Latest news with #MiddleEastStudiesAssociation
Yahoo
a day ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Memo on protesters cautioned that authority used to strip visas would face scrutiny
Action memos on pro-Palestinian protesters sent by government officials to Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the authority he used to strip their visas had never before been used and would likely face scrutiny, a government official testified in court Friday. Rubio used what the government says is his authority to find someone deportable "if the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe that the alien's presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States," citing the Immigration and Nationality Act. A section of a government memo that was read in court noted "it is likely that courts will closely scrutinize this determination" because the basis of it could be considered "protected speech." MORE: DHS investigated over 5,000 student protesters listed on doxxing website: Official The contents of the memo were revealed during an ongoing bench trial in which the Trump administration is accused of instituting a constitutionally illegal ideological deportation policy against pro-Palestinian protesters, including Columbia University's Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi and Tufts University's Rumeysa Ozturk. The lawsuit was filed by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, which represents hundreds of professors and students across the country. An action memo sent by government officials to the secretary of state proposing Rubio strip Khalil and Yunseo Chung of their visas was cleared by 10 people and departments within 24 hours before it was sent to Rubio, John Armstrong, the senior bureau official in the bureau of consular affairs at the State Department, testified Friday. The White House, Department of Homeland Security, State Department and Department of Defense had over 20 conversations about student protester visa revocations, most of which took place in March, Armstrong testified. Armstrong also testified that he had conversations with people on the Homeland Security Council over the visa revocations, naming Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller and his deputy. In a two-page memo from earlier this year outlining why Khalil should be deported, Rubio cited Khalil's alleged role in "antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States." Asked about how officials identify what constitutes antisemitism, Armstrong testified Friday that he can't remember receiving "any concrete guidance" as to what can be treated as antisemitic, and also testified that he doesn't know of any of his deputies having received formalized training on what antisemitism is. It's my understanding that "antisemites will try to hide their views and say they are not against Jews, they are just against Israel" -- but "it's a dodge" to hide their antisemitism, Armstrong said. Support for a foreign terrorist organization or terrorist activity is grounds for a visa revocation, Armstrong testified, saying, "Support for Hamas will get your visa revoked." Asked by plaintiffs attorneys, Armstrong also testified that criticizing Zionism, criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza, saying that the actions of the Israeli government are "worse than Hitler," saying "from the river to the sea," calling Israel an apartheid state and calling for an arms embargo could all be considered cause for removal under the executive order combatting antisemitism. MORE: Mahmoud Khalil case: Ordered to show evidence, government asserts Rubio's authority Armstrong, who personally authorized the decision to strip Ozturk of her visa, testified that he based the decision on her actions protesting Tufts' relationship with Israel and her "activities and association" with groups that are "creating a hostile environment for Jewish students." That alleged association was based on an op-ed she co-authored with someone who is part of a student group that supported the call for Tufts to divest and cut ties with Israel -- a proposal that was made by Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, a group which is now banned from campus. DHS and Homeland Security Investigations found that Ozturk was not part of the activities that resulted in Tufts SJP's ban from Tufts, according to documents read aloud in court by attorneys. Nonetheless, Armstrong maintained that Ozturk had ties to Tufts SJP. Ozturk's visa was revoked under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows the government to revoke a visa for any reason, Armstrong testified. On Thursday, Andre Watson, the assistant director for the national security division at Homeland Security, testified that he has made 10 to 15 referrals of student protesters to the Department of State for possible visa revocation since the establishment of the Tiger Team task force looking into student protesters. He said he referred every individual on whom the Homeland Security Investigations task force has filed a report, including Khalil, Ozturk and Mahdawi. After the conclusion of testimony on Thursday, U.S. District Judge William Young informed the parties of definitions he will be relying on while making a decision after the conclusion of the bench trial. "Criticisms of the state of Israel are not antisemitism. They are political speech, protected speech," Young said. Commentary on "conduct of the state of Israel, if it involves war crimes, involves genocide ... is protected speech with respect to our constitution," Young said. While condemning antisemitism and saying the government should discourage antisemitism and hate against any group of people, he said, "Antisemitism ... is not illegal. It is protected under the First Amendment." MORE: Trial challenging administration's deportation of pro-Palestinian scholars gets underway On the pivotal question of whether visa holders and lawful permanent residents have the same First Amendment rights as U.S. citizens, the judge said, "Probably they do." Young also said criticizing the state of Israel "does not constitute pro-Hamas support." After new evidence is entered on Monday, closing arguments will begin in the trial.
Yahoo
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump admin waffles in court on whether pro-Palestinian foreigners have full First Amendment rights
A trial on a First Amendment lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's drive to deport pro-Palestinian academics quickly confronted a thorny legal issue Monday: whether foreigners in the U.S. enjoy the same free speech rights as American citizens. The administration's stance on that critical question proved murky. Under questioning by U.S. District Judge William Young in his Boston courtroom, Justice Department attorney Victoria Santora initially said non-citizens have the same First Amendment rights as citizens. 'People in the United States share the same rights under the First Amendment,' Santora said. 'That's an answer and I'll hold you to that,' Young responded. However, about 10 minutes later, as Santora concluded her opening statement, she said she may have misspoken and needed to qualify her answer. 'The answer, I think, is not necessarily, based on their status in the country,' Santora said. 'There are nuances to the First Amendment,' Santora said, pointing to concerns about 'national security, foreign policy, immigration enforcement and enforcement discretion.' The exchange came as Young opened what's expected to be a two-week, non-jury trial on a lawsuit filed in March by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. The case comes as the Trump administration has intensified its crackdown on pro-Palestinian academics under a rarely used provision of immigration law that allows Secretary of State Marco Rubio to seek the deportation of students on foreign policy grounds. It's the first major trial over President Donald Trump's policies since he returned to office in January. The academic groups claim that the Trump administration is chilling the speech of foreign students and faculty members on U.S. college campuses by detaining pro-Palestinian activists and attempting to deport them. Judges in recent weeks have blocked the administration's efforts in several high-profile cases, including the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the recent Columbia student who organized pro-Palestinian campus protests and who was detained for more than three months before a federal judge ordered his release. The lawsuit also alleges that the administration's targeted enforcement of immigration laws is impairing the right of American students and faculty to hear the views of their non-citizen colleagues. During opening statements in the case, a lawyer for the academic organizations, Ramya Krishnan, told Young that Trump's policy was muffling the intellectual climate on many campuses. 'Not since the McCarthy era have immigrants been the focus of such intense repression for lawful political speech,' said Krishnan, an attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 'The policy creates a cloud of fear over university communities and it is at war with the First Amendment.' However, Santora insisted that the high-profile efforts to deport scholars at Columbia, Tufts, Georgetown and elsewhere were the result of those individuals' 'activities' and not their speech. 'There is no ideological deportation policy or anything like it under any other name,' Santora said. 'There is no policy to revoke visas or remove non-citizens on the basis of protected speech or on any other unlawful basis … There is no immigration enforcement strategy based on protected speech.' In her opening, Santora mentioned the immigration enforcement efforts at issue as being responses to antisemitism on college campuses as well as a series of terrorist attacks foreigners committed in the U.S. in recent decades, including the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks on those buildings and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, and the 2013 bombing of the Boston Marathon finish line. In questions and interjections during the openings, Young sounded skeptical about the government's suggestion that speech about issues of national security or immigration enforcement might be adequate grounds to deport foreigners otherwise legally in the U.S. 'The president ran on a policy of immigration enforcement, which he's attempting to carry out and whether individuals support that or oppose that, that all that seems to me political speech,' the judge said. Young did acknowledge the federal law Rubio has invoked in the cases of several students, which allows for the deportation of individuals whose presence in the U.S. is deemed to undermine U.S. foreign policy. 'There is this statute that has been on the books for some time. Congress has empowered the secretary personally to revoke visas if, in the secretary's determination, that the presence of the individual embarrasses the foreign policy of the United States,' the judge said. 'That's lawful, isn't it?' 'Whatever Congress intended as to [the law's] scope, the First Amendment prohibits the government from deporting non-citizen students and faculty based on their political viewpoint,' Krishnan said. Krishnan said there might be 'narrow applications' of that law that would be constitutional, like using it to expel a foreign official based in the U.S. However, she noted that some of the deportation attempts at issue in the lawsuit, including that of Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk, did not rely on the foreign policy-related statute. Still, Young signaled that figuring out how the First Amendment limits the government's ability to deploy that statute is a central issue in the trial. 'How do I harmonize the two?' the judge asked. 'How those two mesh is a real problem in this case.' The first two witnesses to testify in the case were both academics: Megan Hyska, a philosophy professor at Northwestern University, and Nadje Al-Ali, a professor of anthropology and Middle East studies at Brown University. Both said they were supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (or BDS) movement, which is aimed at putting pressure on Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. Hyska and Al-Ali said they'd reined in some of their activities in the wake of the high-profile arrests of non-U.S.-citizen academics who'd been vocal supporters of Palestinian rights, such as Khalil and Ozturk. Hyska, who is Canadian, said she wore a mask to a protest rally to obscure her identity and did not release an op-ed she'd written critical of the Trump administration because she feared she could be expelled from the U.S. 'It struck me that I, too, could be potentially detained and deported on the basis of publishing something like this,' Hyska said. However, she conceded she'd continued to sign letters supporting academic colleagues who'd engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy. Al-Ali, who was born in Germany and has permanent residence in the U.S., said she abandoned both a cycling trip to Sicily and a research trip to Lebanon and Iraq because she feared that her leadership role at Brown's Center for Middle East Studies would attract the attention of immigration officials when she tried to return to the U.S. She also said she cleaned up her social media feeds before returning from a trip abroad. 'My Instagram page was all dogs, cats and recipes. Everything else was deleted,' Al-Ali said.
07-07-2025
- Politics
Trial challenging administration's deportation of pro-Palestinian scholars gets underway
The first day of an expected two-week bench trial challenging the Trump administration's efforts to deport international students and scholars who express pro-Palestinian views began Monday in Boston with the question of noncitizens' First Amendment rights. The lawsuit was filed by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, which represents hundreds of professors and students across the country. While recent efforts to deport high-profile international students like Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk have been found unconstitutional and temporarily thwarted in federal courts, the Trump administration has continued removal proceedings against them. This case names Secretary of State Marco Rubio as a defendant and challenges his invocation of several provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, including a rarely invoked provision used to deport immigrants whose presence in the U.S. is deemed a threat to foreign policy interests. Ramya Krishnan, an attorney representing the academic groups, argued that the government has "adopted a policy of ideological deportation" and is chilling the speech of students and professors alike. As evidence, Krishnan said they will call on professors and academics who say they feel at risk of deportation over their pro-Palestinian teachings or views. During the opening statement, Krishnan also pointed at several social media posts by Trump officials, including Rubio's X post commenting on Khalil's arrest that said, "We will be revoking the visas and green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported." "In a litany of statements ... officials have referenced and reaffirmed the policy," she said. "They have also made clear that they deem a broad spectrum of pro-Palestinian and anti-war speech to be pro-Hamas and antisemitic." U.S. District Judge William Young interrupted Krishnan's statements on several occasions to question if she believed he had the right to challenge Rubio's wide-ranging discretion to invoke the provisions of the law. "Are you asking me to declare that the conduct of these public officials, including the Secretary of State, is unconstitutional?" the judge asked. "That is correct," Krishnan responded. "Well, then I've got this problem. If that's what you're asking, your people, your litigants, your clients, haven't challenged it, have they?" he pressed. "So to be clear, your honor, we do not challenge the constitutionality of the foreign policy provision directly. What we challenge is a policy of relying on a variety of INA provisions in order to deport noncitizen students and faculty based on their political viewpoint," she said. DOJ attorney Victoria Santora pushed back on accusations that the administration is targeting students for constitutionally protected speech. "The government's evidence will show that these legal authorities have existed for decades and that their purpose is to promote safety and security," Santora said. "The reality is that is the prerogative of each administration to set immigration enforcement priorities." But before she could deliver the government's opening statement, Judge Young asked if the public officials she is representing believe that noncitizens who are lawfully in the country have the same rights under the First Amendment as citizens. When she wavered on her answer, Judge Young pressed again. "Our position would be that the First Amendment does refer to persons and that people in the United States share the same rights under the First Amendment," Santora said. "Thank you, that's an answer and I'll hold you to that and please go ahead," Judge Young responded. However, a few minutes later Santora backtracked -- adding that there were "nuances to the First Amendment." "The nuance is that, as I addressed in our opening statement, this context involves issues of national security, foreign policy, immigration enforcement and enforcement discretion," she said. Attorneys for the plaintiffs proceeded to call to the stand several noncitizen professors who have expressed fear of being retaliated against for their previous speech or teachings. Government officials are expected to be among other witnesses called in the next few days.
06-05-2025
- Politics
Judge questions whether noncitizens have same free speech protections as US citizens
As court battles over the Trump administration's revocation of foreign student visas heat up, a federal judge in Boston is considering the question of whether those in the United States who are not citizens are protected under the same constitutional right to free speech as U.S. citizens. During a court hearing in Massachusetts preparing for a trial in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's student visa revocation, Judge William Young suggested that it is "not clear" to him that noncitizens have the "full rights to free speech" that citizens have, as the Trump administration attempts to use the speech of some international students to justify their deportations. "I find that that's assumed by a number of my colleagues in related cases that deal with free speech in the lower courts, but I'm not clear that noncitizens have, I will call them, the full rights to free speech that a citizen has," the Reagan-appointed judge said. "I'm hopeful we don't get to it in this case, but I don't see how that will work if a noncitizen has the same rights as a citizen to speak about these matters," the judge said, suggesting the question should be answered by the Supreme Court. In March, the American Association of University Professors, the Middle East Studies Association and other organizations representing academics and students at universities, including Harvard University, sued the Trump administration, claiming the government's recent efforts to revoke visas and detain and deport pro-Palestinian activists have "created a climate of repression and fear on university campuses." The groups have accused the Trump administration of "terrorizing students and faculty for their exercise of First Amendment rights," while the government has sought to throw out the case, dismissing the claim that the Trump administration is enforcing a policy of "ideological deportations." The case is expected to proceed to a trial in June. During Tuesday's hearing, Young stressed this is "truly a free speech case," explaining that both high-ranking officials, including the president, and their critics are protected under free speech, no matter how "brutal, coarse, demeaning" the speech might be. He also specified that he considers pro-Palestinian advocacy and criticism of the state of Israel, as well as antisemitism, free speech because hate speech is not prohibited under the First Amendment. What the court aims to find through the trial, the judge said, is whether the federal government committed any "retribution" against people for their speech to a chilling effect, which the plaintiffs claim and the government denies. "We're going to have to figure out what happened -- what is it that the plaintiffs say is actual retribution against speakers?" Young said. The judge added that he is also seeking detailed explanations from the government on its visa revocation, detention and deportation process. "When we get down to the level of ICE enforcement agents … I want to know what was going on. Why were they armed or masked or not or identified or not -- all of that. What was going on and why? Who set that out? Who set up this business with the Mahdawi in Vermont?" the judge said, referring to the case of Palestinian Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, who was arrested at a citizenship interview and was recently released.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Academic groups sue Trump administration for arresting students and faculty linked to pro-Palestinian protests
Academic groups of professors and scholars have filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming the arrests of noncitizen students and faculty who participate in pro-Palestinian protests are unconstitutional. The American Association of University Professors — which has chapters at colleges across the country — and the Middle East Studies Association filed a lawsuit on Tuesday, alleging Trump's new immigration enforcement policies violate the First Amendment, which enshrines free speech and assembly, and the Fifth Amendment, which ensures due process. The suit was filed against Donald Trump, the Department of State, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Kristi Noem, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting director Todd Lyons, and the government in the District of Massachusetts. In January, Donald Trump signed executive orders that ensure noncitizens in the U.S. do not bear hostility towards the country, do not advocate for foreign terrorists, and combat antisemitism. The complaint, however, says that the orders have stretched its purview into an "ideological deportation policy." The Trump administration has incorrectly labeled any speech supporting Palestinian human rights and critical of Israel's military actions as 'pro-Hamas,' the complaint says. The policies have seen immigration authorities arrest and detain several university-affiliated individuals, including Mahmoud Khalil and at least four others — including one who fled to Canada in fear of arrest, the complaint says. Further, the Trump administration allegedly supplied universities with the names of other students "they intend to target under the policy" and they "launched new social media surveillance programs aimed at identifying still others." The policies have "created a climate of repression and fear on university campuses," the filing says. '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 says. The complaint listed several examples of detained students and professors, including the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a 30-year-old legal permanent resident and Columbia University student who was apprehended on March 8 at his New York City campus apartment. He has not been charged with any crime, but the administration has alleged Khalil was involved in activities aligned with Hamas, which his attorneys deny. He is being detained in an ICE facility in Louisiana. Another case was that of Ranjani Srinivasan, an Indian national who is a doctoral student at Columbia and an adjunct assistant professor at New York University. The State Department revoked Srinivasan's student visa on March 5 and immigration authorities showed up at her home two days later, but she did not open the door, the complaint says. They returned the following night, but she had fled to Canada. The Department of Homeland Security described Srinivasan as a terrorist sympathizer and as involved in activities supporting Hamas without evidence. Srinivasan has disputed those allegations, the complaint says, noting that she was involved in protesting human rights violations in Gaza. The suit also listed the cases of Yunseo Chung — a 21-year-old legal permanent resident and Columbia University student who was involved in pro-Palestinian protests and on March 10 was advised her legal permanent resident status was revoked — and Badar Khan Suri — an Indian national and postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown University who was arrested by ICE on March 17. It also names Momodou Taal, a student visa holder and doctoral candidate at Cornell University described as a pro-Palestinian advocate whose visa was revoked this month. The suit was filed by the AAUP and its chapters at Harvard University, New York University and Rutgers. The groups allege that the Trump policy prevents them from hearing from their noncitizen students and colleagues, makes it impossible for citizen members to organize and participate in political expression with noncitizen members, and makes it difficult to benefit from noncitizens' insights, scholarship, and academic projects. The complaint says the plaintiffs are harmed by Trump's policies in that they no longer can learn and engage with noncitizen members as they had in the past because resources are now being diverted "to address the all-too-real possibility that their noncitizen members will be arrested, imprisoned, and deported for exercising rights that the Constitution guarantees." NBC News has reached out to the Justice Department and State Department for comment. "Taking over buildings, defacing private property, and harassing Jewish students does not constitute free speech," a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson told NBC News on Wednesday. "It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America. When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country," the spokesperson continued. Todd Wolfson of the American Association of University Professors called Trump's policies an encroachment of civil liberties and education. "The Trump administration is going after international scholars and students who speak their minds about Palestine, but make no mistake: they won't stop there. They'll come next for those who teach the history of slavery or who provide gender-affirming health care or who research climate change or who counsel students about their reproductive choices. We all have to draw a line together—as the old labor movement slogan says: an injury to one is an injury to all," Wolfson said. "The First Amendment means the government can't arrest, detain, or deport people for lawful political expression—it's as simple as that. This practice is one we'd ordinarily associate with the most repressive political regimes, and it should have no place in our democracy," said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, which is representing the plaintiffs. This article was originally published on
