Latest news with #AliKhan
Business Insider
28-06-2025
- Business
- Business Insider
Trump's Big Law executive orders go 0-4 after judge slaps down order against Susman Godfrey
President Donald Trump faced another legal loss on Friday after a District Court judge slapped down his executive order against the Big Law firm Susman Godfrey. In her ruling, Judge Loren AliKhan wrote that the order against Susman Godfrey "was one in a series attacking firms that had taken positions with which President Trump disagreed." "In the ensuing months, every court to have considered a challenge to one of these orders has found grave constitutional violations and permanently enjoined enforcement of the order in full," AliKhan wrote. "Today, this court follows suit, concluding that the order targeting Susman violates the US Constitution and must be permanently enjoined." Three other federal judges have already found similar executive orders against Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale unconstitutional. AliKhan's ruling in the Susman Godfrey case marks a 0-4 record for the Trump administration in legal challenges regarding his executive orders targeting Big Law firms. Susman Godfrey said in a statement that the court's ruling "is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation." "We applaud the Court for declaring the administration's order unconstitutional," the firm's statement continued. "Our firm is committed to the rule of law and to protecting the rights of our clients without regard to their political or other beliefs. Susman Godfrey's lawyers and staff live these values every day." Harrison Fields, principal White House deputy press secretary, told Business Insider in a statement that the White House opposes Judge AliKhan's ruling. "The decision to grant any individual access to this nation's secrets is a sensitive judgment call entrusted to the President," Fields said. "Weighing these factors and implementing such decisions are core executive powers, and reviewing the President's clearance decisions falls well outside the judiciary's authority." The federal government can appeal AliKhan's ruling, in which case the proceedings will be heard in the court of appeals. Any subsequent appeal would be heard by the Supreme Court. Fields did not immediately respond to Business Insider when asked if the government would appeal Judge AliKhan's decision. Judge AliKhan's ruling represents a major legal victory for the firms that have challenged the president's executive orders in court. While some other Big Law firms chose instead to strike deals with the administration to avoid or reverse punitive executive actions against them — drawing sharp criticism from industry insiders and a spate of resignations among associates and some partners — Business Insider previously reported that Susman Godfrey's decision to fight back in court took just two hours. In the original April 9 executive order against Susman Godfrey, the Trump administration accused the firm of "efforts to weaponize the American legal system and degrade the quality of American elections." Judge AliKahn had granted the firm a temporary restraining order on April 15, preventing enforcement of the order against Susman Godfrey pending further proceedings. In issuing her order granting the TRO, the judge said she believed "the framers of our constitution would see this as a shocking abuse of power," according to The American Lawyer. Susman Godfrey represented Dominion Voting Systems in its suit against Fox News after the 2020 election, which resulted in a $787.5 million settlement, and The New York Times in the publication's copyright suit against OpenAI and Microsoft, which has not yet reached a conclusion.
Mint
28-06-2025
- Business
- Mint
Fourth Trump Executive Order Against Law Firm Nullified by Judge
A DC federal judge has struck down President Donald Trump's executive order targeting Houston-founded law firm Susman Godfrey, marking the fourth takedown of an executive order targeting a law firm. US District Court Judge Loren AliKhan said Friday the order targeting Susman violates the U.S. Constitution and must be permanently enjoined. Judge AliKhan reasoned that Susman has nearly 20 clients who are government contractors or are affiliated with entities who do business with the government. 'Whether the executive is operating as a sovereign, contractor, landlord, or employer, it must comply with the Constitution,' AliKhan wrote. 'And as Defendants' counsel conceded at argument, the mere fact that the government has the right to exercise discretion does not immunize retaliatory intent.' The judge also wrote 'The court concludes that the Order constitutes unlawful retaliation against Susman for activities that are protected by the First Amendment, including its representation of certain clients, its donations to certain causes, and its expression of its beliefs regarding diversity.' 'The court's ruling is a resounding victory for the rule of law and the right of every American to be represented by legal counsel without fear of retaliation ... We are also deeply appreciative of those who supported us in this lawsuit, including our superb legal team at Munger, Tolles & Olson and the thousands of lawyers, former judges, law professors, and law students who submitted amicus briefs,' Susman said in a statement. The firm sued the Trump administration in April, arguing that the order against the firm is vindictive, retaliatory, and violates the Constitution. Similar to the directives against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block, the Susman order instructed agency heads to strip lawyers' security clearances, restrict personnel from accessing federal buildings, and slash federal contracts held by the firm's clients. Susman represented Dominion Voting Systems Inc. in a blockbuster defamation lawsuit against Fox Corp. in which the media company agreed to pay a $787.5 million settlement. The firm is also pursuing a defamation case against Mike Lindell, a well-known Trump advocate and chief executive officer of MyPillow, on behalf of Dominion. Susman is represented by former US solicitor general Donald Verrilli of Munger Tolles & Olson. Nine top law firms, including Paul Weiss, Kirkland & Ellis, Willkie Farr, and Latham & Watkins, reached agreements to collectively provide $940 million in free legal services for President Donald Trump to avoid executive orders. Some of the firms also resolved Equal Employment Opportunity Commission inquiries into their diversity programs. The case is Susman Godfrey v. Executive Office of the President, D.D.C., 1:25-cv- 01107, 6/27/25 To contact the reporters on this story: Tatyana Monnay at tmonnay@ and Justin Henry at jhenry@ To contact the editors responsible for this story: Chris Opfer at copfer@ John Hughes at jhughes@ Alessandra Rafferty at arafferty@ This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
India.com
03-06-2025
- Sport
- India.com
Banned in India, THESE Pakistan cricketers are playing for Mukesh Ambani and Adani's teams in...
Image credit: X (Formerly Twitter) In these collection of pictures, we take a look at some of the top Pakistan players who are banned from playing in India but are turning out for Indian owners in other leagues. Image credit: X (Formerly Twitter) Pakistan cricketers are banned from IPL but Azam Khan plays for Barbados Royals, which is owned by Rajasthan Royals owners. Pakistan wicketkeeper Azam plays in Caribbean Premier League (CPL). Image credit: X (Formerly Twitter) Pakistan pacer Haris Rauf turns out for San Francisco Unicorns in MLC (Major League Cricket) in US. The Unicorns are owned by Indian businessmen Anand Rajraman and Venky Harinarayan. Image credit: X (Formerly Twitter) Pakistan-origin batter Muhammad Wasim plays for Mukesh Ambani's MI Emirates team in ILT20 league. Apart from Wasim, Muhammad Rohid Khan and Zahoor Khan are also Pakistan-origin cricketers from UAE. Image credit: X (Formerly Twitter) Pakistan-origin all-rounder Saghir Khan plays for Gautam Adani's Gulf Giants in the ILT20 league. Image credit: X (Formerly Twitter) Pakistan-origin batter Rohan Mustafa plays for Capri Global-owned Sharjah Warriors. One of the owners of Capri Global is Indian businessman Rajesh Sharma. Apart from Mustafa, Junaid Siddiqui and Mohammad Jawadullah are other Pakistan-origin players turning out for Sharjah Warriors. Image credit: X (Formerly Twitter) Pakistan-origin Ehsan Adil plays for Mukesh Ambani's MI New York in the Major League Cricket tournament. Image credit: X (Formerly Twitter) Pakistan-origin pacer Ali Khan turns out for Shah Rukh Khan's LA Knight Riders in Major League Cricket. Apart from him, Saif Badr is another Pakistan-origin cricketer turning out for Shah Rukhan and Juhi Chawla-owned LAKR. Image credit: X (Formerly Twitter) Pakistan pacer Ibrar Ahmed plays for Shah Rukh Khan's Abu Dhabi Knight Riders in ILT20 league apart from Pakistan-origin fast bowler Ali Khan from USA.
Scroll.in
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Scroll.in
Harsh Mander: The message from the persecution of Ali Khan Mahmudabad
Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad today mercifully walks free. But I am able to draw only limited solace from his conditional and fragile freedom. He continues to be charged with dire crimes against the nation and social harmony. He was subjected to severe verbal censure by India's highest court for 'dog-whistling', for his 'choice of words' and for seeking 'cheap publicity'. Worse, the court thought it fit to appoint a team of three police officers to exhume the true meaning behind his social media tweets that overtly called for social equity and peace. He has been silenced by the court from commenting publicly on the hostilities between India and Pakistan that rose after the brutal terror attack on tourists in Kashmir. His conspicuous targeting by the heavy arm of the establishment and investigation for any covert 'dog-whistles' in his posts that called for peace raise many troubling questions. About the character of the Indian state, about the withering of its democracy, about the contested space of the university, about the narrowing freedoms of the liberal intellectual, about the perils of calling for peace and social equity during times of valorised military aggression, about the dilemmas of empowering the state to regulate free speech. Perhaps most somberly of all, whether Ali Khan was made an example because of his Muslim identity. The facts are well-known. Professor Ali Khan stands charged with some of the severest crimes in India's statute books. These include crimes that allege that he endangered the integrity, sovereignty and unity of the nation and sought to divide and estrange communities. The Supreme Court, while granting him interim bail, ordered that a special team of three policepersons investigate his two social media posts. What are these two Facebook posts that lie at the centre of the crimes that Ali Khan is accused of? I have read many times the full text of these Facebook posts to try to unearth what in these posts could even remotely be considered seditious, anti-national or damaging to social harmony. I failed. There are three main thrusts to his contested posts. The first is his understanding of the rationale of the Indian government for its response to the latest act of terror killings. India, he says, has put 'the onus on the Pakistani military to make sure that it cannot hide any longer behind terrorists and non-state actors'. It has 'begun a new phase in terms of collapsing distinction between military and terrorist (non-state actors) in Pakistan'. He observes that 'the Pakistan military has used militarised non-state actors to destabilise the region for far too long while also claiming to be victims on the international stage'. Operation Sindoor 'resets all received notions of Indo-Pak relationships as the response to terrorist attacks will be met with a military response and removes any semantic distinction between the two'. The second is a brief call for ensuring equal citizenship for India's Muslims. The 'optics' of a Muslim woman army officer Colonel Sofiya Qureshi becoming the public face of the armed forces in official briefings, he says, would be reduced to hypocrisy if lynching and destruction of Muslim homes by bulldozers continue. In a secular democracy, this appeal for equal protections of minorities by the state would be considered salutary. In a de facto Hindu nation, the demand for equal rights of Muslims would be seen as disruptive, deserving censure and repression. The third thrust of his posts is a brave and ringing call for peace. 'The loss of civilian life is tragic on both sides and is the main reason why war should be avoided', he declares (my italics). 'There are those who are mindlessly advocating for a war but they have never seen one, let alone lived in or visited a conflict zone. Being part of a mock civil defence drill does not make you a solider and neither will you ever know the pain of someone who suffers losses because of conflict. 'War is brutal. The poor suffer disproportionately and the only people who benefit are politicians and defence companies. While war is inevitable because politics is primarily rooted in violence – at least human history teaches us this – we have to realise that political conflicts have never been solved militarily'. He also cautions against hateful calls against the enemy. 'So when you clamour for war or you call for a country to be wiped out, then what exactly are you asking?' he asks. 'For the genocide of an entire people? I know Israel is getting away with doing this – and some Indians admire this – but do we really want to advocate the wholesale murder of children as potential future enemies? 'Just because you are far from the border or because you have internalised so much hate that you no longer think of human beings when you think of an entire country, people, religious community, ethnic group, or social group doesn't mean you are safe… You cannot equate an entire people with their government. In any case war eventually hits everyone. It's just a matter of time. 'Think about what it means when you say 'wipe them out,' 'finish them,' 'destroy them' etc? 'You are saying kill all the children, the elderly, minorities, those who are opposed to war on the other side and many other innocent people who want to do exactly what you want to do: be a father, a mother, a daughter, a son, a grandparent and a friend. You can only ask for such wholesale destruction if you have completely dehumanised them'. He draws upon the teachings of both the Bhagwad Gita and the Prophet to support his appeal for harmony and amity. Denouncing the 'blind bloodlust for war' displayed by some people on social media, he declares that warmongering 'disrespects the seriousness of war and dishonours the lives of soldiers whose lives are actually on the line.' It is nothing short of a tragedy that this luminous, heartfelt and morally salient call for peace has been distorted by the state establishment as an ignoble crime against the nation. His pacifist appeal for peace was an act of exceptional moral courage at a time when war-mongering is led from top on both sides of the border. The hawkish Pakistani general has been elevated to field marshal. Massive hoardings have risen across India of prime minister Modi in military fatigues. If voices calling on both governments to abjure from a war that would shatter the lives of innocent vulnerable citizens are silenced, even criminalised, this is a clear signal of a land that has dropped its moral compass. The gravity of this societal crisis was reflected particularly in the distressing verbal trouncing to which Mahmudabad was subjected by judges of the Supreme Court. This is the highest forum to defend constitutional freedoms and secularism. The learned judges made mystifying allusions to 'dog-whistling' in the professor's social media tweets, criticising his 'choice of words' and charging him with seeking 'cheap publicity'. The bench ordered the appointment of a Special Investigation Team to 'holistically understand the complexity of the phraseology employed and for proper appreciation of some of the expressions used in the two posts.' It is beyond our comprehension how three police officers could be equipped to decipher hidden meanings that the learned judges could not themselves interpret from a post written in elegant and straightforward English. The learned judges directed the professor to make no further statements about the India-Pakistan hostilities. At a time when the country is deluged with social media posts and speeches of hatemongering and warmongering, there is painful irony that calls for peace by a political scientist are silenced. The contrast with how hateful speeches calling even for genocide by political and religious leaders are treated by the police and courts could not be more telling. During the 2024 general elections, the prime minister himself led his party's hate campaign from the front, describing Indian Muslims repeatedly as infiltrators, engaged in a series of sinister conspiracies or jihads. Concurrently with the criminal action against Mahmudabad, a minister from Madhya Pradesh, Kunwar Vijay Shah chose to describe Colonel Sofiya Qureshi as the 'sister or terrorists'. The police initially took no action against him. It required the High Court to direct the police to register crimes against the minister, describing his statements 'cancerous and dangerous'. Of course he has not been arrested. India's moral crisis was also on display in the conspicuous and disgraceful silence of the management of Ashoka University after the unjust criminal targeting of their faculty. This university presents itself as a premier liberal arts university. Its muteness in the face of this assault on the freedom of its faculty to call for peace and social justice displays how hollow are its claims. The contrast, of Harvard University, that refused to penalise its students and faculty who protested Israel's genocidal war in Gaza, is uncomfortably telling. The university refused to bend even when in retribution the country's president announced the slashing of a $2-billion grant to the university. We should also be mindful of the ways that the universities in Nazi Germany allowed themselves to become hotbeds of the Nazi genocidal ideology. It is heartening, however, that many students and faculty members of Ashoka University came forward in heartening solidarity with Professor Ali Khan, despite the craven silence of the university leadership. Faculty members took turns to sit outside places where the professor was held in custody. I was particularly touched by a public statement released by Ali Khan's students, who described him as compassionate and thoughtful, a teacher who loved his country and taught his students respect for the constitutional values of secular democracy. But the Supreme Court even attacked public displays of solidarity with the professor, handing out a stern warning to academics and students who supported Professor Ali Khan with the words – 'we know how to handle them also'. The perils and consequences of suppressing free speech by unjust application of criminal law can be profoundly corrosive for a society. Journalist Sourav Das aptly describes the treatment of Ali Khan by the police and courts as 'a perfect example of how you make a nation of intellectually dead citizens, where critical inquiry is replaced by rote repetition and progressive voices are muzzled to make space for conformist, mediocre opinions. This is how a society dies, where the proliferation of free thought is choked, through a slow, judicially sanctioned suffocation of intellectual life'. Yet let me end with a central dilemma about the apparent imperative to control surging and sometimes genocidal hate speech by law. The dangers of hate speech that steadily poisons the social fabric and incites hate violence are manifest and frightening. But if we have stronger laws to punish hate speech, what we would be doing is to empower the executive and its arms of power and control – mainly the police – to decide what hate speech is and what it is not. The fate of Mahmadubad is a painful reminder of how a majoritarian and repressive state can use these powers. It will treat an impassioned pacifist call for peace and the protection of civilian lives as criminal hate speech. It will leave unpunished hateful dangerous calls for genocide. The message from the Indian state and courts through the persecution of Ali Khan is unmistakable. Calls for peace between and within the nation are unwelcome, as are calls for the rights to equal protection and rights of India's Muslims. Yet the fact is that, for instance, I repeatedly have made similar calls against war and hate before and after the Pahalgam terror attack, in my writings and in online discussions and a video appeal. Admittedly, the appeals made by Ali Khan are much more eloquent than mine. But if he is deemed to have committed crimes against the nation and social peace, then so have I. Then why has he been punished, jailed and severely upbraided by the country's highest court and not I? There can only be one conclusion, and this is that he was punished because he is Muslim and I am not. Freedom of speech and conscience are under grave threat in Modi's India for all citizens. But these freedoms are completely erased for the Indian Muslim. Harsh Mander, justice and peace worker and writer, leads Karwan e Mohabbat, a people's campaign to counter hate violence with love and solidarity. He teaches at FAU University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, and Heidelberg University, Germany; Vrije University, Amsterdam; and IIM, Ahmedabad.
Hans India
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Hans India
NHRC takes suo moto cognisance of Ashoka University professor's arrest over remarks on Operation Sindoor
New Delhi: The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) on Wednesday took suo moto cognisance of the arrest of Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a professor of political science at Haryana-based Ashoka University, who was put behind bars by the state police over his remarks on Operation Sindoor. The apex human rights body issued a notice to the Director General of Police (DGP) of Haryana and called for a detailed report on the matter within one week. Taking note of the news report, the NHRC said that a gist of the allegations on the basis of which Mahmudabad has been arrested, prima facie, violated his human rights and liberty. Earlier in the day, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Ali Khan, ordering the Haryana DGP to constitute, within 24 hours, a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising three senior IPS officials, including a woman officer, to probe the case. Refusing to stay the investigation, a bench headed by Justice Surya Kant remarked that it granted interim bail to Ali Khan to facilitate further investigation. As per the order of the apex court, Mahmudabad would be released on interim bail upon surrendering his passport and furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the court below. The top court also restrained the petitioner from posting any further online posts related to the present case or the recent India-Pakistan conflict. Mahmudabad, 42, was arrested on a complaint filed by Yogesh Jatheri, the General Secretary of the BJP Yuva Morcha in Haryana. A Sonipat court on Tuesday sent him to 14 days of judicial custody. An FIR was lodged against Mahmudabad under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) pertaining to inciting armed rebellion or subversive activities and insulting religious beliefs. Also, sedition-like charges have been filed against him. In a post on social media, Mahmudabad wrote: "I am very happy to see so many right-wing commentators applauding Colonel Sophi(y)a Qureishi, but perhaps they could also equally loudly demand that the victims of mob lynchings, arbitrary bulldozing and others who are victims of the BJP's hate mongering be protected as Indian citizens. The optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings is important, but optics must translate to reality on the ground, otherwise it's just hypocrisy." Haryana State Commission for Women Chairperson Renu Bhatia took suo motu cognisance of Mahmudabad's remarks, which were alleged to be disparaging towards women in the Indian armed forces and promoting communal disharmony. The women's rights body had summoned the professor, but he failed to appear. Later, he said the Commission had "misread" his comment. "[I] am surprised that the Women's Commission, while overreaching its jurisdiction, has misread and misunderstood my posts to such an extent that they have inverted their meaning," Mahmudabad had said on X.
