şěĐÓĘÓƵ Slams Senate Passage of Kids Online Safety Act, Urges House to Protect Free Speech
WASHINGTON, DC – The Senate today passed the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which would violate the First Amendment by enabling the federal government to dictate what information people can access online and encourage social media platforms to censor protected speech. The House of Representatives must vote no on this dangerous legislation.
“KOSA compounds nationwide attacks on young peoples’ right to learn and access information, on and offline,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the şěĐÓĘÓƵ. “As state legislatures and school boards across the country impose book bans and classroom censorship laws, the last thing students and parents need is another act of government censorship deciding which educational resources are appropriate for their families. The House must block this dangerous bill before it’s too late.”
As the şěĐÓĘÓƵ and a wide array of civil rights, civil liberties, and privacy organizations have repeatedly explained, this bill would not keep kids safe, but instead threaten young people’s privacy, limit minors’ access to vital resources, and silence important online conversations for all ages. The şěĐÓĘÓƵ has also raised concerns about how this bill could be used to limit adults' ability to express themselves freely online or access diverse viewpoints.
The şěĐÓĘÓƵ is also worried that the government’s attempts to regulate select design features will implicate First Amendment-protected speech. If passed, this legislation would require online platforms that minors are likely to use to take steps to prevent harm. While the revised duty of care requirement supposedly regulates “design features” instead of speech, the list of “design features” are defined so broadly that platforms are likely to censor content that could prove objectionable to the government, which could include anything from sexual health resources to information about gender identity, or how to get help for an eating disorder.
This vote comes just days after the şěĐÓĘÓƵ more than 300 students in a lobbying day on Capitol Hill in opposition to the bill.
“It’s called the Kids Online Safety Act, but they have to consider kids’ voices, and some of us don’t think it will make us safer,” said Anjali Verma, a 17-year-old rising high school senior. “We live on the internet, and we are afraid that important information we’ve accessed all our lives will no longer be available. We need lawmakers to listen to young people when making decisions that affect us."
Learn More şěĐÓĘÓƵ the Issues in This Press Release
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Mahmoud Khalil’s Lawsuit Can Move Forward in Federal Court, Judge Finds
NEWARK, N.J. – The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled today that Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and recent Columbia graduate student, can move forward with his lawsuit claiming the government is unlawfully detaining him for his political views. The court rejected the government’s attempt to shut down Mr. Khalil’s case before it could be heard. “As I am now caring for our barely week-old son, it is even more urgent that we continue to speak out for Mahmoud’s freedom, and for the freedom of all people being unjustly targeted for advocating against Israel's genocide in Gaza,” said Dr. Noor Abdalla, wife of Mahmoud Khalil. “I am relieved at the court’s finding that my husband can move forward with his case in federal court. This is an important step towards securing Mahmoud’s freedom. But there is still more work to be done. I will continue to strongly advocate for my husband, so he can come home to our family, and feel the pure joy all parents know of holding your first-born child in your arms.” “The court has affirmed that the federal government does not have the unreviewable authority to trample on our fundamental freedoms,” said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with the şěĐÓĘÓƵ’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “This is a huge step forward for Mahmoud and for the other students and scholars that the Trump administration has unlawfully detained in retaliation for their political speech, and a rebuke of attempts by the executive to use immigration laws to weaken First Amendment protections for political gain.” The Trump administration has tried to argue that provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act prevent the court from reviewing Mr. Khalil’s First Amendment claims right now. But the court firmly disagreed, concluding “that jurisdiction is not stripped over the Petitioner’s claims that the Secretary of State’s determination and the alleged policy are unconstitutional.” In a previous ruling, the court blocked Mr. Khalil’s deportation in the absence of a court order. “Today we moved one step closer to vindicating Mr. Khalil’s rights by challenging his unlawful detention and the administration’s unconstitutional and retaliatory actions against him,” said Amy Greer, associate attorney at Dratel + Lewis. “We're grateful the court has held it has the power to hear this important case, meaning Mr. Khalil is one step closer to returning home to his family,” said Amol Sinha, executive director of the şěĐÓĘÓƵ-NJ. “Mr. Khalil has been unlawfully detained in direct retaliation for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights. The federal government continues to prolong proceedings despite knowing that targeting a lawful permanent resident over protected speech is indefensible in a court of law.” Mr. Khalil’s legal team has pending motions before the court to compel his return from Louisiana and to grant bail. In addition, his legal team is urging the court to grant a preliminary injunction (PI), which would immediately release him from custody to be reunited with his wife, who recently gave birth to the couple’s first child while Mr. Khalil remained in ICE detention. If granted, the PI would also block President Trump’s policy of arresting and detaining noncitizens who have engaged in First Amendment protected activity in support of Palestinian rights. “We are grateful the court wisely understood that this is no ordinary immigration case that might be subject to congressional limitations on federal court review,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. ““In a case like this, where Mahmoud is challenging a patently unconstitutional policy and being punished for his protected speech in support of Palestinian rights, the federal courts have to review and hopefully soon invalidate the government’s outrageous action.” “With this ruling, the Court has made clear that the Trump administration cannot do an end run around the judiciary in its attempt to silence Mahmoud Khalil and suppress speech supporting Palestinian rights,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU. “Now, Mr. Khalil’s claims can move forward – putting him one step closer to returning home to his wife and newborn son." On March 8, the 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 1,400 miles away to a Louisiana detention facility — ripping him away from his wife and legal counsel. His suit argues that his arrest and continued detention violate his constitutional rights, including rights to free speech and due process, and that they go beyond the government’s legal authority. “The court's decision today clears the way for what really matters: continuing the legal fight to bring Mahmoud home so he can reunite with Noor and resume his defense of Palestinian rights,” said Ramzi Kassem, co-director of CLEAR. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the şěĐÓĘÓƵ of New Jersey, and şěĐÓĘÓƵ (şěĐÓĘÓƵ). The decision can be found here. For all case materials, please see here.Court Case: Khalil v. TrumpAffiliates: New Jersey, New York -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Next Week: Appeals Court to Consider Stay of Rümeysa Öztürk’s Transfer to Vermont
NEW YORK – The Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday issued an administrative stay while it considers the government’s request for an emergency stay of Judge Sessions’ order to transfer RĂĽmeysa Ă–ztĂĽrk to Vermont, as well as her legal team’s opposition to that request. The appeals court ordered the government to reply to her opposition by Thursday, May 1, and set arguments for Tuesday, May 6. The Second Circuit’s order is not a ruling on the merits of the government’s request to keep Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk in a Louisiana detention center. Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk’s legal team released the following statement in response: “RĂĽmeysa Ă–ztĂĽrk never should have been arrested and detained, period. We are ready to argue her case before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and we won’t stop fighting until she is free.” Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk, a former Fulbright scholar and current Tufts University Ph.D. student researching child development, was arrested on March 25 by plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Massachusetts in retaliation for co-authoring an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper. After the arrest, the government transported her through multiple states, then flew her thousands of miles away to Louisiana. On April 4, just 24 hours after a court hearing, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that the challenge to ICE’s detention of Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk should continue in Vermont, not Louisiana. The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont affirmed that Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk’s federal case should continue in Vermont and that the government must transfer her back to a facility in Vermont by May 1. The government appealed this decision last week. Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk is represented in immigration court by Mahsa Khanbabai and Marty Rosenbluth, and in federal court by Mahsa Khanbabai, the şěĐÓĘÓƵ, şěĐÓĘÓƵ of Massachusetts, şěĐÓĘÓƵ of Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP.Court Case: Ă–ztĂĽrk v. TrumpAffiliates: Massachusetts, Vermont -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Mahmoud Khalil Urges Court to Allow Public and Press Access to Immigration Proceedings
JENA, La. — Attorneys for Mahmoud Khalil, a U.S. green card holder who has been detained for almost two months after speaking out in support of Palestinian freedom, filed two motions early this morning seeking to ensure fairness and transparency at his upcoming immigration hearings. The two motions demand the court address serious due process violations that marred his last hearing and ensure the public’s right to access future proceedings. At Mr. Khalil’s April 11 hearing, despite federal policy guaranteeing lawyers the right to use electronic devices during immigration court proceedings, his in-person counsel was abruptly barred from bringing laptops or phones into the courtroom — while Department of Homeland Security attorneys were allowed to use theirs. Even after Nora Ahmed of the şěĐÓĘÓƵ of Louisiana confirmed her right to bring electronics with facility officials before the hearing, she was forced to surrender all devices moments before court began. She was also denied the chance to raise the issue with the facility administrator or to challenge the decision on the record. As the motion explains, “the denial implicates issues of fundamental fairness in these proceedings and was particularly troubling because it occurred at a hearing of such enormous consequence for Mr. Khalil.” In a separate filing, Mr. Khalil’s legal team also urged the court to expand public access to future hearings. During previous hearings, hundreds of members of the public attempted to observe remotely but were shut out — 550 individuals were denied access to a Webex link on April 8 alone. No overflow room was provided, and no accommodation was made for those turned away, despite widespread public interest and the First Amendment right to open court proceedings. The motions filed today seek to correct these violations by ensuring Mr. Khalil’s attorneys can use necessary electronic devices in court, and by expanding access to hearings through Webex, telephonic lines, or an overflow room for members of the public and press. “What happened to Mahmoud Khalil is not unique — detained immigrants across the country face barriers to a fair hearing every day,” said Nora Ahmed, legal director of the şěĐÓĘÓƵ of Louisiana. “By standing up for Mahmoud’s rights, we’re fighting to make sure that no one else is silenced by arbitrary restrictions or denied the basic tools they need to defend themselves in court. Fairness, transparency, and equal access to justice must be guaranteed for everyone — not just the government.” These motions come just days after the Trump administration admitted Mr. Khalil was taken without an arrest warrant. In the federal court, Mr. Khalil’s legal team is continuing to seek bail, an order compelling the government to return him to New Jersey, and a preliminary injunction (PI) that would immediately release him from custody and allow him to reunite with his family in New York while his immigration case proceeds. If granted, the PI would also block President Trump’s policy of arresting and detaining noncitizens who have engaged in First Amendment protected activity in support of Palestinian rights. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the şěĐÓĘÓƵ, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the şěĐÓĘÓƵ of New Jersey.Court Case: Khalil v. TrumpAffiliates: Louisiana, New York, New Jersey -
Press ReleaseApr 2025
Free Speech
Appeals Court Must Reject Government’s Cruel Attempt to Keep Rümeysa Öztürk in Louisiana
NEW YORK — Tonight RĂĽmeysa Ă–ztĂĽrk’s legal team filed their opposition to the Trump administration's emergency request to an appeals court to pause a federal judge's order requiring her transfer from an ICE detention center in Louisiana to Vermont by May 1. The government's request, known as a “motion to stay,” aims to temporarily halt the court's directive while the government appeals the ruling. It follows Judge Sessions’ denial of the government’s request that he stay Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk’s transfer. In practice, that temporary pause could last many months. Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk’s attorneys are arguing that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction at this stage and that the criteria for granting a stay are not met. They assert that the district court's proceedings should continue and that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals should deny the government’s attempt to halt Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk's transfer to Vermont. The government requested a ruling on the stay motion by April 29.​ “The Second Circuit should deny the Trump administration’s desperate attempt to avoid having to justify their unconstitutional retaliation against RĂĽmeysa in the district court,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel with the şěĐÓĘÓƵ’s Center for Democracy. “What is happening here is beyond shocking. If a young woman in another country was locked up for over a month because of an op-ed she co-wrote in a student newspaper, Americans would shudder at the thought. It's sickening that our own government not only did this but is tirelessly seeking to defer any judicial review of its misconduct while our client sits in a detention center in Louisiana, far from anything she's ever known, for who knows how long.” Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk, a child development researcher and Tufts University Ph.D. student here on a valid student visa, was arrested on March 25 by plainclothes ICE agents in Somerville, Massachusetts, in retaliation for co-authoring an op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper. After the arrest, the government transported her through multiple states, then flew her thousands of miles away to Louisiana, where she’s been detained ever since. In an April 24 decision, the district court noted “the government has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its jurisdictional arguments” and “any unnecessary delay of Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk’s transfer to this District would likely disrupt or delay the Court’s proceedings, potentially prolonging the very detention that is at the heart of this case.” The court also explained that “Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk’s return to Vermont would not unduly burden the government” and her continued detention in Louisiana “would not be in the public interest.” The district court noted that “the remedy here is simple, a return to the status quo” and concluded that her return to Vermont “would restore the status quo.” Members of Congress, including Massachusetts Reps. Ayanna Pressley and Jim McGovern, and Sen. Ed Markey, traveled to Louisiana this week to meet with her and advocate for her immediate release. This visit came after her legal team revealed that she has suffered a series of asthma attacks while in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) custody and has not been receiving adequate medical care. In her declaration, Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk said that her holding cell was crowded beyond capacity and the unsanitary, damp conditions was triggering her asthma. “The conditions in the facility are very unsanitary, unsafe, and inhumane,” she said. “There is a mouse in our cell. The boxes they provide for our clothing are very dirty and they don’t give us adequate hygiene supplies.” Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk is represented by the şěĐÓĘÓƵ, şěĐÓĘÓƵ of Massachusetts, şěĐÓĘÓƵ of Vermont, CLEAR, Emery Celli Abady Brinckerhoff Ward & Maazel LLP, and Mahsa Khanbabai of Khanbabai Immigration Law. The following are additional quotes from Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk’s legal team: Sonya Levitova, Associate, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP: “The government has imprisoned RĂĽmeysa for over a month for saying what she thinks. Now it’s trying to evade judicial scrutiny of its violations of her constitutional rights by running to the Second Circuit. Enough of this. RĂĽmeysa must be returned to Vermont and freed.” Jessie Rossman, legal director, şěĐÓĘÓƵ of Massachusetts: “Try as it might, the government cannot hide the simple truth at the heart of this case—there is no legitimate basis for RĂĽmeysa's imprisonment, and the government has absolutely violated her constitutional rights. Every moment she spends behind bars is a moment too long. Her transfer to Vermont will bring her one step closer to her freedom, and we will not stop fighting until she wins.” Lia Ernst, legal director, şěĐÓĘÓƵ of Vermont: “31 days. That’s how long RĂĽmeysa has been wrongfully imprisoned by the United States government for writing an op-ed in a student newspaper. While the government recycles arguments already rejected by the courts and uses stall tactics to deny our client justice, RĂĽmeysa remains behind bars for her constitutionally protected speech. We will not stop fighting for her freedom.” Mahsa Khanbabai of Khanbabai Immigration Law: “There is no doubt that Rumeysa is a political prisoner for having taken a pen to paper to stand up for the human rights of the Palestinian people. The Trump Administration has no evidence of wrongdoing so they use delay tactics and abuse our legal system in an attempt to cover up their weak arguments. We should be spending hard earned US taxpayer dollars for better healthcare and housing for the American people and not on private for-profit prisons.” Mudassar Toppa, staff attorney at CLEAR, a legal non-profit and clinic at CUNY School of Law: “The government is terrified at the prospect of Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk having her day before a court to challenge her blatantly unconstitutional abduction in broad daylight in retaliation for her speech defending Palestinian human rights. Try as they might to delay and evade accountability, we will not rest until Ms. Ă–ztĂĽrk’s claims against the government are vindicated and she is able to return to her community.” For documents and other case information, see here.Court Case: Ă–ztĂĽrk v. TrumpAffiliates: Massachusetts, Vermont