ACLU Disappointed With Court Decision Regarding CA Shutdown of Voteswap 2000

BURLINGTON, Vt. – The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont ruled that Rümeysa Öztürk’s challenge to her unconstitutional detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) should continue in Vermont and that the government should transfer her back to a facility in Vermont no later than May 1. The court stayed its order for four days to allow either party to appeal. The court also set a bail hearing for May 9 and a hearing on the merits of the habeas petition on May 22. Rümeysa is a former Fulbright scholar and current Ph.D. student at Tufts University. She was taken by plainclothes ICE agents in Somerville, Massachusetts on March 25. For nearly 24 hours, Ms. Öztürk’s attorney was unable to locate her as ICE quickly and quietly moved her to three separate locations in three different states — including Vermont — before shipping her to Louisiana. She has not been charged with any crimes. Since she’s been in ICE custody in Louisiana, Ms. Öztürk has suffered multiple asthma attacks and has yet to receive the proper medication. Ms. Öztürk’s legal team had argued that allowing this case to play out in Louisiana — thousands of miles away from her home in Massachusetts — would reward the Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to suppress dissent and manipulate federal court jurisdiction. According to the new order from the federal court, “The government thus admits that from the time ICE agents arrested Ms. Öztürk to the time she arrived at the Louisiana detention facility, it was keeping her location a secret.” Her lawyers also argued that she should be released immediately as she has not been charged with any crime. According to the “evidence” the government submitted, the only basis for her unlawful imprisonment was an op-ed she co-wrote with three other people in The Tufts Daily. Since the government took Ms. Öztürk, her community at Tufts and around the country have rallied around her. Over 20 friends, colleagues, and professors, including the president of Tufts University, have sent letters of support to the court detailing Ms. Öztürk’s dedication to her work and her community and asking for her release. On April 10, for the first time in years, the Tufts Democrats and Tufts Republicans drafted and signed a joint statement condemning the Trump administration’s arrest and detention of Rümeysa Öztürk, as well as the government's broader attack on international students and the right to free speech. A coalition of Jewish organizations including J Street, Bend the Arc, JALSA, and Temple Emanu-El, has also come to Ms. Öztürk’s defense, submitting a proposed amicus brief to the court. Ms. Öztürk is represented in immigration court by Mahsa Khanbabai and Marty Rosenbluth, and in federal court by Mahsa Khanbabai, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. The following are quotes from Ms. Öztürk’s legal team: Noor Zafar, staff attorney with ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project: “It is the fundamental job of the judiciary to stand up to this kind of government manipulation of our basic rights. We hope the court’s definitive ruling sends a strong message to other courts around the country facing government attempts to shop for favorable jurisdictions by moving people detained on unconstitutional immigration charges around and making it difficult or impossible for their lawyers to know where to seek their immediate release.” Mahsa Khanbabai of Khanbabai Immigration Law: “I am pleased that the federal court has ruled to bring Rümeysa home to New England and look forward to her bail hearing so she can be set free. A university op-ed advocating for human rights and freedom for the Palestinian people should not lead to imprisonment. Our immigration laws should not be manipulated to rip people away from their homes and their loved ones. This country is built on checks and balances, and I am confident that the courts will uphold our most basic and fundamental rights.” Lia Ernst, legal director, ACLU of Vermont: “We are grateful to Judge Sessions for understanding the urgency of Rümeysa’s circumstances and not only confirming that Vermont is the right venue to hear her case, but also ordering the government to transfer her to Vermont. Today’s ruling rightfully affirms that the government cannot undermine the justice system and attempt to manipulate a case’s jurisdiction by secretly transporting and imprisoning someone over a thousand miles from home.” Jessie Rossman, legal director, ACLU of Massachusetts: “With this ruling, a federal court has rightfully reaffirmed that Rümeysa Öztürk’s case belongs in Vermont — significantly closer to her friends, community, and counsel. At the same time, the judge sent a clear message that any attempt to manipulate the judiciary is simply wrong. Judge Sessions held that the government’s removal of Rümeysa from Vermont to Louisiana violated the spirit of the emergency order from the federal court in Massachusetts. This is a crucial step for upholding the rule of law in our country.”a Ramzi Kassem, co-director & founder, CLEAR: “The court today saw through this government's dilatory tactics and its attempts at jurisdictional manipulation in a reprehensible effort to punish Rümeysa for speaking out for Palestinian human rights. By ordering Rümeysa returned to the District of Vermont, the Court vindicates not only her rights, but strikes a salutary note for our Constitution and everyone's right to speak up about the same issue. We look forward to the next steps, and will continue to push until Rümeysa is free.” Matthew Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP: “Ms. Öztürk is being punished for exercising the most quintessentially American right to speak out on issues of public concern in, of all places, a student newspaper. The First Amendment protects all persons on American soil. She should not have been detained for 24 seconds, much less the 24 days and counting she has endured.”

NEW YORK – The American Civil Liberties Union this week shared an open letter to general counsels at colleges and universities across the nation outlining their responsibilities and rights when dealing with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigations and enforcement actions. Amid the growing retaliatory crackdown against noncitizen students for their First Amendment-protected speech and advocacy, the open letter explains that colleges and universities are not violating the law by providing housing or services to noncitizen students, including students whose visas have been revoked by the government. It further advises institutions that they are legally able to refuse to comply with warrantless searches of non-public areas, like dorm rooms, by ICE agents. The letter also outlines a legal framework for responding to administrative subpoenas from ICE. In consultation with legal counsel, universities generally maintain the right to not respond to administrative subpoenas unless and until ICE obtains an enforcement order from a judge. Universities also have the right to publicize the subpoenas or alert students if their information has been targeted by an ICE subpoena. “Universities must do everything they can to protect their students from intimidation or targeting by ICE, and they have the legal right to do so,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “We reject the federal government’s extreme claim that housing and educating noncitizen students can violate the law. We hope this letter will empower institutions to stand firm in the face of radical bullying tactics.” The letter can be read in full here.

LOUISIANA — An immigration court yesterday denied bond to Rümeysa Öztürk, a former Fulbright scholar and current Ph.D. student at Tufts University, who the Trump administration targeted for arrest, detention, and deportation in retaliation for an op-ed she co-authored in her student newspaper. Ms. Öztürk, who has not been accused of any crime, was taken by plainclothes ICE agents in Somerville, Massachusetts on March 25. For nearly 24 hours, Ms. Öztürk’s attorney was unable to locate her as ICE quickly and quietly moved her to three separate locations in three different states — including Vermont — before shipping her to Louisiana. “Yesterday was a complete violation of due process and the rule of law. The immigration courts are cowering to the Trump administration's attempts to silence advocates of Palestinian rights,” said attorney Marty Rosenbluth. “The government’s entire case against Rümeysa is based on the same one-paragraph memo from the State Department to ICE that just points back to Rümeysa’s op-ed.” “Yesterday’s decision is exactly why we are fighting for the federal courts to intervene in Ms. Öztürk’s immigration case,” said Mahsa Khanbabai of Khanbabai Immigration Law. “Ms. Öztürk has committed no crime and DHS has provided zero evidence in their case against her. Despite that, the court yesterday relied on a previously submitted State Department memo that points to nothing that Ms. Öztürk said or did — other than her 2024 school newspaper op-ed — to falsely claim she is a danger to her community. This attack on free speech is despicable, but we won’t be deterred. We will keep fighting until Ms. Öztürk is safely returned home to Massachusetts.” This immigration judge ruling comes nearly two weeks after a federal court ruled that the federal case should be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, instead of Louisiana. In a new filing in her federal case, her legal team urges a federal judge in Vermont to, in light of the immigration court developments and ongoing risks to her health, order that Ms. Öztürk be released or at least returned to Vermont by April 18. Ms. Öztürk is represented in immigration court by Mahsa Khanbabai and Marty Rosenbluth, and in federal court by Mahsa Khanbabai, the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. The following are quotes from the rest of Ms. Öztürk’s legal team: Jessie Rossman, Legal Director, ACLU of Massachusetts: “The fight to bring Rümeysa Öztürk back to Massachusetts is not over. There is absolutely no basis for the immigration court's decision to keep Rümeysa behind bars over 1,300 miles away from her friends, community, and counsel. Once again, the government's solitary submission in that proceeding made clear that Rümeysa was arrested, transported, and detained solely because she authored an op-ed in her student newspaper. This week, hundreds of people gathered outside of her federal court hearing in Vermont to stand up and say this is unacceptable. Together, we will continue to press for Rümeysa’s rightful release in federal court.” Lia Ernst, Legal Director, ACLU of Vermont: “Rümeysa’s nightmarish experience at the hands of immigration officials has been nothing short of abhorrent, and last night’s decision by an immigration judge to keep her imprisoned is no exception. Our client has now been deprived of her most basic freedoms for 23 days for writing an op-ed. This decision only underscores the need for the federal court to intervene on her behalf and order her release as soon as possible.” Naz Ahmad, Co-director, CLEAR: “Yesterday’s decision to keep Ms. Ozturk detained 1,300 miles away from her community, solely for co-authoring an op-ed should be a siren call for all who care about free speech. The hearing, which most of Ms. Ozturk’s legal team were prevented from observing, and its result, were a shocking outlier even in a system well-known for providing a shoddy form of due process.” Vasudha Talla, Of Counsel, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP: “The immigration court’s decision yesterday is an insult to the idea of due process. It is also an unfortunately predictable outcome given the government’s unconstitutional crackdown on First Amendment-protected speech. Our fight continues in federal court, where the judge does not serve at the pleasure of the executive.” For documents and other case information, see here.

Whether the Department of Defense Education Activity can remove educational material related to race and gender from its libraries and classrooms in K-12 schools.