Koontz v. Watson - Complaint

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.

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union condemned a bill that passed today in the U.S. House of Representatives threatening to censor educators nationwide and compelling them to out transgender students against their will. Relying on the definitions advanced by a Trump administration executive order that has already censored government workers, doctors, scientists, artists, and historical records, H.R. 2616 would prohibit any school that receives federal funding from teaching “concepts related to gender ideology.” It could also forcibly out students who are transgender to their families before they feel ready or even safe doing so. “Every child in this country deserves the same opportunity to thrive as their peers, and that includes transgender students,” said Mike Zamore, National Director for Policy & Government Affairs for the ACLU. “Instead of strengthening that basic promise for all students, a narrow majority of the House opted to single out and endanger some of the most vulnerable youth in our schools today. This bill doesn’t create a safe learning environment for anyone – quite the opposite -- but it does inject politics into every classroom across the country, which harms education for all students. Censorship and discrimination have no place in our schools, and we call on the Senate to reject this bill.” The ACLU urged members of the House to vote against the bill and scored today’s vote.

Targeting Southern Poverty Law Center, a major civil rights organization, is the Trump administration's latest effort to punish groups it doesn't like.

This case asks whether an online business review constitutes speech about “a matter of public concern” that warrants protection under Minnesota’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act. We argue that it does because such reviews typically seek to inform the public and help consumers select goods and services. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the statutory and constitutional speech rights of Minnesotans, including consumers and other individuals who may face the threat of defamation suits for expressing their views in public.