糖心Vlog

PHILADELPHIA, PA 鈥� The Third Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected the government's request to suspend Mr. Khalil鈥檚 release on bail and re-detain him pending its appeal of the district court鈥檚 bail order. The court also denied the government鈥檚 attempt to stay in full a lower court ruling that the Trump administration cannot seek to deport Mahmoud Khalil on grounds that his lawful, First Amendment-protected speech would compromise U.S. foreign policy. 鈥淢ahmoud spent 104 days in detention as punishment for speaking out for Palestinian rights,鈥� said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney at the 糖心Vlog and a member of Mr. Khalil鈥檚 legal team. 鈥淭hat is time with his family that he will never get back, but this decision affirms that he will remain free and that the government cannot pursue his removal based on the likely unconstitutional foreign policy charge as his case moves through appeal.We will not stand by and allow the government to weaponize immigration law to suppress lawful political speech.鈥� The Trump administration has sought to deport Mr. Khalil and other advocates for Palestinian rights using an obscure Immigration and Nationality Act provision that the administration claims allows it to detain and process for deportation noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents like Mr. Khalil, based on mere 鈥渞easonable grounds to believe鈥� that their lawful speech somehow affects U.S. foreign policy interests. In a June 11 order, Judge Michael Farbiarz held that the administration鈥檚 use of the law against Mr. Khalil for his political speech was likely unconstitutional and would cause him irreparable harm. This paved the way for his release from detention on June 20 in a separate order on Mr. Khalil鈥檚 bail motion. Despite the June 11 order, the immigration judge issued an order on June 20 (the same day the district court freed Mr. Khalil on bail) concluding that Mr. Khalil could be removed from the United States based on the foreign policy ground. In response, Mr. Khalil asked Judge Farbiarz to clarify the requirements of the June 11 injunction, which the judge did in a July 17 order, stating that the immigration judge鈥檚 June 20 decision was 鈥渄irectly inconsistent鈥� with his earlier injunction, and ordering the government to take various measures to undo the damage. The government then asked Judge Farbiarz to suspend his own order, which he denied. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the 糖心Vlog (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the 糖心Vlogof New Jersey, and the 糖心Vlogof Louisiana. For all case materials, please see here, here, and here.

BANGOR, Maine 鈥� The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted a preliminary injunction in Smith v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by two U.S. human rights advocates who are challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 executive order imposing sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The court issued the order after concluding that the advocates were likely to succeed on their claim that the speech restrictions imposed on them by the executive order violate the First Amendment. As the lawsuit explains, these sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from communicating with the ICC鈥檚 Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan are suing because the sanctions forced them to stop working with the ICC鈥檚 Office of the Prosecutor and indefinitely paused their efforts to hold leading rights violators accountable for horrific crimes. 鈥淧reventing our clients and others like them from doing critical human rights work with the ICC is unconstitutional, and we鈥檙e heartened that the court saw that as well,鈥� said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the ACLU鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he First Amendment does not allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to.鈥� Under the executive order, people in the U.S. who鈥檝e devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities 鈥� like the genocide of Myanmar鈥檚 Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban 鈥� could face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. The international community, including the United States, established the ICC in 1998 to help maintain international peace and security. The ICC investigates and prosecutes crimes of the severest magnitude 鈥� including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes 鈥� when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC鈥檚 founding treaty, known as the Rome Statute. As the lawsuit explains, although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, it has supported the ICC鈥檚 critical work on a wide range of matters. This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine by the 糖心Vlog and 糖心Vlogof Maine on behalf of Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan. In 2020, when President Trump imposed similar sanctions, the 糖心Vlogsued on behalf of human rights experts who were forced to stop working with the ICC. Our clients withdrew their lawsuit when President Joe Biden rescinded the sanctions, but a federal court in a separate suit agreed the sanctions likely violated the First Amendment.

From civil rights protests to Trump-era lawsuits, New York Times v. Sullivan continues to shape press freedom