ACLU of Ohio Initiates Investigation into Secret Meetings of Cleveland School Board

NEW YORK – Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a ruling that determined federal courts have jurisdiction when immigration enforcement detains noncitizens in retaliation for their protected speech. The Second Circuit held that the district court lacked the authority to release Columbia University graduate student Mohsen Mahdawi on bail in April 2025 after he was detained at his citizenship interview and held for over two weeks in retaliation for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights. The decision does not go into effect immediately and the government has no lawful basis to redetain or deport Mr. Mahdawi as the appeals process proceeds. “The government is claiming the unprecedented power to detain people for months or even years on end to censor their speech, with no ability to challenge their detention in court. This is as absurd as it is dangerous,” said Michael Tan, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued on behalf of Mr. Mahdawi last year. “We will continue to fight for our client and for his right to prompt judicial review.” Earlier this year, immigration judge Nina Froes dismissed the deportation case against Mr. Mahdawi on the grounds that the government failed to authenticate a memo purportedly from Marco Rubio that declared him deportable under the “foreign policy ground” of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Froes was subsequently fired from her position as part of the Trump administration’s larger efforts to use the immigration court system to accelerate deportations. In April, after the government appealed that decision, the DOJ-controlled Board of Immigration Appeals held that Mr. Mahdawi was removable and remanded proceedings to a new immigration judge, who issued an order of removal last month. Mr. Mahdawi’s appeal of that decision is pending. “Today’s decision is a grave setback, although I am confident justice will ultimately prevail,” said Mohsen Mahdawi, who has been a lawful permanent resident for more than a decade. “It reflects a dangerous failure under political pressure, one that risks turning the federal courts into instruments of politics rather than guardians of constitutional freedom. By weakening the First Amendment and creating different tiers of rights for citizens and non-citizens, this ruling hands the government a dangerous power: the power to intimidate, censor, and punish dissent without meaningful restraint. But I still have faith that the full court will correct the legal error and restore the constitutional principles that protect all people equally. This struggle continues for Palestine, for dignity and equality everywhere, and for the democratic promise of freedom that must belong to us all; until Palestine is free.” “The Second Circuit's decision is incredibly dangerous, not just for Mohsen but for all other noncitizens the Trump administration has its vengeful sights upon," said Luna Droubi of Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP. "Federal courts must have the power to step in when the government exploits our country’s immigration system to imprison people for their constitutionally-protected speech. If the Trump administration can target Mohsen for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights, they can do it to anyone expressing an opinion they disagree with. Despite today's disappointing ruling, we will keep fighting for justice for Mohsen and to protect the First Amendment rights of everyone in this country.” 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.

ST. LOUIS — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of North Dakota filed an amicus brief today with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Thunderhawk v. Kirchmeier, a case that challenges the government’s decision to close a public road during a Standing Rock protest, preventing people from assembling to express their opposition to the Dakota Access Pipeline. In the brief, the ACLU argues that roads of every kind — including rural roads, multi-lane roads and high-speed roads — have served as sites of protest throughout United States history, from the civil rights marches and anti-war demonstrations of the 1960s and ’70s to more recent protests, including marches in opposition to abortion, in support of rural healthcare and against police brutality. Courts across the country have long recognized that roads are quintessential traditional public forums and open for public assembly, debate, and the communication of ideas. “The government’s argument disregards our history of protest in the United States and misinterprets our fundamental First Amendment rights. Our right to assemble and protest in the streets should never depend on the type of roadway chosen,” said Andrew Malone, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of North Dakota. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that protesting in public streets is a time-honored American right. It is long overdue for police officers, prosecutors and government officials to uphold this constitutional standard.” For nearly eight years and through multiple rounds of dismissals and appeals, the government has argued that some streets, including rural roads, don’t belong to the community and that the road at issue in this case doesn’t deserve the same protection afforded to other public spaces. But, the ACLU argues in the brief, as one of the few communal spaces in rural areas, these roads are uniquely positioned to offer rural communities – and those wishing to address them – a public space in which to associate, communicate thoughts and discuss public issues. “Protesting on public roads is as American as apple pie, and that doesn’t change whether the road is a rural highway in North Dakota or 42nd St in New York City,” said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “People can turn the page in a magazine or change the channel on TV, but streets remain one of the few places where we have to confront ideas we might otherwise tune out—and that’s why our rights to protest on streets, sidewalks, and in public parks are so important.”

BOULDER, Colo. — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Colorado signed an amicus brief today supporting a challenge to a Colorado law that would require social media platforms to display a health warning to any minors using their platform, either via a government-drafted message or language derived from government-approved or peer-reviewed research materials. “Either way,” the brief argues, under the law, “publishers ... must regularly remind young people that reading, communicating, and creating information on social media may harm them.” “This law is markedly different than run-of-the-mill product warning labels because it would compel speakers to opine on the supposed harms of speech itself—and to communicate the government’s views on that speech,” said Cody Venzke, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Young people are not better protected in a world where the government forces speech to be labeled as ‘harmful.’ The First Amendment has blocked government attempts to regulate the ‘harm’ from drive-in movies, video games, and music lyrics. The Constitution ensures that these decisions are for speakers and listeners — not the government.” The Colorado law was passed in 2024 but soon paused by a federal judge, who found that it likely violated the First Amendment. Under the law, social media websites would be required to program a pop-up window or other tool to display to minors warnings about the impact of social media on their mental and physical health. Any pop-up would have to appear every 30 minutes if the users spent more than an hour on the website, or visited it between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. “Infringing on First Amendment rights is not the way to protect Colorado’s youth,” said Tim Macdonald, ACLU of Colorado legal director. “It is not up to the government to decide what speech is considered “harmful” and what is not. Forcing social media platforms to display government-approved messaging is a direct violation of the First Amendment which tightly restricts this type of compelled speech. We will not allow the government to threaten free expression behind the disguise of protecting youth.” NetChoice, a trade organization for social media companies, filed suit to challenge the law. Today’s amicus brief, led by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and signed by the ACLU, ACLU of Colorado, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and Woodhull Freedom Foundation, was filed with the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of their challenge. “From dime novels and comic books to television, music, and now social media, lawmakers have repeatedly tried to shield children from the supposed menace of the moment,” said Gill Sperlein, amicus attorney with FIRE. “But the First Amendment does not allow the government to censor or coerce speech in the name of protecting minors.” The ACLU has recently filed amicus briefs supporting challenges to a spate of state laws that would restrict young people’s access to social media, mandate or incentivize digital age verification processes, and threaten free speech online for people of all ages, including in Virginia, Louisiana, and Texas. "History shows that some of the greatest threats to free expression have come wrapped in the language of protecting children,” said Ricci Levy, president & CEO of the Woodhull Freedom Foundation. “Good intentions are never enough to justify eroding constitutional rights. Protecting young people is an important goal, but the First Amendment does not allow the government to force private speakers to deliver its preferred message." You can read the amicus brief here.