红杏视频

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected the Trump administration鈥檚 request for a stay of a lower court鈥檚 decision to release Dr. Badar Khan Suri from detention on bail. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him on March 17th in retaliation for constitutionally protected speech and association, and he spent eight weeks in detention, mostly in Texas. Upon his release in May, he returned home to his wife and three children in Virginia, where his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of his arrest is proceeding. 鈥淚 am grateful for my freedom and for the time I have to spend with my family. I have faith that the American judiciary will protect my constitutional rights,鈥� said Dr. Badar Khan Suri. The Trump administration both appealed the ruling and sought a stay, which, if granted, would have allowed ICE to re-detain Dr. Khan Suri. With this decision, he will now remain free pending the Fourth Circuit鈥檚 consideration of the appeal. The government鈥檚 opening brief is due on July 14. 鈥淭he Trump administration is trying to silence speech it doesn鈥檛 agree with by targeting people like Dr. Khan Suri and Mahmoud Khalil, but ideas are not illegal,鈥� said Mary Bauer, executive director of the 红杏视频 of Virginia. 鈥淎mericans don鈥檛 want to live in a country where the federal government 鈥榙isappears鈥� people whose views it doesn鈥檛 like. The First Amendment protects all of us 鈥� regardless of citizenship 鈥� from being punished by the government for our political speech.鈥� Dr. Khan Suri, an Indian national, is a visa holder whose wife and children are U.S. citizens. Prior to his arrest, Dr. Khan Suri and his wife, who is Palestinian American, were doxxed by groups that target advocates for Palestinian rights. Agents abducted Dr. Khan Suri outside his home because of his speech in support of Palestinian rights and his family ties to Gaza, then secretly transported him 1,500 miles away from his family and his attorneys, moving him between five different ICE facilities in three states in four days. 鈥淭he Fourth Circuit has prevented the government from re-detaining Dr. Khan Suri, recognizing what is at stake here: Dr. Khan Suri鈥檚 right to stand in solidarity with Palestinians, his continued freedom from punitive and retaliatory incarceration, and his freedom to be with his family and community,鈥� said Astha Sharma Pokharel, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. He is challenging his arrest and detention under the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Separately, his immigration case, in which the Trump administration is seeking to deport him, is now also proceeding in Virginia. 鈥淭he appeals court has rightly denied the government鈥檚 desperate and cruel attempt to re-detain Dr. Khan Suri over a thousand miles away from his family and community,鈥� said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淲e will continue to work to vindicate Dr. Khan Suri鈥檚 First Amendment rights so that others do not have to fear imprisonment for speaking out about issues that matter to them." Today鈥檚 ruling adds to a string of losses for the Trump administration in cases in which it has arrested immigrant students and academics for criticizing U.S. support of Israel鈥檚 assault on Gaza. In recent weeks, federal district courts have ordered Dr. Khan Suri, Tufts Ph.D student R眉meysa 脰zt眉rk, and Columbia students Mohsen Mahdawi and Mahmoud Khalil released from detention. Dr. Khan Suri is represented in his federal lawsuit by the 红杏视频 of Virginia, the 红杏视频, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the HMA Law Firm, and the Immigrants and Non-Citizens Rights Clinic at the CUNY School of Law.

PROVIDENCE, R.I. 鈥� Four arts organizations filed a motion for summary judgment today, arguing that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is violating the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act in its implementation of an executive order that prohibits federal funding for 鈥済ender ideology.鈥� If the motion is granted, the suit could be resolved without trial. The motion comes after the NEA admitted that it would judge projects based on whether they 鈥減romote鈥� what the government deems to be 鈥済ender ideology鈥� and after it reinstated a requirement that grant applicants agree to abide by all executive orders when applying. 鈥淭heatre is one of our most powerful reflections of humanity鈥攁 space where truth-tellers and artists hold up a mirror to our lives, our struggles, and our joys,鈥� said LaTeshia Ellerson, co-executive director of national engagement at Theatre Communications Group. 鈥淥n stage, we see ourselves through the eyes of artists who dare to reveal the deepest parts of who we are. The First Amendment protects this essential freedom to create without fear of censorship or discrimination. As we join our co-plaintiffs in filing this motion, we urge the court to affirm what is both constitutionally and morally clear: all artists and storytellers have the right to be heard.鈥� The suit was first filed in March after the NEA began requiring applicants to attest that they would not promote 鈥済ender ideology鈥� in order to be eligible for funding and blocked any projects that appeared to promote 鈥済ender ideology鈥� from getting an award. In April, the court held that the NEA鈥檚 decision to make any project that 鈥減romotes鈥� what the government calls 鈥済ender ideology鈥� ineligible for funds likely violated the First Amendment and exceeded its statutory authority. 鈥淭he First Amendment protects our right to artistic freedom,鈥� said Adam Odsess-Rubin, founding artistic director at National Queer Theater. 鈥淨ueer art is American art, and censorship is un-American. We will continue to fight for our constitutionally protected freedom of speech.鈥� In response to the litigation, the NEA paused the 鈥済ender ideology鈥�-specific certification requirement. More recently, however, it reinstated the requirement that applicants comply with all executive orders. 鈥淭he NEA has admitted that it is screening art projects for 鈥榞ender ideology,鈥欌�� said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭his is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. By judging projects based on whether they fit the government鈥檚 worldview, the NEA is abandoning its statutory role to fund works based on excellence and merit, as well as violating the free expression rights of artists across the country.鈥� 鈥淲e know that the NEA is not upholding the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment,鈥� said Steven Brown, executive director of the 红杏视频 of Rhode Island. 鈥淚f Rhode Island Latino Arts鈥� grant application, and all the plaintiffs鈥� applications, are denied funding because of ideology, then this would be a major step backward in our collective right to freedom of speech. We are hopeful the court will not accept the NEA鈥檚 troubling arguments.鈥� The 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Rhode Island, David Cole, and Lynette Labinger, cooperating counsel for the 红杏视频-RI, filed the motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island on behalf of Rhode Island Latino Arts; National Queer Theater; The Theater Offensive; and the Theatre Communications Group. The motion can be viewed here.

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court issued a blow to freedom of speech and privacy today by upholding Texas legislation that requires invasive age verification to access online content. Today鈥檚 ruling conflicts with decades of Supreme Court precedent protecting the free speech rights of adults to access sexual content online. But it is also a limited opinion that does not permit age verification for non-sexual content online. 鈥淭he Supreme Court has departed from decades of settled precedents that ensured that sweeping laws purportedly for the benefit of minors do not limit adults鈥� access to First Amendment-protected materials,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the 红杏视频. 鈥淭he Texas statute at issue shows why those precedents applying strict scrutiny were needed. The legislature claims to be protecting children from sexually explicit materials, but the law will do little to block their access, and instead deters adults from viewing vast amounts of First Amendment-protected content.鈥� Texas鈥檚 H.B. 1181 mandates that any website where one-third or more of its content is deemed sexual in a way that is 鈥渉armful to minors鈥� must require visitors to prove they are adults before accessing the site. The act defines 鈥渟exual material harmful to minors鈥� as material that is obscene from the perspective of an average person considering the material鈥檚 effect on minors. 鈥淭oday's decision does not mean that age verification can be lawfully imposed across the internet,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频 Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 鈥淲ith this decision, the court has carved out an unprincipled pornography exception to the First Amendment. The Constitution should protect adults鈥� rights to access information about sex online, even if the government thinks it is too inappropriate for children to see." The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit鈥檚 ruling that mere rational basis scrutiny applies, instead imposing intermediate scrutiny, but it affirmed the Fifth Circuit Court鈥檚 ultimate conclusion that the law survives 鈥� and refused to apply strict scrutiny, as challenges to content-based laws typically do. However, the Texas law burdens adults鈥� ability to access sexual materials, requiring individuals to disclose personal information vulnerable to surveillance and data breaches just to access online content. The law also ultimately fails to achieve its intended purpose. Because the law only applies if one-third of a site鈥檚 content is explicit, the online sites where minors are most likely to be exposed to sexual content, like forums or social media platforms, are not affected. 鈥淎s it has been throughout history, pornography is once again the canary in the coal mine of free expression,鈥� said Alison Boden, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition. 鈥淭he government should not have the right to demand that we sacrifice our privacy and security to use the internet. This law has failed to keep minors away from sexual content yet continues to have a massive chilling effect on adults. The outcome is disastrous for Texans and for anyone who cares about freedom of speech and privacy online.鈥� The Supreme Court repeatedly heard cases on this issue in the past, many of which were brought by the 红杏视频, and had consistently held that requiring users to verify their age to access protected content is unconstitutional where there are less restrictive alternatives available, like filtering software. The Free Speech Coalition is represented by Quinn Emanuel, the 红杏视频, and the 红杏视频 of Texas. This case is a part of the 红杏视频鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. The decision can be read here.

The 红杏视频 has served as counsel or filed amicus briefs in more than half of the cases that the Supreme Court will decide today.