NYPD investigating release of Palestinian woman's sealed records to ICE
The New York Police Department has opened an investigation into whether it improperly shared some information about a Palestinian woman's arrest with federal immigration authorities in possible violation of departmental policy and the city's sanctuary laws.
Speaking with reporters during an unrelated media briefing Tuesday, NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch acknowledged the department shared some information with Homeland Security Investigations, but said it was not clear why sealed information was also provided.
'The thing that we are looking at is, as part of that document request, which we handed over, how a summons record associated with a sealed case was also provided,' Tisch said.
Leqaa Kordia, a 32-year-old Palestinian resident in New Jersey, was taken into custody by immigration officers on March 13 during a voluntary check-in with immigration officials in Newark.
She was then transferred to an immigration detention center in Texas, where she remains in custody, according to court documents.
Kordia's arrest came days after federal immigration officers took Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil into custody. Khalil's arrest was the first of a wave of high-profile detentions among students and noncitizens who participated in protests.
Little had been known about Kordia's case until this week, after attorneys filed a habeas corpus petition in court challenging the legality of her detention and seeking her release.
Following her arrest in March, the Department of Homeland Security issued a news release which appeared to identify her as a Columbia student, but Kordia has never been affiliated with the school and was not enrolled in any school at the time of her arrest, according to court documents and her attorneys.
According to court documents filed in Texas, federal officers arrested Kordia nearly a year after she made a day trip to New York City to participate in a protest outside the gates of Columbia University.
'Ms. Kordia was moved to join this demonstration and others because of the sense of loss she felt, and still feels, from losing an entire generation of her family in Gaza. This helped her begin to mourn for the family she had lost,' Kordia's attorneys wrote.
While Kordia was at the demonstration, the NYPD ordered protesters to disperse, but before she could leave the area, Kordia was arrested with dozens of other people and released the following day, according to her attorneys and court documents.
'Ms. Kordia was initially given a court date but was later informed that the charges had been dismissed without her ever having to appear in court,' the attorneys wrote.
Kordia's attorneys told CNN Tuesday an NYPD-generated report of Kordia's arrest was issued on March 14 – a day after her arrest by immigration officials in Newark.
The report was shared with the Department of Homeland Security, which has since included it as evidence in Kordia's immigration proceedings.
CNN has obtained a copy of the report, which bears the NYPD seal and a summary of information about Kordia including her home address, date of birth and a brief description of her arrest. The report shows Kordia had no previous criminal record or arrests.
The potential information-sharing is now under investigation by the NYPD. The department is prohibited from sharing information or assisting immigration authorities in the enforcement of immigration laws except in certain cases involving certain crimes.
News of the investigation was first reported by The Associated Press.
'This is under internal investigation and review,' Tisch said during Tuesday's briefing.
Attorney Arthur Ago, director of strategic litigation and advocacy at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is representing Kordia, told CNN he does not know why Kordia became a target for the Department of Homeland Security and whether the NYPD's arrest report ultimately helped immigration officers execute her detention in Newark.
'The facts of this case tell us that she is not a person who is an activist, she's not an organizer of demonstrations or protests,' Ago said. 'She is a very private person who is not a central figure in any of this – that's who she is, so no, we have no idea how she came to the attention of the Department of Homeland Security.'
CNN has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment.
According to court documents filed by Kordia's attorney, Homeland Security Investigations agents spoke with multiple people related to Kordia as part of an investigation into alleged 'national security violations,' in the days leading up to her arrest.
'They also subpoenaed records from MoneyGram, established a trace on her WhatsApp messaging account, and requested records from NYPD related to the April 2024 demonstration for Palestinian rights,' Kordia's attorneys wrote.
'There is still no evidence that agents found any indication of 'national security violations.' Instead, this in-depth investigation only revealed a single wire transfer from February 2022 in which Ms. Kordia sent $1,000 to a family member still living in Palestine,' reads the court filing.
During questioning by reporters on Tuesday, Tisch said the NYPD received a request from Homeland Security Investigations officers in New Jersey seeking information about a money-laundering investigation.
'They were seeking information on this person related to a money laundering investigation, and that is fairly standard for us, and so the information was provided,' Tisch said.
Kordia's attorneys said they have not received any indication that money-laundering accusations are part of Kordia's immigration case.
'The Department of Homeland Security has never communicated to us or indicated in court that Ms. Kordia is under investigation for money laundering,' Ago told CNN.
'The allegation comes as a complete surprise, is entirely unfounded, and we categorically deny it. Ms. Kordia has never engaged in money laundering and any insinuation otherwise is false, unsupported by any facts or evidence, and we are prepared to fight this allegation in court.'
Kordia has been in detention for months, more than a thousand miles away from her home, facing conditions her attorneys say violate her right to religious freedom and deny her proper accommodations.
'Since being confined, Ms. Kordia, a practicing Muslim, has not had a single halal meal, even though the detention center accommodates the religious dietary needs of other people in custody, including Jewish people who observe a kosher diet,' Kordia's attorneys wrote. 'As a result, Ms. Kordia has experienced significant weight loss.'
Following her arrest in Newark, the Department of Homeland Security issued a statement saying Kordia was arrested for overstaying an expired F-1 visa and noted she had been previously arrested for her involvement in 'pro-Hamas protests at Columbia University in New York City.'
'It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America,' Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement. 'When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country.'
The Homeland Security statement does not mention that New York City Police dropped those charges against Kordia.
Kordia's attorneys contest that accusation in court documents, saying Kordia's visa expired because of 'incorrect advice' that led her to believe she did not need to maintain her status because a separate immigration claim filed by her mother, who also lives in New Jersey, had been approved.
Kordia's habeas corpus petition seeks her release from detention, arguing she is being detained in violation of her First and Fifth Amendment rights despite an immigration judge's decision to grant her bail last month. The government swiftly appealed that decision. The federal district court in Texas has not yet set a briefing schedule on the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump
Brown University has settled with the Trump administration, which is currently waging war on elite institutions of higher education. Under the guise of combating antisemitism on campuses—an important problem, though not one the federal government is well-suited to address—President Donald Trump's Education Department has gone after Columbia University, Harvard University, and also Brown. Brown's deal with the federal government has been described as more favorable to the university than Columbia's; Harvard has yet to reach an agreement at all, but is reportedly willing to spend up to $500 million to settle the matter. Large sums of money are at stake for all three universities, as the federal government is responsible for doling out billions of dollars in research grants. Brown is the recipient of $510 million in public funding. So it's not surprising that Brown wanted to make a deal. It's unfortunate, of course, that the Trump administration is using the threat of a funding reduction to dictate terms to what is ultimately a private institution. This is obviously a version of jawboning, in which political figures use non-legislative means to achieve some sort of policy end. When the Biden administration threatened social media companies and browbeat them into making different moderation decisions, it was swiftly recognized as a free speech issue by many conservatives, libertarians, and even some on the left. It's similarly vexing when the Trump administration—which has pledged to restore free speech and end federally driven censorship—does this. It's true that institutions of higher education are not entitled to federal funding, which, after all, is paid by taxpayers. The Trump administration, or any administration, could decide, in a moment of unusual frugality, that the U.S. is too indebted to continue sending billions of dollars to wealthy private organizations that have their own massive endowments. But the government shouldn't use the threat of a funding cut as a form of coercion. That's no different from how the Obama administration handled Title IX enforcement: Obama's Education Department instructed campuses to adopt policies that were hostile to free speech and due process, and they implied that federal research dollars would evaporate in the event of noncompliance. Indeed, the extent to which the Obama higher ed coercion blueprint has been adopted by Trump is under-acknowledged. All that said, the details of the Brown settlement are disturbing in their own right. It's true that Brown avoided some of the harsher penalties that Columbia got stuck with, and it's good that the settlement recognizes that the government has no "authority to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech." Veena Dubal, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, complains that the settlement includes "no barrier to government interference in faculty hiring," but the only thing it really says about hiring is that it must be race neutral. The Supreme Court has already held that race-based hiring and admissions policies are almost always impermissible, so this is hardly some unreasonable, out-of-nowhere demand. But Dubal is also concerned about a provision of the settlement that permits the feds to collect and read Brown faculty course evaluations, and that's legitimately concerning. In fact, it speaks to the most troubling aspect of the settlement: It lends itself toward the creation of a campus antisemitism police that will be laser-focused on identifying, cataloguing, and eliminating uncomfortable and offensive speech that is nevertheless clearly protected by the First Amendment. In other words, the Trump administration is directly encouraging the formation of campus safe spaces. The settlement instructs Brown to survey students on their feelings of emotional safety. The survey questions are really something, and include: "whether they feel welcome at Brown; whether they feel safe reporting anti-Semitism at Brown; whether they have experienced harassment on social media." These are vague questions that will prompt subjective answers. Social media harassment is a particularly fraught topic; what constitutes harassment? If one student is being unkind to another student on Instagram or TikTok, is it really the university's job to intervene? Brown should act to counter identity-based harassment in cases where it's egregious, criminal, or abjectly violates the code of conduct. If students are drawing swastikas on Jewish people's doors, the university should certainly intervene. But the language in the settlement is too non-specific, and almost requires university administrators to overreach. No one should be naive about this, because it's obvious what's going to happen: An anti-Israel student will go after a pro-Israel student on social media, the pro-Israel student will say they are being harassed, and Brown will feel obligated to respond. No student should be made actually unsafe—i.e., be a victim of violence—because they are Jewish, or for any other reason. But it should be self-apparent to everyone who criticized the liberal safe space trend of the 2010s that re-orienting the campus speech police around the protection of Jewish students' subjective feelings of discomfort is not a positive development. This will produce the same sort of histrionics that existed when campus authorities were dedicated to policing speech that was perceived to be anti-black, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-trans, etc. There will be an uptick in bias incident reports as students discover that they can weaponize the process against perceived enemies, as students absorb the idea that the administration is responsible for making them feel emotionally well at all times. I really thought the idea was to undermine the ideological foundations of the safe space mentality, not expand its identity-based reach. The Trump administration is erecting an edifice that would have been much to the liking of all those Play-Doh-loving, coloring-book-needing, puppy-hugging, safe-space liberals circa 2015. I'm joined by Amber Duke to discuss South Park's jokes about Trump, the latest Epstein Files news, Sydney Sweeney, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D–Texas), and more. It has begun: My Nintendo Switch 2 arrived last night. I bought the system, one extra set of Joy-Cons, the Pro Controller, and three games: Donkey Kong Bananza, Mario Kart World, and Super Mario Party Jamboree. (The grand total was in the $800 range.) I spent most of the night transferring my data from the old Switch to the new one, and I've only had time to play about 20 minutes of Donkey Kong, so the full report will have to wait until next week. The post Safe Spaces Are Coming Back to Brown University—All Thanks to Trump appeared first on
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Uber says some sexual assault accusers submitted fake receipts
By Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) -Uber said it found more than 100 instances in which passengers who claimed its drivers sexually assaulted or harassed them offered bogus or doctored receipts to prove ridership, or did not explain their inability to provide receipts. In a Wednesday court filing, Uber urged U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco to order 21 plaintiffs with suspect receipts to justify why their claims should not be dismissed, and 90 plaintiffs to provide receipts or "non-boilerplate" reasons for their absence. At least 11 law firms represent the various plaintiffs, court papers show. Those firms had no immediate comment or did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday. They were not accused of wrongdoing. Uber is trying to reduce its liability in nationwide federal litigation comprising more than 2,450 lawsuits alleging driver misconduct. It faces several hundred additional lawsuits in San Francisco Superior Court. The San Francisco-based company has maintained it should not be liable for criminal conduct by drivers it connects with passengers, and that its background checks and disclosures were sufficient. On July 8, Breyer dismissed some fraud and liability claims that were based on ads promoting Uber's ride-sharing service as a safe alternative to drunk driving. In Wednesday's filing, Uber said some fake receipts appear to have been generated through third-party websites. Uber said some receipts contained math errors or bogus surcharges, changed female driver names to male names, were timestamped before rides occurred, had stray marks, or used formatting that does not match its own. One plaintiff submitted two receipts for a single ride, while two plaintiffs submitted different versions of the same receipt, the company said. "Nothing is more critical to the integrity of our judicial system than honesty," Uber said. "It is difficult to conceive an act of misconduct graver than the outright fabrication of evidence that plaintiffs here undertook." The case is In re Uber Technologies Inc Passenger Sexual Assault Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 23-03084. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump gives Mexico 90-day tariff reprieve as deadline for higher duties looms
By David Lawder and Aida Pelaez-Fernandez (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump gave Mexico a 90-day reprieve from higher tariffs to negotiate a broader trade deal but was expected to issue higher final duty rates for most other countries as the clock wound down on his Friday deal deadline. The extension, which avoids a 30% tariff on most Mexican non-automotive and non-metal goods compliant with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, came after a Thursday morning call between Trump and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. "We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow," Sheinbaum wrote in an X social media post, adding that the Trump call was "very good." Approximately 85% of Mexican exports comply with the rules of origin outlined in the USMCA, shielding them from 25% tariffs related to fentanyl, according to Mexico's economy ministry. Trump said that the U.S. would continue to levy a 50% tariff on Mexican steel, aluminum and copper and a 25% tariff on Mexican autos and on non-USMCA-compliant goods subject to tariffs related to the U.S. fentanyl crisis. "Additionally, Mexico has agreed to immediately terminate its Non Tariff Trade Barriers, of which there were many," Trump said in a Truth Social post without providing details. Trump is expected to issue tariff rate proclamations later on Thursday for countries that have not struck trade deals by a 12:01 a.m. EDT (0401 GMT) deadline. South Korea agreed on Wednesday to accept a 15% tariff on its exports to the U.S., including autos, down from a threatened 25%, as part of a deal that includes a pledge to invest $350 billion in U.S. projects to be chosen by Trump. But goods from India appeared to be headed for a 25% tariff after talks bogged down over access to India's agriculture sector, drawing a higher-rate threat from Trump that also included an unspecified penalty for India's purchases of Russian oil. Although negotiations with India were continuing, New Delhi vowed to protect the country's labor-intensive farm sector, triggering outrage from the opposition party and a slump in the rupee. TOUGH QUESTIONS FROM JUDGES Trump hit Brazil on Wednesday with a steep 50% tariff as he escalated his fight with Latin America's largest economy over its prosecution of his friend and former President Jair Bolsonaro, but softened the blow by excluding sectors such as aircraft, energy and orange juice from heavier levies. The run-up to Trump's tariff deadline was unfolding as federal appeals court judges sharply questioned Trump's use of a sweeping emergency powers law to justify his sweeping tariffs of up to 50% on nearly all trading invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare an emergency over the growing U.S. trade deficit and impose his "reciprocal" tariffs and a separate fentanyl emergency. The Court of International Trade ruled in May that the actions exceeded his executive authority, and questions from judges during oral arguments before the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit in Washington indicated further skepticism. "IEEPA doesn't even say tariffs, doesn't even mention them," Judge Jimmie Reyna said at one point during the hearing. CHINA DEAL NOT DONE U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the United States believes it has the makings of a trade deal with China, but it is "not 100% done," and still needs Trump's approval. U.S. negotiators "pushed back quite a bit" over two days of trade talks with the Chinese in Stockholm this week, Bessent said in an interview with CNBC. China is facing an August 12 deadline to reach a durable tariff agreement with Trump's administration, after Beijing and Washington reached preliminary deals in May and June to end escalating tit-for-tat tariffs and a cut-off of rare earth minerals. (Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu and Susan Heavey in Washington and Aftab Ahmed in New Delhi; Editing by Nick Zieminski) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
