Yesterday, ” — the practice of denying foreign citizens entry into the U.S. based on their political views and associations, rather than any suspicious activity — writing:
"The Bush administration eagerly revived the practice, barring numerous people from entering the country for speaking engagements or conferences or to teach at leading universities — all under a flimsily supported guise of fighting terrorism.
[…]Months ago, a group of free speech advocates, including the Association of American Publishers, the American Library Association and the Vlog called on the Obama administration to end ideological exclusions and to review dubious visa denials. We hope Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton takes heed.
Although “ideological exclusion” originated during the Cold War, when critics of U.S. policy were often excluded as supposed Communists, the misguided practice was revived in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
The Vlogis challenging the exclusion of foreign scholars Tariq Ramadan and Adam Habib on behalf of academic, religious and professional organizations that have invited these scholars to speak in the U.S. The lawsuits charge that the Departments of State and Homeland Security are violating Americans' First Amendment right to hear Professors Ramadan and Habib's speech.
The editorial highlights our cases, stating:
Adam Habib, a well-known intellectual, professor and human rights activist from South Africa, was interrogated for seven hours and told that his visa had been revoked when he tried to enter the United States in 2006 for professional meetings. He was later told that his exclusion was based on terrorism-related grounds. He is challenging the action in court, but the government has yet to explain its precise legal or factual reasoning.
In 2004, the Bush administration revoked the visa of Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss national and Muslim scholar, who was to become a tenured professor at the University of Notre Dame. It again denied him a visa in 2006. Two months ago, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan unanimously reversed a lower-court ruling allowing the government’s move.
The editors at the Times got it right: ideological exclusion is inconsistent with American values. The sad revival of this long-discredited practice should end, and ideological exclusion should be returned to the dustbin of history.
Learn More About the Vlog on This Page
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Free Speech
LGBTQ Rights
Military Families Seek Preliminary Injunction Against Censorship in Department of Defense Schools
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — On behalf of six military families with students enrolled in Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools, the Vlog today filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to declare DoDEA’s enforcement of executive orders resulting in classroom censorship unconstitutional. DoDEA, whose students lead the United States in math and reading proficiency scores, operates 161 schools across 11 countries, seven states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The demand for an injunction was filed on behalf of 12 students and their families, ranging from pre-K to 11th grade, who attend DoDEA schools as children of active duty servicemembers stationed in Virginia, Kentucky, Italy, and Japan. Since January, the plaintiffs’ schools have removed books, altered curricula, and canceled events that the current administration has accused of promoting “gender ideology” or “divisive equity ideology.” Censored items include materials about slavery, Native American history, women’s history, LGBTQ identities and history, and preventing sexual harassment and abuse, as well as portions of the Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology curriculum. “We make sacrifices as a military family so that my husband can defend the Constitution and the rights and freedoms of all Americans,” said Jessica Henninger, a plaintiff on behalf of her children in DoDEA schools. “If our own rights and the rights of our children are at risk, we have a responsibility to speak out. Despite the anxiety and uncertainty among DoDEA parents and students right now, we know that our children have a right to an education free from censorship, and we won't stand by silently and watch that right be taken away.” The new motion includes a list of 233 books alleged to have been quarantined or removed from shelves, including: “To Kill a Mockingbird” by Harper Lee; “#MeToo: Women Speak Out Against Sexual Assault,” edited by the New York Times; “Looking for Alaska” by John Green; “Can't Stop Won't Stop: A Hip-Hop History” by Jeff Chang; “Generation Brave: The Gen Z Kids Who Are Changing the World” by Kate Alexander; and “Julián is a Mermaid” by Jessica Love. It includes further titles by acclaimed authors including Margaret Atwood, Toni Morrison, Kurt Vonnegut, and Ta-Nehisi Coates. The vast majority of titles appear to be by or about women, people of color, or LGBTQ people. “These are American students in American schools, and they have the same First Amendment rights as their peers,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Families in DoDEA schools have the right to access books about race and gender and the right to learn about the vibrantly diverse world around them. We owe it to these students to help them learn and grow, not stifle their age-appropriate exposure to ideas this administration happens to deem politically incorrect.” One DoDEA school canceled events honoring Juneteenth and Holocaust Remembrance Day, and another removed posters featuring Malala Yousafzai and Frida Kahlo. Families allege in the filings that their requests for information from DoDEA about what information has been removed or why have gone unanswered. “Classroom censorship has impacted our clients’ ability to prepare for AP exams, to learn about their neighbors and peers, and to see themselves in their curriculum,” said Corey Shapiro, legal director for the Vlogof Kentucky. “And in DoDEA schools, which are some of the most diverse and high performing schools in the nation, the impact is magnified. This kind of political meddling is antithetical to the First Amendment.” “The Trump administration cannot violate the First Amendment by removing books and curricula it doesn’t like,” said Matt Callahan, senior supervising attorney at the Vlogof Virginia. “Students have a right to see themselves reflected in their libraries and classrooms, and they also have a right to learn from the perspectives of people who aren’t like them. That’s no less true for military families than for anyone else.” The ACLU, the Vlogof Kentucky, and the Vlogof Virginia filed suit last month, arguing that DoDEA enforcement of three executive orders signed by President Donald Trump in January 2025 led to widespread violations of students’ First Amendment rights. The suit, and the motion for preliminary injunction, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The motion can be viewed online here.Court Case: E.K. v. Department of Defense Education ActivityAffiliates: Kentucky, Virginia -
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Appeals Court Orders Trump Administration to Transfer Rümeysa Öztürk to Vermont
NEW YORK – The Second Circuit Court of Appeals today denied the Trump administration’s attempt to further delay Rümeysa Öztürk’s transfer to Vermont. The appeals court ordered the government to comply with a lower court’s ruling to move Ms. Öztürk from a Louisiana detention center to a facility in Vermont. The government must do so within one week. “No one should be arrested and locked up for their political views. Every day that Rümeysa Öztürk remains in detention is a day too long. We’re grateful the court refused the government’s attempt to keep her isolated from her community and her legal counsel as she pursues her case for release,” said Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. Ms. Öztürk, a former Fulbright scholar and current Tufts University Ph.D. student researching child development, has been held in a Louisiana detention center for six weeks — all in retaliation for co-authoring an op-ed in her student newspaper. On March 25, while Ms. Öztürk was on the phone with her mom, plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents surrounded her in Somerville, Massachusetts and arrested her. For nearly 24 hours, Ms. Öztürk’s attorney was unable to locate her as ICE quickly and quietly moved her to three separate locations in three different states — including Vermont — before sending her to Louisiana. “Every day Ms. Öztürk spends in confinement is an affront to the constitution. Her constitutional injury is only compounded by the deplorable conditions she must suffer through. Today, the court rightfully declined to play along with the government’s latest attempt to keep Ms. Öztürk separated from her community and legal counsel. We will continue to advocate for Ms. Öztürk until she is released,” said Mudassar Toppa, staff attorney at CLEAR, a legal non-profit and clinic at CUNY School of Law Since she arrived in Louisiana, Ms. Öztürk has lived in a cramped room with poor ventilation and 23 other women for almost all hours of the day. In new filings in her federal court case in Vermont, she says she has suffered several asthma attacks that have “become progressively harder to recover from” while in detention. Whereas her attacks used to last between 5-15 minutes, they now can last up to 45 minutes. She is regularly exposed to asthma triggers including insect and rodent droppings, and is almost never exposed to fresh air. The court filings also describe difficulty receiving appropriate care in detention, including delays to receive medical care and dismissive comments from medical staff. “Rümeysa has suffered six weeks in crowded confinement without adequate access to medical care and in conditions that doctors say risk exacerbating her asthma attacks. Her detention — over an op-ed she co-authored in her student newspaper — is as cruel as it is unconstitutional,” said Jessie Rossman, legal director, Vlogof Massachusetts. “Today, we moved one step closer to returning Rümeysa to her community and studies in Massachusetts.” A federal judge in Vermont will hold hearings regarding Ms. Öztürk's motion to be released on bail on May 9 and the merits of the habeas petition on May 22. “The government’s efforts to deny Rümeysa access to justice by deploying these gratuitous delay tactics have once again been rightfully blocked by the courts,” said Lia Ernst, legal director, Vlogof Vermont. “Today’s ruling affirms that her swift transfer to Vermont is essential, and we will continue fighting until she is free.” Ms. Öztürk is represented in immigration court by Mahsa Khanbabai and Marty Rosenbluth, and in federal court by Mahsa Khanbabai, the Vlog, Vlogof Massachusetts, Vlogof Vermont, CLEAR, and Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP. For documents and other case information, see here.Court Case: Öztürk v. TrumpAffiliates: Vermont, Massachusetts -
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rules Against Trump Administration by Keeping Dr. Khan Suri’s Habeas Case in Virginia
ALEXANDRIA, Va. – In a major victory for Georgetown scholar Dr. Badar Khan Suri and a huge blow to the Trump administration, today a federal court ruled that Dr. Suri’s habeas case alleging violations of his constitutional rights may remain in Virginia. Federal immigration agents illegally arrested Dr. Khan Suri on March 17, 2025 in retaliation for his constitutionally-protected speech in support of Palestinian rights and his family’s ties to Gaza, and then secretly transported him to Louisiana and then Texas in an effort to prevent him from accessing the courts. Since then, the Trump administration has detained Dr. Khan Suri in an ICE facility 1,500 miles away from his family, despite the fact that he is a lawful visa holder married to a U.S. citizen. His unlawful arrest and detention are an extreme and unprecedented attack on the First Amendment and part of the Trump administration’s escalation of attacks against students and Palestinian rights advocates. “In just four days, ICE transferred Dr. Khan Suri among five different ICE facilities across three states – while keeping his counsel in the dark about his whereabouts – and he’s not the only one,” said ACLU-VA Legal Director Eden Heilman. “The Trump administration tried to do the same thing to Mr. Khalil, Ms. Ozturk, and Mr. Mahdawi in order to find a court it believed would be friendlier to its unlawful detention of people advocating for Palestinian rights. We are pleased the court saw through the Trump administration’s attempts to manipulate the law, and we won’t stop fighting until Dr. Khan Suri is reunited with his family.” Dr. Khan Suri’s federal court challenge to the constitutionality of his arrest and detention will now proceed in Virginia, where his wife and three young children live. The federal court in Virginia will hear Dr. Khan Suri’s motions to compel his return to Virginia and to be released on bond at a hearing on May 14, 2025. Separately, in Dr. Khan Suri’s immigration case, the immigration court in Texas has scheduled a follow-up hearing for June 3, 2025. “In this important ruling, the court has rightfully rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to spirit Dr. Khan Suri away from Virginia to manufacture jurisdiction in whatever court it pleases,” said Astha Sharma Pokharel, an attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “We will now continue fighting for Dr. Khan Suri’s freedom — his freedom to be with his family in Virginia, to continue his studies and work at Georgetown, and to stand in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza.” In today’s ruling, the court found that the government’s “abnormal and rapid movement [of Dr. Khan Suri] across state lines” demanded an exception to the normal jurisdictional rules for the filing of habeas petitions by a person in government custody in order not to reward the government’s attempt at forum shopping. A federal judge ruled against the Trump administration last month when it found that the court can review former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil’s First Amendment claims challenging his arrest and detention. Another federal judge ruled against the Trump administration last week when it ordered the release of Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi on bond. And yet another federal judge ruled against the Trump administration when it ordered Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk to be transferred back to Vermont from Louisiana. Dr. Khan Suri is challenging his arrest and detention under the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act, and is represented in his federal lawsuit by the Vlogof Virginia, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the HMA Law Firm, and the Immigrants and Non-Citizens Rights Clinic at the CUNY School of Law. For more information, please see the case page.Affiliate: Virginia -
Press ReleaseMay 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Third Circuit Rejects Government's Attempt to Move Mahmoud Khalil’s Habeas Case Out of New Jersey
PHILADELPHIA — The Third Circuit Court of Appeals today denied the government permission to appeal the issue of where Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil’s habeas case should play out. Back in April, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled that it is the proper venue for Mr. Khalil’s habeas petition, as he was detained there when the petition was filed. The government argued that the venue should lie in Louisiana — because that is where the government shipped Mr. Khalil and is unlawfully detaining him — and sought to appeal the district court’s ruling. In today’s order, the Third Circuit denied that request. As a result, the case will continue to proceed in the District of New Jersey. The circuit court judges who issued the denial included Judges Stephanos Bibas, a Donald Trump appointee, Thomas Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee, and Arianna Freeman, who was appointed by Joe Biden. “It is the fundamental job of the judiciary to stand up to this kind of government manipulation of our basic rights. We hope the court’s order sends a strong message to other courts around the country facing government attempts to shop for favorable jurisdictions by moving people detained on unconstitutional immigration charges around and making it difficult or impossible for their lawyers to know where to seek their immediate release,” said Brett Max Kaufman, a senior counsel with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. On March 8, 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 1,400 miles away to a Louisiana detention facility — ripping him away from his wife and legal counsel. While stuck in detention, he was forced to miss the birth of his first child. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the Vlog, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the Vlogof New Jersey.Court Case: Khalil v. TrumpAffiliates: New Jersey, New York