Can You Find Me Now?

The ACLU is in court this week with Dr. Badar Khan Suri fighting the Trump administration’s unconstitutional attempt to re-detain him for exercising his First Amendment rights.

NEW YORK — After an immigration judge tossed the case against Mohsen Mahdawi last month, citing the government’s failure to authenticate evidence, the government has asked the Board of Immigration Appeals to resume deportation proceedings. Mr. Mahdawi was detained in ICE custody in April 2025 for over two weeks in retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian human rights. “This is another cruel step in the government's continued retaliation campaign against our client,” said Cyrus Mehta of Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC. “Their attempts to punish him for his constitutionally protected speech about Palestine have been reckless and shameful, and this appeal amounts to them grasping at straws. We look forward to the day that Mohsen can focus his attention where it belongs: on his studies, on his advocacy for peace, and on seeking justice in his communities without worrying about the government violating his rights again.” Mr. Mahdawi’s legal team has filed a cross-appeal asking the Board of Immigration Appeals to terminate the case with prejudice to prevent the government from refiling the case. In February, an immigration judge terminated the case against Mr. Mahdawi because the government failed to authenticate their primary piece of evidence, a memorandum purportedly from Secretary of State Marco Rubio claiming that Mr. Mahdawi’s protected political speech constituted a threat to U.S. foreign policy. “This appeal is not about me,” said Mohsen Mahdawi. “It is about whether the Trump administration can weaponize immigration law to silence dissent and punish those who dare to speak against Israel’s genocide and aggression. I stand not only for the freedom of Palestinians or for my own constitutional rights, but for the sacred promise that in America no human being should fear losing their liberty for exercising their First Amendment rights, including speaking for human rights and against wars.” Mr. Mahdawi was released from ICE custody on bail on April 30, 2025, after filing a habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont in which he argued he was wrongfully detained in retaliation for his constitutionally protected speech. His habeas proceedings are ongoing. The news of the immigration appeal and cross-appeal were conveyed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in a supplemental authority letter on Monday morning. “These proceedings in immigration court highlight the need for judicial review of habeas claims challenging irreparable First Amendment harm from immigration detention,” said Nate Freed Wessler, deputy director of the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The government has not even bothered to authenticate their so-called evidence against our client, yet they claim they should have the right to keep him detained until they’ve run out the clock on the lengthy immigration court process. It’s ludicrous and it’s an affront to our bedrock constitutional protections.” Mr. Mahdawi is represented in both immigration and federal court by Cyrus Mehta and David Isaacson of Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners PLLC and in federal court by 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.

NEW YORK – Following the Trump administration’s unprecedented decision to sustain the baseless, after-the-fact charge related to Mahmoud Khalil’s green card application, Mr. Khalil’s legal team filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) today asking that it reverse that decision and terminate the proceedings entirely. This charge was added only after Mr. Khalil challenged his unlawful detention and the use of the foreign policy ground. Regardless of the BIA’s decision, the federal court’s order prohibiting the government from re-detaining or deporting Mr. Khalil as his federal case proceeds remains in effect. “No fabrications, ideological attacks, or smear campaigns will change the fact that the government’s after-the-fact charges are retaliatory, baseless and have absolutely no support in the record,” said Mahmoud Khalil. “I’ll keep fighting for my right and every other person’s right to speak out against injustice, advocate for Palestinian liberation, and live in peace with their families." As the brief lays out, the immigration judge rushed to a decision without considering relevant evidence, refused to consider Mr. Khalil’s constitutional challenges to his removal, improperly sustained false, after-the-fact charges — brought by the Trump administration in retaliation for Mr. Khalil’s speech — alleging he misrepresented facts on his green card application, and engaged in multiple procedural irregularities including denying him a hearing on his waiver request. The brief also explains why the secondary charges are factually inaccurate and meritless; how rare it is for an immigration judge to deny a waiver of removability on a charge like Mr. Khalil’s — particularly against a lawful permanent resident with no criminal record and a U.S. spouse and child; and ultimately how the immigration judge’s decision is further evidence of retaliation. “The Trump administration will stop at nothing to try to silence Mahmoud and retaliate against him for his strong advocacy on behalf of Palestinians and against the horrors inflicted upon them in Gaza. The misrepresentation charge regarding his green card application is completely baseless, and no truly independent judge could possibly have sustained it,“ said Mr. Khalil’s immigration lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout. “From day one, the Trump administration’s hand-picked Louisiana immigration judge denied out of hand every motion Mahmoud brought without even the pretense of providing him with his constitutional right to a fair hearing. In almost 50 years of practicing immigration law, I have never seen such a sham proceeding. But federal courts have already agreed that Mahmoud was targeted for his speech — and no amount of bogus made-up charges will change that.” In June 2025, a federal district court in New Jersey ruled that the government’s original justification for initiating immigration proceedings against Mr. Khalil and detaining him amid those proceedings — a statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s alleging that Mr. Khalil’s First Amendment-protected speech could affect U.S. foreign policy interests — was likely unconstitutional and blocked his detention and deportation on that basis. After this ruling, the government shifted its justification for his detention to false, pretextual, and retaliatory charges about alleged misrepresentations on his green card application. The district court rejected the government’s new justification and issued a second ruling, ordering his release. As Mr. Khalil’s legal team has thoroughly outlined in court filings, these after-the-fact immigration charges are meritless and retaliatory. Then, on January 15, 2026, in a split 2-1 decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court rulings that had found Mr. Khalil’s detention and removal likely unconstitutional and that had ordered Mr. Khalil to be released pending adjudication of his immigration proceedings. While the ruling was only made on technical grounds and not the core First Amendment arguments in his case, it held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Khalil’s constitutional challenges to his detention and removal. Instead, it held that those claims must be funneled through immigration proceedings. Since Mr. Khalil still has the opportunity to seek further review of this decision before the full Third Circuit, which he intends to do, the panel’s order is not currently in effect and the Trump administration cannot lawfully re-detain Mr. Khalil at this time. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the ACLU of New Jersey, the ACLU of Louisiana, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

BOSTON – Nearly a year after their scholarly research about endometriosis, suicide risk, and patient safety was removed from a government-hosted website because it included references to the LGBTQ+ community, two university researchers have secured a binding agreement requiring the government to maintain the court-ordered restoration of their and others’ work. The agreement prohibits the federal government from removing more research from the website in the future for the same ideological reasons. The Trump administration had removed the research in early 2025 in accordance with an executive order from the Trump administration prohibiting the use of government funds to “promote” or “inculcate” so-called “gender ideology.” The articles removed include “Endometriosis: A Common and Commonly Missed and Delayed Diagnosis,” co-authored by plaintiff Dr. Celeste Royce, which included a sentence about diagnosis in transgender and gender-nonconforming people, and “Multiple Missed Opportunities for Suicide Risk Assessment in Emergency and Primary Care Settings,” co-authored by plaintiff Dr. Gordon Schiff, which included a sentence about heightened risk in LGBTQ+ communities. "This agreement is a win for the First Amendment and for public health,” said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the ACLU. “The government cannot censor medical research because it acknowledges the existence of transgender people. Research free from ideological interference by the government promotes rigor, objectivity, and scientific value, which benefits everyone.” The website, known as PSNet, hosts research from doctors and scholars focusing on patient safety and improving medical outcomes. In addition to the restoration of the work of Dr. Schiff,Dr. Royce, and others, the agreement prohibits the government from removing more articles from PSNet in the future on the basis of the “gender ideology” executive order or a memo from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that set out guidelines for implementing that order. “The Trump administration's politically motivated attacks on science have endangered patient safety, stifled protected speech, and undermined the fundamental academic principles of free inquiry,” said Rachel Davidson, free expression staff attorney with the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The federal government censored important public health articles without any rational or scientific basis — but thanks to our clients’ courage, this work is now restored. Dr. Schiff and Dr. Royce can now continue their work to improve outcomes for patients, and the ACLU will continue to challenge the Trump administration’s abuses of power.” In March 2025, the researchers filed suit against the Department of Health and Human Services, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and OPM, arguing that the government violated the First Amendment by imposing a viewpoint-based and unreasonable restriction on the doctors’ participation in a forum the government has opened to private speakers. They also argued that the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act, including by removing articles without a reasoned basis. The suit was filed in the District Court of Massachusetts by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Massachusetts, and the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. In May, the court issued a preliminary injunction restoring the censored articles to PSNet. “I’m deeply grateful to have supported Yale Law School’s Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic and the ACLU in this important case,” said Sonam Jhalani, second year law student at Harvard Law School. “Contributing to work that protects scientific integrity and the free exchange of knowledge was a meaningful experience, and I’m proud to have worked alongside those who helped advance these principles.”