Latest news with #pro-Pa
USA Today
a day ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Can Trump deport visa holders over their speech? Federal judge will soon decide
A two-week federal trial concluded in Boston over the Trump administration's deportation policies and how they impact the free speech rights of visa and green card holders. BOSTON − Do visa and green card holders have First Amendment rights to express views on controversial foreign policy issues, particularly on college campuses? That question was at the heart of a two-week trial that concluded July 21 between the Trump administration and the State Department and a group of university professors from across the nation − including at Harvard University. It is a major First Amendment case with implications across higher education and beyond. It took place one courtroom over from another involving the administration and its federal research funding cuts aimed at Harvard, a case where lawyers also raised key First Amendment issues. The administration has argued that it can deport visa and green card holders under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which has a provision granting the secretary of state the authority to remove people from the country if they undermine its foreign policy interests. But the trial in American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, which began on July 7, raised questions about whether the administration was violating the First Amendment by retaliating against people for their political speech. The lawsuit − filed March 25 on behalf of the association's campus chapters at Harvard, New York and Rutgers universities, along with the Middle East Studies Association − accused the administration of fostering a 'climate of repression and fear on university campuses.' The trial came amid the backdrop of a high-profile case involving Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian activist. Last month, a federal judge in New Jersey ordered Khalil released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. That judge had previously ruled that the government's actions were chilling Khalil's right to free speech. The Trump administration has said the basis for its March 8 detention was Khalil's supposed alignment with Hamas, a designated terrorist group. Trump administration 'systematically violating the First Amendment,' lawyers say Here in Boston, closing arguments took place before U.S. District Judge William Young, a Harvard Law School graduate. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, along with co-counsel Sher Tremonte LLP, represented the association of professors in the case, and Young first asked them what evidence they had to support the notion that an 'ideological deportation' policy exists. Alexandra Conlon, a Sher Tremonte lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said that was proven by the administration revoking visas and green cards based on noncitizens' pro-Palestinian activism. In doing so, she said, the federal government was 'systematically violating the First Amendment' and seeking to chill speech it disagrees with. She said the administration conflates antisemitism with pro-Palestine, anti-Israel or anti-war viewpoints. Ramya Krishnan, an attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute , went on to argue that legal precedent affirms noncitizens' right to First Amendment protections. Further, she said, lawyers representing the administration hadn't proven that its actions against noncitizen activists were necessary for national security. Noncitizens don't have the same First Amendment rights, administration argues Justice Department attorney Ethan Kanter, representing the Trump administration, argued noncitizens do not have First Amendment rights to the same extent as U.S. citizens. While they may have such rights in some capacity, he said, they are 'context dependent and in relation to the compelling government interest at play.' He cited a 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2024 that allowed the state of Ohio to ban foreign nationals from contributing to political campaigns while litigation continued. The court said the state was likely to succeed on the merits of the case, saying the state's law was narrowly tailored to serve the government's compelling interest in preventing foreign influence on elections. William Kanellis, another attorney representing the administration, at one point referenced the novel 'Don Quixote.' He cited a particular story in which Quixote mistakes windmills for giants and tries to fight them, leading to him falling off his horse. The plaintiffs had similarly 'been knocked off their horse' in the trial, he said, adding that the notion of an 'ideological deportation policy' was, like Don Quixote's vision, based on the plaintiffs' 'imagination and creative conjuring.' If such a broad policy existed, he said, 'you'd see many more arrests.' In their complaint, the plaintiffs requested that Young, among other actions, recognize the existence of an "ideological deportation policy' and deem it, along with 'threats to arrest, detain and deport noncitizen students and faculty,' to be unconstitutional. They asked for the policy to be set aside and for Young to bar the administration from making such threats moving forward. Closing arguments lasted about 90 minutes. Young said he appreciated the 'vigorous advocacy' and 'high level of civility' shown by the legal counsel and witnesses throughout the trial. He said he now has the responsibility to consider all arguments and deliver a 'fair and just' ruling. Young previously blocked the administration's termination of National Institutes of Health grants that cut funding for research related to minority communities. In that case, he'd said that the funding cut 'represents racial discrimination,' the New York Times reported. BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Police defend arrests of Pro-Palestinian protestors
The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) has defended its actions after two women, one of whom is a pensioner, were arrested during a pro-Palestinian protest in Belfast. Sue Pentel, 72, a long-standing campaigner and member of Jews for Palestine Ireland, and another woman in her 50s were detained by police outside a Barclays Bank branch in Castle Place on Saturday. Both were arrested on suspicion of criminal damage. Stickers had been placed on an ATM. Assistant Chief Constable Ryan Henderson said having looked at body-cam footage of the incident, determined that the officer's actions were "lawful and proportionate". "I am limited in what I can say about this incident as due process must be allowed to run its course," he said in a statement to BBC Radio Ulster's The Nolan Show. "However, due to the degree of interest in this case, I want to reassure the public that, having reviewed footage of the incident (including from body worn camera,) I am satisfied that our officers acted with courtesy and professionalism." ACC Henderson said the officers were reacting to an emergency call from a city centre business. "Their actions were lawful and proportionate to the situation they discovered," he added. Both of the women were released later on Saturday, pending a report to the Public Prosecution Service. ACC Henderson said the right to both freedom of speech and assembly are "fundamental human rights". "However, they must be balanced with the need to uphold the rights of others, protect public health and safety, minimise disruption to normal life and by the need to prevent and detect crime." Following the arrests, a number of pro-Palestinian protesters held a further demonstration outside Musgrave Street PSNI station. Branches of Barclays have been targeted around the UK by pro-Palestinian groups, who want the bank to stop investing in certain companies. There has been mass condemnation of the arrests, with Ms Pentel's solicitor Pádraig Ó Muirigh saying she was detained after "peacefully protesting". "She has committed no offence and should not be criminalised for exercising her right to peaceful protest against these ongoing atrocities," he said in a statement. "Our client will robustly contest any attempt to criminalise her if a decision is made to prosecute. "We will also be advising her in relation to the lawfulness of her arrest." Patrick Corrigan, the Northern Ireland director of Amnesty International UK, told The Nolan Show that the right to protest is "fundamental to our democracy". "That includes making the point with your body – standing in the street or even with placing a sticker - those symbolic acts," he added. "It's in the public interest that police protect those rights." Mr Corrigan said peaceful protest is protected by law "even when it disruptive or causes a minor nuisance to people but that is not a reason to criminalise people". "When you arrest people for a sticker you lose all sense of balance." Pensioner arrested during pro-Palestinian protest
The Wire
03-05-2025
- Politics
- The Wire
Modi's Bihar Play: Why the Caste Census Might Backfire
Eight days after the Pahalgam terror attack, when the nation, opposition and even Bharatiya Janata Party cadres expected decisive action against the terrorists involved, the Narendra Modi government announced it would conduct a caste census. This sudden decision left the country puzzled. Why did the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA), chaired by the prime minister, meet so urgently? Of course, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has made the caste census a cornerstone of his political agenda, aligning with regional parties like the Samajwadi Party and Rashtriya Janata Dal, which have demanded it for decades. Gandhi has amplified this demand nationally and internationally, syncing Congress's agenda with the socialist parties' focus on social justice. However, the Sangh parivar , including Modi, Union home minister Amit Shah and Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath, had vehemently opposed the caste census. When the Nitish Kumar government, supported by Tejashwi Yadav and the Congress, conducted a caste survey in Bihar in 2023, Modi called it a ' paap (sin) of dividing Hindu society on caste lines'. BJP-backed lawyers challenged the survey in the high court and Supreme Court, and are also opposing Bihar's decision to raise the quota for marginalised sections to 65% in government jobs. Also read: From 'Urban Naxal' to 'Historic Decision': BJP's U-Turn on Caste Census The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has repeatedly called for reconsidering caste-based reservations. Modi, Shah and Adityanath led the Sangh parivar in condemning Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav, Lalu Prasad Yadav and Tejashwi Yadav for spreading ' jativad ka jahar (poison of casteism)' during the 2024 Lok Sabha and subsequent assembly campaigns. Moreover, the Congress-led INDIA alliance condemned the Pahalgam attack and urged Modi to act against terrorism and Pakistan's role in it. For perhaps the first time in three decades, the people of Jammu and Kashmir stood united in outrage, supporting the victims. The opposition had even paused its caste census demand, recognising the government's focus on the terrorist threat. Political observers and opposition leaders this writer spoke to suggest Modi's caste census announcement is a strategic move to win Bihar's elections. 'After the Pahalgam attack, Modi chose election-bound Bihar to address the tragedy instead of visiting the site to meet security forces, victims and locals. He aimed to capitalise on the tragedy, as he often does. But sensing that tough talk on terrorism might not yield electoral gains in Bihar, he fears losing the state. His sudden U-turn on the caste census is a calculated move,' said Shivanand Tiwary, RJD's national vice president and veteran socialist leader. Electoral impact The sudden announcement has left BJP cadres and the opposition in Bihar stunned. Hindutva supporters, who were framing the attack in communal terms, linking it to Muslims and accusing the opposition of fuelling caste divisions and appearing pro-Pakistan, are now disoriented. The opposition, too, is unsure how to counter the BJP, which has made Bihar a 'do-or-die' battle, especially as chief minister Nitish Kumar's influence wanes. It's too early to predict the caste census decision's impact on Bihar's elections, still six months away. However, this marks the first time in over a decade as prime minister that Modi has adopted the opposition's agenda. The caste census aims to ensure proportionate representation for marginalised communities in jobs and governance. The BJP, by its ideological nature, has historically opposed social justice politics, which emphasises caste-based participation. When V.P. Singh, backed by Janata Parivar parties like Lalu's and Mulayam's, implemented the Mandal Commission's 27% OBC quota in 1990, BJP leader L.K. Advani launched the Ram Rath Yatra, sparking the 'Mandal vs Kamandal' divide. Also read: A Look Back at India's Caste Census Journey For 34 years, the BJP has used religious themes – Rama, Ayodhya, Mathura, Kashi, Sambhal, Aurangzeb, Babar – to counter social justice parties. North Indian regional parties like SP and RJD have grown stronger, with the Congress, once critical of their 'casteist' politics, now aligning with social justice under Rahul Gandhi's leadership. The Congress-SP alliance, propelled by Akhilesh Yadav's ' Pichhara, Alpsankhyak, Adivasi (PDA)' framework for social justice, succeeded in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls in Uttar Pradesh, winning 43 seats against BJP's 33, reducing the BJP to a minority with 243 seats. While the BJP performed well in Haryana and Maharashtra assembly polls, allegations of 'manipulations and malpractices' have clouded those victories. Modi's gamble on the caste census may backfire in the long run. The BJP lacks the ideology and structure to position itself as a champion of social justice, unlike Congress and regional parties, which are ideologically and structurally committed to it. Nalin Verma is a senior journalist, author and media educator.
