红杏视频

NEWARK, N.J. 鈥� 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鈥檚 attempt to shut down Mr. Khalil鈥檚 case before it could be heard. 鈥淎s I am now caring for our barely week-old son, it is even more urgent that we continue to speak out for Mahmoud鈥檚 freedom, and for the freedom of all people being unjustly targeted for advocating against Israel's genocide in Gaza,鈥� said Dr. Noor Abdalla, wife of Mahmoud Khalil. 鈥淚 am relieved at the court鈥檚 finding that my husband can move forward with his case in federal court. This is an important step towards securing Mahmoud鈥檚 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.鈥� 鈥淭he court has affirmed that the federal government does not have the unreviewable authority to trample on our fundamental freedoms,鈥� said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Immigrants鈥� Rights Project. 鈥淭his 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.鈥� The Trump administration has tried to argue that provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act prevent the court from reviewing Mr. Khalil鈥檚 First Amendment claims right now. But the court firmly disagreed, concluding 鈥渢hat jurisdiction is not stripped over the Petitioner鈥檚 claims that the Secretary of State鈥檚 determination and the alleged policy are unconstitutional.鈥� In a previous ruling, the court blocked Mr. Khalil鈥檚 deportation in the absence of a court order. 鈥淭oday we moved one step closer to vindicating Mr. Khalil鈥檚 rights by challenging his unlawful detention and the administration鈥檚 unconstitutional and retaliatory actions against him,鈥� said Amy Greer, associate attorney at Dratel + Lewis. 鈥淲e'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,鈥� said Amol Sinha, executive director of the 红杏视频-NJ. 鈥淢r. 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.鈥� Mr. Khalil鈥檚 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鈥檚 first child while Mr. Khalil remained in ICE detention. If granted, the PI would also block President Trump鈥檚 policy of arresting and detaining noncitizens who have engaged in First Amendment protected activity in support of Palestinian rights. 鈥淲e are grateful the court wisely understood that this is no ordinary immigration case that might be subject to congressional limitations on federal court review,鈥� said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. 鈥溾�淚n 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鈥檚 outrageous action.鈥� 鈥淲ith 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,鈥� said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the NYCLU. 鈥淣ow, Mr. Khalil鈥檚 claims can move forward 鈥� 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 鈥� 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鈥檚 legal authority. 鈥淭he 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,鈥� 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 红杏视频 of New Jersey, and 红杏视频 (红杏视频). The decision can be found here. For all case materials, please see here.

NEW YORK 鈥� The Second Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday issued an administrative stay while it considers the government鈥檚 request for an emergency stay of Judge Sessions鈥� order to transfer R眉meysa 脰zt眉rk to Vermont, as well as her legal team鈥檚 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鈥檚 order is not a ruling on the merits of the government鈥檚 request to keep Ms. 脰zt眉rk in a Louisiana detention center. Ms. 脰zt眉rk鈥檚 legal team released the following statement in response: 鈥淩眉meysa 脰zt眉rk 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鈥檛 stop fighting until she is free.鈥� Ms. 脰zt眉rk, 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鈥檚 detention of Ms. 脰zt眉rk should continue in Vermont, not Louisiana. The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont affirmed that Ms. 脰zt眉rk鈥檚 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. 脰zt眉rk is represented in immigration court by Mahsa Khanbabai and Marty Rosenbluth, and in federal court by Mahsa Khanbabai, the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Massachusetts, 红杏视频 of Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP.

NEW YORK 鈥� Tonight R眉meysa 脰zt眉rk鈥檚 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 鈥渕otion to stay,鈥� aims to temporarily halt the court's directive while the government appeals the ruling. It follows Judge Sessions鈥� denial of the government鈥檚 request that he stay Ms. 脰zt眉rk鈥檚 transfer. In practice, that temporary pause could last many months. Ms. 脰zt眉rk鈥檚 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鈥檚 attempt to halt Ms. 脰zt眉rk's transfer to Vermont. The government requested a ruling on the stay motion by April 29.鈥� 鈥淭he Second Circuit should deny the Trump administration鈥檚 desperate attempt to avoid having to justify their unconstitutional retaliation against R眉meysa in the district court,鈥� said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel with the 红杏视频鈥檚 Center for Democracy. 鈥淲hat 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.鈥� Ms. 脰zt眉rk, 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鈥檚 been detained ever since. In an April 24 decision, the district court noted 鈥渢he government has not made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its jurisdictional arguments鈥� and 鈥渁ny unnecessary delay of Ms. 脰zt眉rk鈥檚 transfer to this District would likely disrupt or delay the Court鈥檚 proceedings, potentially prolonging the very detention that is at the heart of this case.鈥� The court also explained that 鈥淢s. 脰zt眉rk鈥檚 return to Vermont would not unduly burden the government鈥� and her continued detention in Louisiana 鈥渨ould not be in the public interest.鈥� The district court noted that 鈥渢he remedy here is simple, a return to the status quo鈥� and concluded that her return to Vermont 鈥渨ould restore the status quo.鈥� 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. 脰zt眉rk said that her holding cell was crowded beyond capacity and the unsanitary, damp conditions was triggering her asthma. 鈥淭he conditions in the facility are very unsanitary, unsafe, and inhumane,鈥� she said. 鈥淭here is a mouse in our cell. The boxes they provide for our clothing are very dirty and they don鈥檛 give us adequate hygiene supplies.鈥� Ms. 脰zt眉rk is represented by the 红杏视频, 红杏视频 of Massachusetts, 红杏视频 of Vermont, CLEAR, Emery Celli Abady Brinckerhoff Ward & Maazel LLP, and Mahsa Khanbabai of Khanbabai Immigration Law. The following are additional quotes from Ms. 脰zt眉rk鈥檚 legal team: Sonya Levitova, Associate, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP: 鈥淭he government has imprisoned R眉meysa for over a month for saying what she thinks. Now it鈥檚 trying to evade judicial scrutiny of its violations of her constitutional rights by running to the Second Circuit. Enough of this. R眉meysa must be returned to Vermont and freed.鈥� Jessie Rossman, legal director, 红杏视频 of Massachusetts: 鈥淭ry as it might, the government cannot hide the simple truth at the heart of this case鈥攖here is no legitimate basis for R眉meysa'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.鈥� Lia Ernst, legal director, 红杏视频 of Vermont: 鈥�31 days. That鈥檚 how long R眉meysa 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, R眉meysa remains behind bars for her constitutionally protected speech. We will not stop fighting for her freedom.鈥� Mahsa Khanbabai of Khanbabai Immigration Law: 鈥淭here 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.鈥� Mudassar Toppa, staff attorney at CLEAR, a legal non-profit and clinic at CUNY School of Law: 鈥淭he government is terrified at the prospect of Ms. 脰zt眉rk 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. 脰zt眉rk鈥檚 claims against the government are vindicated and she is able to return to her community.鈥� For documents and other case information, see here.

Today, Human Rights First, the 红杏视频 (红杏视频), and the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in support of Democracy for the Arab World Now鈥檚 (DAWN) efforts to block an individual sanctioned for violence in the Israeli occupied West Bank from accessing information about DAWN鈥檚 advocacy for sanctions against him. The brief argues that various protections, including the First Amendment and reporter鈥檚 privilege, bar the court from granting the discovery requested in this case. The brief also emphasizes how such discovery requests, if granted, would put civil society groups at serious risk of irreparable harm and chill their vital advocacy work on human rights and corruption issues. In August 2024, Isaac Levi Pilant was sanctioned by the U.S. government under the West Bank sanctions program, for attacking and forcefully expelling Palestinians from a West Bank settlement. At the time, human rights groups, media outlets, and witnesses had documented Pilant鈥檚 alleged role in violent attacks against Palestinians, and DAWN had publicly recommended that the U.S. government impose sanctions on him and others for such violence. The sanctions against Pilant were lifted in January 2025, after President Trump effectively terminated the West Bank sanctions program. Pilant then filed an application against DAWN and its executive director, Sarah Leah Whitson, pursuant to a U.S. law that provides a mechanism for foreign litigants to obtain discovery from people and entities in the United States.The application seeks a court order for information related to DAWN鈥檚 investigation of Pilant and its sanctions advocacy efforts. Pilant says he seeks the information for use in a possible future defamation case in Israel against an Israeli human rights organization. The brief explains how the U.S. government has established frameworks and processes to encourage nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to share sensitive information that can assist it in more effectively implementing various human rights and corruption sanctions and visa restriction programs. Undermining the protections for NGOs to securely and confidentially share this information would not only impact the ability of the U.S. government to use such tools to hold human rights abusers and corrupt actors accountable, but it would also put NGOs, victims of abuse, and others in civil society in jeopardy by opening them up to retaliation and harassment from people they accuse of human rights violations. 鈥淗uman rights and corruption sanctions are impactful tools of accountability because they threaten the reputations and financial interests of abusers. Forcing NGOs to share information about their sanctions advocacy would put them at grave risk of violence and retaliation from repressive governments and powerful private individuals,鈥� said Amanda Strayer, Senior Counsel for Accountability at Human Rights First. 鈥淯.S. courts should not become a forum for sanctioned actors to harass and seek retribution against civil society groups that advocate for measures to hold them accountable.鈥� The brief also argues that Pilant鈥檚 broad discovery request implicates information protected under the First Amendment and the reporter鈥檚 privilege, which provide grounds to reject his request under the Section 1782 statute. Supreme Court precedent requires the Court to give weight to the serious First Amendment and policy considerations before granting such a request. In this case, these considerations should result in the Court denying Pilant鈥檚 discovery request. 鈥淚t is the nature of human rights reporting that it often draws the ire of accused human rights violators. But the law is clear that such individuals cannot coopt U.S. courts in an attempt to harass and endanger human rights organizations and the victims of abuses whose stories they safeguard. That鈥檚 why this is an easy case, and we hope the court has no trouble concluding that the First Amendment protects DAWN鈥檚 rights to free speech and association, and bars enforcement of the meritless request for intrusive discovery,鈥� said Nathan Freed Wessler, Deputy Director of the 红杏视频 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淣GOs can play a critical role in providing accountability for human rights abuses, and the Constitution protects them from being forced to reveal certain confidential aspects of that work,鈥� said Bobby Hodgson, assistant legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. 鈥淒AWN is being targeted by a foreign litigant implicated in serious human rights violations in an effort to weaponize our court system to silence critics. We urge the court to reject these requests and recognize that the discovery process does not create an end run around the First Amendment.鈥�