Legal action forces Trump administration to back down on W.Va. student deportation
Among the wave of lawsuits were two by students from West Virginia University and Marshall University. The schools notified Sajawal Ali Sohail and S.V. the federal government had restored their legal statuses.
'This is positive news not just for our two clients in West Virginia, but for international students across the country,' said ACLU-WV, which represents both students. 'We are continuing to monitor the situation closely, particularly the announcement that ICE will be developing new policies for revoking legal statuses.
Sohail, a 25 year-old-undergraduate student at West Virginia University, filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Attorney General of the United States, after the federal government revoked his visa and terminated his record in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System.
Sohail's suit joined another filed by Marshall student S.V., who sued the federal government for the same reason earlier this week. The ACLU-WV was able to secure a temporary restraining order protecting S.V. this week. On Friday, Politico reported lawyers from the Justice Department announced in federal court it was reactivating visa registrations for terminated students in the SEVIS system. They also said ICE was developing a policy for SEVIS record termination.
Shauna Johnson, executive director of strategic communications at WVU, said there have been three reversals across the WVU system.
'We continue to work directly with our students affected by status decision changes at the federal level. Circumstances vary which is why we're focused on identifying ways to best support each student. As of now, we are aware of three reversals across the WVU System.'
Sohail's revocation came after the federal government found his name during a criminal record check. In 2022, WVU Police arrested Sohail on one felony count of taking identity of another person, according to magistrate court records. However, Sohail's attorney said WVU reversed the charge after it turned out Sohail and his family had been the victims of the scam.
According to Sohail's complaint, the family, who resides in Pakistan, was short on tuition money for Sohail. They turned to a business acquaintance, Mansoor Alam, who offered to pay Sohail's tuition upfront with the understanding the family would back the loan. However, after the family paid Alam thousands of dollars for tuition, magistrate court records show, Alam disputed the charge and the blame fell on Sohail for making an unauthorized payment.
After discovering the scam, magistrate court records show the state decided not to prosecute, and the judge dismissed the charges. Sparks wrote Sohail wasn't the perpetrator of a crime but the victim of one. Victims of a financial scam, the family ended up having to pay tuition twice.
Sparks wrote in the filing Alam had stolen from numerous individuals and was on the run from Pakistani law enforcement.
Despite the emotional harm from the scam and false accusations, Sohail continued on track for graduation in May 2025. On April 10, Sohail received an email from the school notifying him his SEVIS record had been terminated. The federal government alleged his name had been found in a criminal records check.
'Unfortunately, we cannot provide any further insight into the termination reason and are unable to reverse this decision by the U.S. federal government,' the email states.
Johnson, the school's communications officer, declined to comment on whether the school had confirmed on their own any of the government's claims.
The email goes on to urge Sohail to depart the country immediately, as he had lost both his immigration status and work authorization. The school offered to refer Sohail to outside legal resources such as the WVU Immigration Law Clinic, but cautioned Sohail against remaining in the country while he was out of status.
'Given this sudden notice and the approaching end of the semester, we encourage you to speak with your instructors about the possibility of completing your courses remotely,' the email states. 'We do realize the sudden impact this has on you, your academic career and your future plans. Carruth Center counselors are available to speak with you and to assist with what you may be feeling. Please consider reaching out to them if needed.'
The school also prohibited Sohail from attending class in-person.
Johnson did not elaborate on what the school was doing to support students on a case by case basis. The school's response from April 25 on this question did not change substantively from their response on April 10. Johnson said there 1,031 WVU students on F-1 visas, which is the visa required to pursue a degree at an American higher education institution.
Sohail's lawsuit accuses the federal government of disregard for widespread harm, accusing the administration of basing their actions on such specious grounds they defy credibly. According to Inside Higher Ed, 147 estimated terminations at 48 different schools had already taken place. The publication indicated the estimate was most certainly a fraction of the total, because colleges are reluctant to publicly confirm any student visa revocations because they are anxious to avoid federal scrutiny.
Billy Wolfe, communications director for ACLU-WV, said they are aware other students who have had their visas revoked had an experience similar to the students ACLU-WV represents. He urged students who are still having problems to contact the organization using the legal assistance tab at acluwv.org website. As for WVU's involvement, Wolfe said he wasn't sure what their role has been but that their issue is with the federal government, and not the school.
For now, both students are cleared to return to class.
'We want to be clear that the administration is backing down not because it's the right thing to do,' Wolfe said. 'But, because they have been dragged to court repeatedly and lost again and again.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a day ago
- New York Times
Judges Keep Restrictions on L.A. Immigration Arrests, in Setback for Trump Agenda
The Trump administration's agenda suffered another setback late Friday when an appeals court upheld a decision that temporarily halts federal agents from making immigration-related arrests in the Los Angeles area without probable cause. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court's finding that the raids appeared to exclusively rely on a person's race and other factors, like speaking Spanish. The administration's immigration raids have stirred protests and fear for many Latinos across the city, its suburbs and agricultural regions. The panel's decision merely allows a temporary restraining order that had been imposed by the lower court to remain in place. It curtails, for now, the far-reaching operations that began in June as the case proceeds through the courts. Judge Maame E. Frimpong of Federal District Court in Los Angeles has scheduled a hearing in late September as she weighs a longer-lasting order known as a preliminary injunction. In their ruling on Friday night, the appellate judges wrote that the plaintiffs 'are likely to succeed' in showing that federal agents made arrests based on how people looked, how they spoke and where they lived or worked. Civil-rights groups led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and Public Counsel filed suit on July 2 accusing the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps since early June. Nearly 3,000 people have been arrested. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
The Hill
3 days ago
- The Hill
GOP bullish on dismantling Voting Rights Act
Republicans are increasingly bullish they can whittle away at the Voting Rights Act (VRA) as Democrats renew a long-shot effort to broaden the landmark law that turns 60 next week. The Supreme Court could become the arbiter of Republicans' efforts, with a major Louisiana redistricting battle set for rehearing next term and other battles bubbling up in the lower courts. The conservative-majority high court has already eviscerated significant parts of the VRA, but the new legal fronts could reshape decades-long precedent of legal battles over political power. 'There are clouds around, and a lot of them are circling the Supreme Court at the moment,' said Adriel Cepeda Derieux, the deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) Voting Rights Project. With Democrats viewing the law as under siege from federal court rulings, a group of Democratic senators reintroduced a bill Tuesday that would restore and expand protections of the VRA. The legislation would reimpose the VRA's requirement struck down in 2013 by the Supreme Court that jurisdictions with a history of discriminatory practices receive federal approval before changing their voting laws; prevent voters from being purged from voter rolls if they haven't voted recently; and add protections for poll workers against threats and intimidation. 'Voting rights are preservative of all other rights,' Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) said at a press conference announcing the bill's reintroduction. 'The democracy is the very house in which we live. It is the framework in which we get to fight for the things that we care about.' But the bill faces long odds in a Republican-controlled Congress and could face constitutional challenges, if ever enacted. Meanwhile, Republicans have set their sights on weakening the VRA by preventing voters and private groups from enforcing it. The GOP effort would cut off the ACLU and other prominent players that have long leveraged the law to challenge maps and voting practices, leaving lawsuits to the attorney general. 'Private litigants have been key to bringing these claims over the history of the Voting Rights Act's existence,' Cardozo Law School professor Wilfred Codrington said. 'And, in fact, all the cases that are sort of monumental cases include many private litigants. So, that is a big thing.' The push to eliminate a private right of action under the VRA has been met with mixed results so far. But Republicans feel encouraged by recent signals from some of the Supreme Court's conservative justices. Joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch in 2021 publicly questioned whether private parties could sue under Section 2 — the VRA's most prominent remaining provision — which prevents states from discriminating against voters because of their race or color. 'Our cases have assumed — without deciding — that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 furnishes an implied cause of action under §2,' Gorsuch wrote. 'Lower courts have treated this as an open question,' he stressed. Since then, Republicans have found success in one federal appeals court. In 2023, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed private groups can't bring Section 2 claims, turning away the Arkansas NAACP's claims that Arkansas's state House map packed and cracked Black voters. It effectively blocked private enforcement in the seven states covered by the 8th Circuit: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota. The case was never appealed to the Supreme Court, but two recent decisions by the 8th Circuit are inching the issue closer to the justices. Native American tribes headed to the Supreme Court's emergency docket this month after the 8th Circuit ruled the tribes couldn't challenge North Dakota's state Legislature map. Last week, the justices lifted the ruling. Thomas and Gorsuch publicly dissented alongside a third conservative justice, Samuel Alito. No justice explained their reasoning, but the case could return to the justices. It's not only Section 2. On Monday, an 8th Circuit panel unanimously ruled a lesser-known provision of the VRA — Section 208, which allows blind and disabled voters to receive help voting from a person they choose — also can't be privately enforced. The decision rejected a challenge to an Arkansas voting law. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin (R) celebrated the ruling, saying in a statement it 'means that officials can continue to enforce Arkansas's laws and voters can have confidence in our elections.' The question over private enforcement may be irrelevant, depending on other cases that raise whether Section 2 can survive at all. Republican states have increasingly argued race-based redistricting is no longer constitutional after progress made in recent decades. But voting rights advocates said they were hopeful that what remains of the VRA will have more endurance than some fear. Cepeda Derieux pointed to the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Allen v. Milligan, in which the court found a Republican-drawn map in Alabama likely violated the VRA in weakening Black voters' political power. He said this reinforced the constitutionality of Section 2, and the same legal reasoning was used in other cases to redraw maps in Louisiana and Mississippi. 'There's also cause for great hope,' he said. 'As recently as two years ago, the Supreme Court … really upheld the heart of what remains of the Voting Rights Act.' Mark Gaber, the senior director of redistricting for the Campaign Legal Center, argued that those trying to further limit the law's purview have shown an 'overzealousness' that has hurt them, leading to the Milligan case in which the court's majority gave a 'full-throated reaffirmation' of the law's constitutionality. He believes some read too much immediately into Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence that the country may reach a point where the VRA's time has passed. 'They're pushing the private right of action theory … and various other theories to chip away at it. And we'll find out, but I don't think what Justice Kavanaugh was saying is, 'Tomorrow, bring me a case that questions this,'' Gaber said. The questions have returned as the Supreme Court considers the newest phase of the redistricting battle in Louisiana. The state's Republican leaders seek to uphold their new congressional map that adds a second majority-Black district. The state is in an awkward position. Louisiana begrudgingly added the second district because a lower court ruled a design with only one likely violated the VRA. But in separate litigation, Louisiana has taken legal positions that would undermine that lower ruling — that private groups can't enforce Section 2 and the provision is unconstitutional as applied to the state. The Supreme Court was set to decide the case this summer. But without explanation, the justices ordered the case be reargued next term. Codrington said he wasn't optimistic and believes the court wants to still use the case 'to do something big.' 'I think the court was particularly worried about dealing a major blow to the VRA at that time when lots of other institutional changes were happening through the Supreme Court,' Codrington said. The Supreme Court has yet to announce what legal question it will consider when the case is reargued, meaning the scope of the case remains unclear. But Thomas, at least, is ready to rein in Section 2. 'I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore,' Thomas wrote in a solo opinion last month.
Fox News
4 days ago
- Fox News
What to know about Judge Boasberg, the Trump foe at center of DOJ complaint
The Justice Department on Monday accused U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of misconduct, escalating the Trump administration's long-running feud against federal judges who have blocked or paused some of the president's most sweeping policy priorities. The complaint, reviewed by Fox News Digital, centers on remarks Boasberg allegedly made during a March 11 meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States — the national policymaking body for the federal courts, which meets twice per year and is headed up by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. During that meeting, the complaint says, Boasberg "attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts" and the roughly two dozen other federal judges at the conference by suggesting that the Trump administration could "disregard rulings of federal courts," and trigger "a constitutional crisis." The complaint was sent at the direction of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and signed by her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle. Fox News Digital could not independently verify Boasberg's reported remarks at the March 11 meeting, and his office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Officials have argued the reported remarks were an attempt to improperly prejudice or influence Roberts and said they "undermined the integrity and impartiality of the federal judiciary." The complaint asked, not for the first time, that Boasberg be removed from presiding over J.G.G. v. Trump, a lawsuit filed in March by lawyers for the ACLU and others on behalf of the hundreds of immigrants who were summarily deported to El Salvador's CECOT prison under the auspices of a wartime immigration law. The complaint — and its request to remove Boasberg from the most consequential immigration case of President Donald Trump's second term — is certain to test the already fraught relationship between the administration and the courts. Since Trump's inauguration in January, senior administration officials have excoriated dozens of so-called "activist" judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump's sweeping executive orders from taking force. Notably, the pro-Trump legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller attempted to sue Roberts earlier this year for his role overseeing the U.S. Judicial Conference, arguing in a long-shot legal bid that the group's actions went beyond the scope of what they allege are the "core functions" of the judiciary. Boasberg, in particular, has emerged as one of Trump's biggest public foes. On March 15, several days after he allegedly made the remarks included in the DOJ complaint, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order seeking to block Trump's use of a 1798 wartime-era immigration law, the Alien Enemies Act, to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador. Boasberg ordered all planes bound for El Salvador to be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil, which did not happen, and later, ordered a new investigation to determine whether the Trump administration had complied with his orders. In April, he ruled that the court had grounds to move on possible contempt proceedings, though that ruling was stayed by a higher appeals court, which has yet to consider the matter. His March 15 order touched off a complex legal saga that ultimately spawned dozens of deportation-related court challenges across the country — though the one brought before Boasberg was the very first — and later prompted the Supreme Court to rule, on two separate occasions, that the hurried removals had violated migrants' due process protections under the U.S. Constitution. However, it also placed Boasberg squarely in the crosshairs of Trump officials — including the president — as the administration moved to unleash a blitz of executive orders and target judges who tried to block them. Their attacks have centered closely on the behavior of several judges — but no one more so than Boasberg, an Obama appointee who was originally tapped by then-President George W. Bush in 2002 to be an associate judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has repeatedly used her podium this year to rail against "radical left-wing judges," accusing them of overstepping their authority and undermining presidential powers. Trump suggested earlier this year that Boasberg could be impeached for his actions, describing the judge as a "troublemaker and agitator"— and prompting a rare public rebuke from Justice Roberts. For some, the complaint seems to be well-timed: Boasberg ordered the Justice Department and the ACLU to court for a status hearing last week to determine the status of the 252 CECOT plaintiffs who were deported to Venezuela from El Salvador as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro. Boasberg ended the hearing by ordering the administration and the ACLU lawyers to submit a joint status update to the court on Thursday, Aug. 7, and to continue to do so every two weeks thereafter, as he weighs what options the court has to order relief. When asked at a status hearing in court last week whether the Justice Department would comply with the court's orders, DOJ lawyer Tiberius Davis said they would, "if it was a lawful order." Davis added that DOJ would likely seek an appeal from a higher court. Notably, it's not the first time the Trump administration has tried to have Boasberg removed from overseeing the case. The Justice Department in March asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to remove Judge Boasberg from presiding over the Alien Enemies Act case and have it reassigned to another federal judge. The appeals court never took action in response to the request. The White House has repeatedly argued that lower court judges like Boasberg should not have the power to block what it calls the president's lawful agenda — though the judges say Trump's actions violate the law. Still, the first six months of Trump's second term have been marked by repeated court clashes, as the administration pushes ahead with its agenda and targets those standing in its way. That sentiment was echoed by former acting ICE Director and current border czar Tom Homan. 'I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks," he said earlier this year in an interview. "We're coming. Another fight. Every day."
