Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists faces federal trial
The lawsuit, filed by several university associations against President Trump and members of his administration, would be one of the first to go to trial. Plaintiffs want U.S. District Judge William Young to rule the policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
'The policy's effects have been swift. Noncitizen students and faculty across the United States have been terrified into silence," the plaintiffs wrote in their pretrial brief.
'Students and faculty are avoiding political protests, purging their social media, and withdrawing from public engagement with groups associated with pro-Palestinian viewpoints,' they wrote. 'They're abstaining from certain public writing and scholarship they would otherwise have pursued. They're even self-censoring in the classroom.'
Several scholars are expected to testify how the policy and subsequent arrests have prompted them to abandon their activism for Palestinian human rights and criticizing Israeli government's policies.
Since Trump took office, the U.S. government has used its immigration enforcement powers to crack down on international students and scholars at several American universities.
Trump and other officials have accused protesters and others of being 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Many protesters have said they were speaking out against Israel's actions in the war.
Plaintiffs single out several activists by name, including Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who was released last month after spending 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump 's clampdown on campus protests.
The lawsuit also references Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was released in May from a Louisiana immigration detention. She spent six weeks in detention after she was arrested walking on the street of a Boston suburb. She claims she was illegally detained following an op-ed she co-wrote last year that criticized the school's response to Israel's war in Gaza.
The plaintiffs also accuse the Trump administration of supplying names to universities who they wanted to target, launching a social media surveillance program and used Trump's own words in which he said after Khalil's arrest that his was the 'first arrest of many to come.'
The government argued in court documents that the plaintiffs are bringing a First Amendment challenge to a policy 'of their own creation.'
'They do not try to locate this program in any statute, regulation, rule, or directive. They do not allege that it is written down anywhere. And they do not even try to identify its specific terms and substance,' the government argues. 'That is all unsurprising, because no such policy exists.'
They argue the plaintiffs case also rest on a 'misunderstanding of the First Amendment, 'which under binding Supreme Court precedent applies differently in the immigration context than it otherwise does domestically."
But plaintiffs counter that evidence at the trial will show the Trump administration has implemented the policy a variety of ways, including issuing formal guidance on revoking visas and green cards and establishing a process for identifying those involved in pro-Palestinian protests.
"Defendants have described their policy, defended it, and taken political credit for it," plaintiffs wrote. 'It is only now that the policy has been challenged that they say, incredibly, that the policy does not actually exist. But the evidence at trial will show that the policy's existence is beyond cavil.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
32 minutes ago
- Washington Post
A surprise IRS move on political endorsements leaves faith leaders and experts divided
WASHINGTON — A surprise move by the IRS that would allow pastors to back political candidates from the pulpit without losing their organization's tax-exempt status is drawing praise from conservatives and even some progressive religious groups but concern from other leaders of faith, along with tax and legal experts. A 1954 provision in the tax code called the Johnson Amendment says churches and other nonprofits could lose their tax-exempt status if they participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. The rule was rarely enforced.
New York Times
35 minutes ago
- New York Times
Boy, 13, Started California Wildfire With Illegal Fireworks, Police Say
A 13-year-old boy was arrested this week, accused of setting off illegal fireworks that sparked a wildfire in Laguna Beach, Calif., that burned nearly five acres and led to evacuations and power outages, the authorities said. The blaze, called the Rancho fire, started just after 2 p.m. Monday, as flames burned along a hillside, the Laguna Beach Police Department said in a statement. As the fire spread to 4.6 acres, an evacuation order was issued for homes on four streets, and community centers were opened as shelters for displaced residents, officials said. By 5 p.m. Monday, the mayor had told residents in a video posted on Facebook that officials already suspected that the fire had been started by fireworks. The police said on Tuesday that witnesses had reported seeing a juvenile who was 'possibly involved in setting off fireworks.' Two juveniles were detained for questioning, but were released after they were found to have been witnesses, the police said. Investigators later obtained video evidence that they said showed another juvenile 'lighting a firework and fleeing the scene.' They identified the suspect as a 13-year-old boy and obtained a warrant for his arrest, the police said. The teenager was arrested on suspicion of felony reckless burning of forest land, the police said. Because of 'the absence of any injuries or immediate threat to structures,' he was processed at police headquarters before being released to his parents. The case will be submitted to the Orange County district attorney's office for review and the possible filing of criminal charges, the police said. A spokeswoman for the district attorney's office said California welfare law prevented her from discussing the case. Niko King, the Laguna Beach fire chief, said that around 200 firefighters, two planes, five helicopters and drones were deployed to battle the blaze, as officials used infrared scans to monitor its progress and containment efforts. The evacuation order was lifted just after 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, city officials. said. The fire was fully contained by 8 a.m. Wednesday and the roads that had been closed reopened to traffic.
Associated Press
35 minutes ago
- Associated Press
A surprise IRS move on political endorsements leaves faith leaders and experts divided
WASHINGTON (AP) — A surprise move by the IRS that would allow pastors to back political candidates from the pulpit without losing their organization's tax-exempt status is drawing praise from conservatives and even some progressive religious groups but concern from other leaders of faith, along with tax and legal experts. A 1954 provision in the tax code called the Johnson Amendment says churches and other nonprofits could lose their tax-exempt status if they participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. The rule was rarely enforced. While the IRS did not go as far as calling for the repeal of the Johnson Amendment, it said in court documents Monday that communications in good faith by a church to its flock does not amount to 'intervening' or affecting the outcome of a political campaign. 'Communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' the IRS said. The new IRS interpretation came after decades of debate and, most recently, lawsuits from the National Religious Broadcasters association and other conservative churches complaining that the amendment violates their First Amendment rights, among other legal protections. Speaking to reporters Wednesday, President Donald Trump called the IRS' assessment 'terrific.' 'I love the fact that churches can endorse a political candidate,' he said. 'We have a lot of respect for the people that lead the church.' While some congregations see a new freedom to speak openly about preferred candidates, others see openings for campaign finance corruption, new pressures on religious leaders and an overall entanglement between church and state. Praises to the IRS Robert Jeffress, pastor of a Baptist megachurch in Dallas and a Trump ally, called it 'the right decision.' He said his church's tax-exempt status was threatened because of an IRS investigation into their political endorsements, costing the megachurch hundreds of thousands in legal fees. 'The IRS has no business dictating what can be said from the pulpit,' he said. 'They need to stay the heck out of our churches.' Calvary Church Chino Hills, a Southern California megachurch led by Jack Hibbs, has been endorsing candidates for years, particularly in local elections. Gina Gleason, director of the church's political engagement team, said she hopes the move will encourage smaller churches previously hesitant for fear of triggering an IRS response. 'I'd have thought if the IRS had targeted any church it would've been us,' she said. 'But we got sound legal advice from lawyers and religious liberty organizations that explained we were within our constitutional rights.' For Democrats trying to connect with people of faith, this decision is timely, said Doug Pagitt, pastor and executive director of Vote Common Good, a progressive and evangelical Christian organization. 'Conservative pastors who have been blatantly endorsing candidates regardless of the Johnson Amendment over the years created a disadvantage causing Democrats to step away from faith voters,' he said. 'There was a true imbalance between how many more opportunities there were for Republican voters.' The IRS statement, Pagitt says, also puts an end to the delicate dance pastors and congregations were forced to do. 'You could talk about politics in the church gymnasium, but not in the sanctuary or from the pulpit,' he said. 'Pastors could express political opinions on their personal Facebook page, but not on the church's website. It's just silly.' Church politicking concerns Tax and constitutional law experts, meanwhile, are wary of what entanglements could arise from the IRS' new position. Philip Hackney, a University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor who studies the relationship between churches and tax authority, said the decree could allow churches to push new boundaries. 'It's essentially creating a political intervention tax shelter for churches,' Hackney said. 'It has the potential to corrupt their mission, more towards politics and away from their true beliefs.' Other religious groups, particularly in faith communities of color, are viewing it with skepticism. The Rev. Mark Whitlock, senior pastor at Reid Temple African Methodist Episcopal Church in Glenn Dale, Maryland, said it raises more questions than answers. 'From those of us in the Black church, this decision is being viewed with caution, apprehension and skepticism,' he said. 'The question we're asking is: 'Why now?'' Whitlock said he will continue to do what the Black church has always done — educating and civically engaging parishioners. His congregants' political views vary, too. 'If I do say something in church, it needs to be God-centered, God-focused and a revelation that God gave you,' Whitlock said. 'You can't go to the pulpit as a campaign manager.' Raymond Chang, president of the Asian American Christian Collaborative, warned that a repeal of the Johnson Amendment could help tether some congregations to certain parties or candidates. 'This can lead to a partisan identity becoming the primary marker of a church or congregation, over a commitment to the Gospel, which cuts against both existing major parties,' he said. 'Church leaders may also face pressure to make political endorsements.' What comes next Nearly 80% of U.S. adults believe churches and other houses of worship should not come out in favor of one political candidate over another during elections, a Pew Research Center survey conducted in 2022 found. White evangelicals and Black Protestants were a little more divided on the matter, with about one-third in each group favoring political endorsements. But in every other religious group surveyed, there was a strong consensus against political involvement by houses of worship. Others are more optimistic that the IRS statement puts to bed unfounded criticisms against the agency for a rarely enforced rule. Terry Lemons, a former IRS official who began at the agency under Democratic President Bill Clinton, called it a 'common sense approach through a narrowly written filing.' Roger Colinvaux, a Catholic University of America law professor, said he would caution churches against 'overinterpreting' the IRS statement. He points out that the word 'endorse' does not appear anywhere in it and said his biggest concern is religion being used as a partisan tool in campaigns. Pagitt at Common Good said not all pastors will seize the opportunity because they might be ministering to a divided congregation or might not be comfortable mixing politics and religion. Chieko Noguchi, spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said Tuesday that the IRS statement doesn't 'change how the Catholic Church engages in public debate.' 'The Church seeks to help Catholics form their conscience in the Gospel so they might discern which candidates and policies would advance the common good,' Noguchi said. 'The Catholic Church maintains its stance of not endorsing or opposing political candidates.' ___ Bharath reported from Los Angeles. ___ AP's religion coverage receives support through the AP's collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.
