took office, she had supported student encampments at Northwestern, had taken part in scores of protests against police brutality and in support of Palestinians and had been active in the Chicago chapter of Democratic Socialists of America. But after Khalil and Ozturk were detained, Hyska testified, she refrained from publishing an opinion piece critical of the Trump administration, chose not to take part in some anti-Trump protests and has decided against traveling back to Canada. 'It became apparent to me, after I became aware of a couple of high profile detentions of political activists, that my engaging in public political dissent would potentially endanger my immigration status,' Hyska said. A government lawyer tried to undermine her testimony, confirming that she had not been contacted by anyone from the government asking her to stop her activism. The lawyer also referenced two letters Hyska had signed after the arrest of the activists to suggest she continued to be politically active — prompting Hyska to say those letters were directed to Northwestern administrators, not the general public. The trial continues Tuesday with several more witnesses who are expected to testify about the impact the immigration campaign has had on their activism. © Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
