ACLU Urges House Committee to Remove Dangerous Anti-Dissent Provision from Tax Bill

BOSTON – Rümeysa Öztürk has returned to her home in Türkiye following the successful completion of her PhD program in child study and human development, with a focus on young people’s positive behaviors on social media, in February. A little over one year after ICE unlawfully detained Dr. Öztürk in retaliation for co-authoring an op-ed in The Tufts Daily, the parties reached a settlement to resolve outstanding legal issues in federal court and to jointly move to dismiss her immigration proceedings. “After 13 years of dedicated study, I am very proud to have completed my Ph.D. and to return home on my own timeline,” said Dr. Rümeysa Öztürk. “The time stolen from me by the U.S. government belongs not just to me, but to the children and youth I have dedicated my life to advocating for. With them in mind, I am choosing to return home as planned to continue my career as a woman scholar without losing more time to the state-imposed violence and hostility I have experienced in the United States – all for nothing more than co-signing an op-ed advocating for Palestinian rights. “As I start the next chapter of my life, I stand firmly in solidarity with academic communities in the U.S. and elsewhere who live in fear for nothing more than their scholarship, and with other scholars punished for their courageous advocacy for Palestine,” Dr. Öztürk continued. “I invite all universities to do better about listening and valuing all of their students as equal community members, rather than favoring some and silencing others. And I invite everyone to recognize the privilege it is for any country to host international scholars, and the hole that is left in our society when that privilege is lost." An immigration judge terminated the removal proceedings against Dr. Öztürk earlier this year, finding that the government had no basis to deport her. The government appealed that decision soon after to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). This week, under the terms of the settlement agreement, the government and Dr. Öztürk jointly requested termination of proceedings in front of the BIA. "Rümeysa’s professional and academic accomplishments are impressive, impactful and inspiring, and her positive contributions to the field of child development will only continue to grow as she starts this next chapter,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts. “The government’s arrest and detention of Rümeysa was unlawful and harmful, as numerous federal court decisions have confirmed that the government had no basis for its actions aside from her constitutionally protected speech. Yet even as the government continued a relentless campaign against Rümeysa for nothing more than co-authoring an op-ed, she continued to navigate her studies and her advocacy with strength and grace, and she succeeded in her goal of obtaining her Ph.D. to work towards bettering the lives of children.” In January, documents revealed as part of the AAUP v. Rubio trial made clear that the government targeted Dr. Öztürk for detention solely for her constitutionally protected speech. Internal government documents show that the government knew that they found no grounds to detain her, or seek to deport her, other than her co-authoring an op-ed in a student newspaper. “Rümeysa should never have been detained for expressing her opinions in a country that is supposed to protect freedom of speech,” said Esha Bhandari, director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The government’s retaliatory actions violated the Constitution, and having recourse to federal court was essential to secure her release and enable her to complete her Ph.D. We are grateful that she could make decisions about her future on her own terms.” Under the settlement agreement, Dr. Öztürk was free to return to Türkiye without further interference by the Department of Homeland Security. The government also expressly acknowledged that her SEVIS status has been reinstated and that she was in lawful status at all times that she was in the United States. Dr. Öztürk’s SEVIS case and habeas case will be dismissed as part of the settlement. A federal court in the District of Massachusetts had granted her a preliminary injunction in her SEVIS case, which the federal government had indicated it would appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Her habeas case was last argued in front of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, where a decision was pending. “Despite the administration’s best efforts to punish her for co-authoring an op-ed, Rümeysa successfully completed her Ph.D. program,” said Naz Ahmad, Acting Director of CLEAR. “No student or academic should be deprived of the opportunity to study or pursue research simply because the administration disagrees with their political views, as they attempted to do with Rümeysa. As she embarks on the next stage of her career, we’re excited to see what Rümeysa chooses to do.” Dr. Öztürk is represented in her federal court proceedings by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Massachusetts, ACLU of Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Abady Brinckerhoff Ward & Maazel LLP. For images from her graduation, please email media@aclu.org. For case materials, please see here.

NEW YORK — After Mahmoud Khalil appealed an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) today issued a “final” administrative removal order in his case in retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian rights. The order does not change the status quo and will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Khalil still cannot lawfully be detained or deported while his separate, ongoing federal habeas corpus case continues in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. “I am not surprised by this decision from the biased and politically motivated Board of Immigration Appeals. I have committed no crime. I have broken no law. The only thing I am guilty of is speaking out against the genocide in Palestine — and this administration has weaponized the immigration system to punish me for it,” said Mahmoud Khalil. “My family is here. My life is here. I reject any attempt to intimidate me out of my home based on lies and ideological attacks. This is not justice. This is just another attempt to retaliate against me. I will continue fighting for my rights in court, and I will not be deterred — for me, my family, and all immigrants in this country who want to speak out against injustice.” The BIA, like all immigration courts, is controlled by the Executive Branch. Since taking office, the Trump administration has gutted the BIA, cutting it nearly in half and transforming it into a tool for accelerating deportations. Nearly all BIA decisions in recent months have resulted in a negative outcome for the noncitizens facing removal. The BIA’s decision in Mr. Khalil’s case was based on both of the government’s immigration charges against him, which Mr. Khalil has argued are unconstitutional retaliation against his speech. The first part of the BIA’s order relies on the so-called “Rubio determination” under the “foreign policy ground” of the Immigration and Nationality Act, despite the fact that a federal district court in New Jersey ruled it was likely an unconstitutional basis for Mr. Khalil’s deportation and enjoined it from being used as a basis for a removal order. The BIA also upheld a meritless second charge, added only after Mr. Khalil challenged the foreign policy ground. A tranche of internal government documents from the AAUP v. Rubio trial last year showed the government itself found no basis for the second charge before detaining him. “In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision. The BIA's decision has absolutely no support in the record, violates a federal court order, and we’ll be fighting it until the end,” said his lead immigration attorney Marc Van Der Hout. “Federal courts have already agreed that Mahmoud was targeted for his speech, and there is likely much more evidence of the government’s unlawful retaliation that has yet to come to light. This is a clear continuation of the administration’s retaliation against Mahmoud for exercising his First Amendment rights.” The New Jersey district court’s orders prohibiting the government from re-detaining or deporting Mr. Khalil as his federal case proceeds remain in effect. In the Third Circuit, Mr. Khalil has asked the full appeals court to consider his case, after a split decision from a three-judge panel found that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition seeking his release. The Third Circuit’s panel decision has not taken effect and does not alter the district court’s injunction and bail order while his habeas appeals continue. “The only thing keeping the government from accomplishing its unconstitutional goals is the intervention of a federal district court last summer,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “Without the protection of a habeas court, the government could do this to anyone, which is why today’s decision is an important reminder of the stakes of Mahmoud’s habeas case. We will continue to use all legal levers available to protect our client and defend the First Amendment against this cruel and relentless campaign.” Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the ACLU of New Jersey.

PHILADELPHIA — Today, Mahmoud Khalil’s legal team asked the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals to re-consider the three-judge panel’s 2-1 decision overturning a lower court’s orders releasing Mr. Khalil on bail and barring the government from detaining or deporting him based on Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s vague and unsupported assertion that Mr. Khalil’s lawful protected speech would “compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” The panel decision would effectively block anyone in immigration proceedings from challenging their detention on First Amendment grounds in federal court until those proceedings are complete, no matter how long they may take or how unconstitutional the basis for their detention. “There is no world in which Mahmoud should be torn away from his family for a second time and sent back behind bars for his protected speech,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel in the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “In this country, the government cannot punish people just because they don’t like what they have to say, and it is imperative that federal courts are immediately available to halt unconstitutional detentions. That’s what the district court did here, and we think those orders should and will be upheld in the end.” Back in June, the court found that Mr. Khalil was likely to succeed on the merits of his constitutional challenge to his detention and attempted deportation on the Foreign Policy Ground, and it ordered his release on bail based on the extraordinary circumstances of his detention, including the government’s failure to produce any evidence of flight risk or dangerousness. A federal judge granted Mr. Khalil’s request for a preliminary injunction after concluding that he would continue to suffer irreparable harm if the government continued efforts to detain and deport him on the basis of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s determination. In January, two judges on the Third Circuit panel ruled that the lower court’s order should be overturned, without evaluating the merits of his constitutional claims, but because they held the federal court did not have jurisdiction to even consider ordering Mr. Khalil's release for the months or years his immigration proceedings remained ongoing. However the third judge, the Honorable Arianna Freeman dissented, concluded that under Third Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, a federal court can hear Mr. Khalil’s “now-or-never claims” because without immediate federal review, Mr. Khalil will suffer irreparable harm from detention that cannot be remedied after the executive branch’s own administrative immigration process runs its course. As Judge Freeman further explains, the majority opinion “renders meaningful review hollow," and “only this habeas petition can provide Khalil meaningful review of the First Amendment harms from his detention.” The Trump administration and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) illegally arrested and detained Mr. Khalil in direct retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights at Columbia University. Shortly after, DHS transferred him 1,300 miles away to a Louisiana detention facility — ripping him from his then eight-months pregnant wife and legal counsel. During the 104 days he remained in ICE custody, Mr. Khalil missed the birth of his first child. “Federal courts must have the power to step in when the government exploits our country’s immigration system to punish people for their protected speech,” said Bobby Hodgson, Assistant Legal Director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “This case goes to the heart of what the First Amendment protects: if the Trump administration can target, arrest, and deport Mahmoud for his speech, they can do it to anyone expressing an opinion they disagree with.” Earlier this month, Mr. Khalil’s legal team filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is controlled by the Department of Justice, asking that it reverse a lower immigration court’s unprecedented decision to sustain a baseless, after-the-fact charge related to his green card application and asking that it terminate the proceedings entirely. As detailed in their appeal, this charge was retaliatory and only added after Mr. Khalil challenged the government’s violations of his constitutional rights. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, 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. For all case materials, please see here, here, and here.