Another Victim of Ideological Exclusion?

BOSTON – Mohsen Mahdawi, a graduate student at Columbia University, has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) finding him deportable. The BIA decision was followed by an order of removal order issued by an immigration judge, but because of Mr. Mahdawi’s separate habeas case in federal court, he remains protected against re-detention or deportation while his appeals continue. The BIA decision is based on the allegation, in a memo purportedly from Marco Rubio, that Mr. Mahdawi’s speech in support of Palestinian human rights undermined U.S. foreign policy (the so-called “foreign policy bar” of the Immigration and Nationality Act). The use of this provision to target the speech of noncitizens has been found to be likely unconstitutional by several federal courts. "I come from a refugee camp in Palestine, where my family still resides. I know what it means to live without rights, without voice, without safety. America was the first place I ever felt true freedom and dignity,” said Mohsen Mahdawi. “For over a decade I have built my life here, loved this community, and chosen this country's ideals as my own. That is the country I chose — and now the administration is abusing immigration law to silence me for speaking the truth about Palestinian suffering and genocide. When a government weaponizes immigration to punish speech, millions of immigrants and citizens feel that blow. This fight belongs to all who believe in democracy and every person willing to stand together in defense of the First Amendment. I take this fight to the First Circuit with love and faith — because the First Amendment is sacred, and I refuse to be silenced." An immigration judge had dismissed his immigration case in February because it found that the government had not supported its charge with the proper documentation. The government appealed to the BIA, which quickly reinstated the government’s case against him and sent the case back to a new judge within the Trump administration-controlled immigration court system for consideration of any applications for relief from deportation. Mr. Mahdawi notified the new judge last week that he would not be seeking asylum or similar relief, and instead would be directly challenging the government’s illegal and unconstitutional attempt to strip his lawful permanent resident status. Last Wednesday, the immigration judge issued a new removal order on the basis that “removability was previously determined” by the BIA. “The original immigration judge correctly dismissed Mohsen's immigration case before she had been fired, and the government cynically appealed the case within the Trump administration-controlled immigration court system knowing that the BIA would reverse,” said Cyrus Mehta of Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners, PLLC. “We look forward to vindicating Mohsen's First Amendment rights in the First Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the First Amendment rights of all other noncitizens living in the United States." Mr. Mahdawi’s case is proceeding along two separate tracks. In addition to his ongoing immigration case, his habeas petition is being litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where the government is trying to advance an extreme argument that noncitizens detained in retaliation for their speech should have to wait in detention for months or even years before a federal court can step in to protect their First Amendment rights. Today, Mr. Mahdawi’s legal team alerted the Second Circuit of these developments in the immigration case. “The First Amendment protects all of us from government censorship, citizen or not,” said Nate Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Mohsen should never have been detained for his speech, and a federal judge has already agreed. The government’s continued persecution of our client for his beliefs should send a chill down the spine of everyone in this country, because once we start allowing exceptions to the First Amendment for speech the current government doesn’t like, there’s no telling where the censorship will stop.” Mr. Mahdawi, a green card holder, was detained in April 2025 at the conclusion of his citizenship interview. He was held in ICE custody for over two weeks before being released on bail by the U.S. District Court in Vermont. In that bail order, Judge Geoffrey Crawford said the government’s detention of Mr. Mahdawi and other noncitizens under similar circumstances was reminiscent of the McCarthy era. Mr. Mahdawi is represented by Cyrus Mehta and David Isaacson of Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners, PLLC; Luna Droubi, Matthew Melewski and Tala Alfoqaha of Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP; Andrew Delaney of Martin Delaney & Ricci Law Group; CLEAR; the American Civil Liberties Union; and the ACLU of Vermont. Today’s filing can be viewed here.

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – The MacArthur Justice Center, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the ACLU Foundation of Northern California (ACLU NorCal) filed a FOIA lawsuit against U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to demand the disclosure of policies and documents relating to their practices of targeting and retaliating against people who film federal agents in public. “People in a democracy have the right to document what armed federal agents are doing on the streets of their cities, and to share that video without fear of arrest or retribution,” said Jonathan Manes, senior counsel at the MacArthur Justice Center. "Video of police misconduct has been a core part of American political life since at least the civil rights era, when images of police brutalizing peaceful protestors shocked the nation’s conscience. The federal Government has adopted widespread practices that appear designed to stifle this kind of free speech. The public has a right to know the nature and extent of DHS’s effort to target people who dare to film its agents deployed on our streets.” Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed the right to film law enforcement in public and to disseminate the footage. But a startling pattern of retaliation against people exercising that right has emerged: federal agents have threatened and harassed individuals engaged in recording and publishing videos of immigration agents conducting their work in public; surveilled them; and even detained and arrested them. DHS has also issued administrative subpoenas to third-party tech companies like Google and Reddit demanding access to private information about people who record and publish video footage of ICE agents. Despite DHS’s clear pattern of abuse, there is a basic lack of transparency about the DHS policies, directives, and legal interpretations that have enabled this widespread practice. The public is also in the dark about how frequently DHS has used its arrest and subpoena authorities to target people who film agents. “It’s often been said that sunlight is the best disinfectant,” said Byul Yoon, legal fellow with the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project at the ACLU. “Recording federal agents allows the people to hold the government accountable for abuses of power and misconduct, and the First Amendment guarantees our ability to do so. The pattern of retaliation, as well as the secrecy around the government’s policies, is deeply alarming: a government that fears a phone camera, or a FOIA request, is one that has something to hide. Our democracy deserves better.” In November 2025, the ACLU and ACLU NorCal submitted a FOIA request to DHS, CBP, ICE, and USCIS for access to public records that would answer these and related questions, including policies, legal memos, and training materials. Over six months later, the government has not released a single document in response or explained why any of the materials are properly kept secret. This flouts the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which exists to guarantee prompt public access to information about what the government is doing. The lawsuit can be viewed here.

MEMPHIS — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Tennessee filed for a preliminary injunction in federal court to prevent the Memphis Safe Task Force from retaliating against civilians seeking to record and observe immigration and law enforcement activities. Additional filings describe how after filming the Task Force, Memphians have witnessed surveillance outside their homes, faced unlawful traffic stops, and experienced taunting from agents. “Despite the intimidation I have faced from the Task Force, I know that it’s important to stand up for my rights,” said Hunter Demster, plaintiff. “I have a constitutional right to observe Task Force agents without worrying that they might be surveilling my house or following my car. Documenting their activity and showing the world what is happening in Memphis is critical to holding them accountable, and I will use my voice and my platform to stand up for the First Amendment and for my neighbors.” Since September 2025, thousands of federal, state, and local agents have flooded the streets of Memphis as part of the Memphis Safe Task Force, a 31-agency Task Force that has aggressively patrolled the city at the invitation of Governor Bill Lee and President Donald Trump. Agents and officers working with the Memphis Safe Task Force have terrorized local communities, conducting mass traffic stops and large-scale immigration arrests. “What we’re seeing in Memphis is the systematic repression of the First Amendment right to peacefully observe, gather information about, and film government officials operating in public,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “No one should have their personal safety or privacy compromised simply for bringing to light what Task Force agents are doing on the streets of Memphis. The Task Force’s campaign of harassment and intimidation against our clients must end immediately.” The declarations, filed by a group of 9 community members, recount intimidation, aggression, and even violence against people documenting Task Force activity. They describe a pattern of menacing retaliation: “[The Task Force agent] tackled me to the ground with immense force. Once I was on the ground, he and another person pinned me to the ground facedown. I was shocked and scared. I did not know what was happening or understand that they were arresting me, because I hadn’t broken any laws and they did not tell me I was under arrest.” (plaintiff J.C.) "As I approached, the ICE agent said something like, ‘Hey Melissa, you’re late.’ Hearing him call my name was chilling. I knew my photo had been taken at prior scenes and suspected my license plate had been photographed too. But for him to connect me to those other scenes and call me by my name was truly frightening.” (plaintiff M.P.) "The Task Force follows me when I am in my car. The Task Force knows where I live. And, at the same time, whenever I see another Task Force vehicle following me, I wonder whether this can really be happening to me again.” (plaintiff K.H.) “[Agents] positioned their truck behind my vehicle on the road and accelerated to get so close to the back of my car that I thought the truck was going to hit my bumper before backing off. This caused me to fear that the agents were going to crash into my car. Sometimes the truck would repeat this multiple times in a row. [During another similar incident] I was worried that they were going to hit my car and drag me out of the vehicle—something I had recently seen happen to a journalist while reporting in Portland.” (declarant J.G.) "The MPD cruiser continued to follow us but did not put its overhead police lights on. We stopped at the next intersection and took a right. The cruiser did the same. We kept driving and turned down another side street. This was a residential neighborhood, and it was pretty dark and quiet at night. The cruiser continued to follow us, and we became increasingly nervous." (declarant B.R.) The lawsuit also challenges the Task Force’s misuse of Tennessee's “Halo Law,” a statute that makes it a crime to approach law enforcement within twenty-five feet after receiving a warning to back up. Agents have repeatedly and arbitrarily invoked the law against observers who are not interfering with their work. These applications of the Halo Law impair the ability of plaintiffs to peacefully document and observe law enforcement, protected activities under the First Amendment. “The First Amendment is not just words on a piece of paper — it protects the ability of everyday people to observe and record their government and hold it accountable,” said ACLU-TN staff attorney Zee Scout. “Restricting that right has serious implications for our clients and for people across the country who want to know what their government is doing. A government that fears the camera has something to hide.” The motion for preliminary injunction asks the court to block the Task Force from retaliating against our plaintiffs for documenting their activity and from applying the Halo Law to them. The lawsuit was filed in mid-May by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the ACLU Foundation of Tennessee, Selendy Gay PLLC, and BraunHagey & Borden LLP in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The named defendants include Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the heads of DHS, ICE, CBP, the U.S. Marshals, and the Tennessee Highway Patrol. The declarations can be viewed here.

NEW YORK — Today, Mahmoud Khalil’s legal team announced they will seek Supreme Court review after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied his request for the full court to re-hear his case in a split 6-5 decision. They are seeking an immediate stay of the mandate that protects Mr. Khalil from detention as they file a petition with the Supreme Court. Five judges voted to re-hear the case en banc. Five judges voted to re-hear the case en banc, with Judge Krause writing, “The Judiciary ‘serves as an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances’ protecting civil liberties and checking legislative and executive discretion. We cannot fulfill that role if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself.” In January 2026, the appeals court issued a 2-1 split decision overturning a lower court’s order that released Mr. Khalil on bail and barred the government from detaining or deporting him. The panel decision will not take effect until a mandate by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has been issued, and Mr. Khalil cannot lawfully be detained or deported at this time. “Today’s decision is not the final word, and we still strongly believe in our arguments going forward,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union. “Federal courts must have the power to step in when the government exploits our country’s immigration system to punish people for their constitutionally protected speech. If the Trump administration can target, arrest, detain, and deport Mahmoud for his speech, they can do it to anyone expressing an opinion they disagree with.” Mr. Khalil also filed an appeal with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals asking it to reverse the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (BIA) removal order and terminate the proceedings entirely. As his immigration team explained in the filings, the immigration judge rushed to a decision without considering relevant evidence, refused to consider the constitutional challenges to his deportation, and improperly sustained false, after-the-fact charges that the Trump administration brought in retaliation for Mr. Khalil’s speech. In addition, Mr. Khalil’s legal team submitted new evidence of potential misconduct by the Trump administration to the BIA asking it to re-open his immigration case and terminate proceedings. This Fifth Circuit appeal will proceed regardless of whether the stay of the mandate is granted in the Third Circuit. “We hope the Supreme Court will recognize how dangerous the Third Circuit’s decision was, not just for Mahmoud but for other non-citizens the administration has its vengeful sights upon,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “That ruling greenlights holding someone in prolonged, brutal detention conditions without access to meaningful judicial review in order to punish them and deter others from dissenting from U.S. foreign policy. We are honored to continue to stand with Mahmoud as he keeps fighting for Palestinian rights, the rights of immigrants brutalized by DHS policies, and the right for people to speak out against injustice.” Mr. Khalil is represented by Van Der Hout LLP, Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Washington Square Legal Services, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the ACLU of New Jersey, and the ACLU of Louisiana.