

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Rachel Myers, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
A
federal appeals court today found that the U.S. government had not
adequately justified its denial of a visa to a Swiss professor and
leading scholar of the Muslim world. The decision, which reverses a
ruling of a lower federal court, comes in a case in which the American
Civil Liberties Union contended that the government's exclusion from
the U.S. of Professor Tariq Ramadan violated the First Amendment rights
of organizations inside the United States that had invited Ramadan to
meet with and speak to their members.
In today's ruling, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit found the First Amendment rights of U.S.
organizations are at stake when foreign scholars, artists, politicians
and others are excluded, quoting from a 1972 Supreme Court ruling in Kleindienst v. Mandel
that the organizations have a First Amendment right to "'hear, speak,
and debate with' a visa applicant." The appeals court also found that
the government cannot exclude an individual from the U.S. on the basis
of "material support" for terrorism without affording him the
"opportunity to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he
did not know, and reasonably should not have known, that the recipient
of his contributions was a terrorist organization."
"We're very pleased with the appeals
court's decision. The court properly found that the exclusion of
foreign scholars like Ramadan implicates the First Amendment rights of
Americans, that the judiciary has a role in policing the government's
exclusion of foreign scholars, and that in this case the government
simply has not offered a constitutionally adequate justification for
its actions," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National
Security Project, who argued the case before the appeals court. "As
we've been emphasizing from the outset of this case, the exclusion of
foreign scholars on ideological grounds skews and impoverishes academic
and political debate inside the United States. The government should
not be using the immigration laws as instruments of censorship."
Ramadan was invited to teach at the
University of Notre Dame in 2004 but the U.S. government revoked his
visa, citing a statute that applies to those who have "endorsed or
espoused" terrorism. In January 2006, the ACLU and the New York Civil
Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging Professor Ramadan's
exclusion on behalf of the American Academy of Religion, the American
Association of University Professors and the PEN American Center. After
the ACLU filed suit, the government abandoned its claim that Ramadan
had endorsed terrorism, but it continued to defend his exclusion on the
grounds that he had made small donations to a Swiss charity that the
government alleged had given money to Hamas.
"I am very gratified with the
court's decision," said Ramadan. "I am eager to engage once again with
Americans in the kinds of face-to-face discussions that are central to
academic exchange and crucial to bridging cultural divides."
The case will now be sent back to
the lower court for further proceedings, but the ACLU expressed hope
that the Obama administration would end Professor Ramadan's exclusion
without further litigation.
"Given today's decision, we hope
that the Obama administration will immediately end Professor Ramadan's
exclusion," said Melissa Goodman, staff attorney with the ACLU National
Security Project. "We also encourage the new administration to
reconsider the exclusion of other foreign scholars, writers and artists
who were barred from the country by the Bush administration on
ideological grounds."
Attorneys on the case, now called Academy of Religion v. Napolitano,
are Jaffer, Goodman, Lucas Guttentag and Judy Rabinovitz of the ACLU,
Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU, and New York immigration lawyer Claudia
Slovinsky. The lawsuit was originally brought against then-Department
of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and then-Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice.
More information about the Ramadan
case and the ACLU's separate lawsuit concerning the exclusion of South
African scholar Adam Habib is available online at: www.aclu.org/exclusion
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666"Families shouldn’t be paying the price for Trump’s reckless decisions," said US Rep. Zoe Lofgren.
President Donald Trump's decision to restart his illegal war with Iran has sent oil prices back upward, and experts are warning that means more economic pain for working families in the coming months.
The price of Brent crude, which had fallen under $71 per barrel in late June after the US and Iran reached a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to wind down the conflict, has since surged back above $85 per barrel as of Tuesday, days after Trump declared the ceasefire between the two countries to be over.
Rising oil costs mean that the price of gasoline, which has similarly been dropping over the last month, will again start to rise. Petroleum industry analyst Patrick De Haan on Tuesday projected that, based on the current surge in oil prices, the US is "days away" from seeing the average price of gas go back over $4 per gallon.
The renewed hostilities with Iran came amid signs of inflationary pressures in the US easing. Data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) on Tuesday showed consumer prices in June rose by less than expected, with lower energy prices delivering relief.
University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers argued that while Tuesday's inflation data was positive news, the recent fighting between the US and Iran means it could be short-lived.
"Inflation remains high, is well above the Fed's target, and the ceasefire with Iran is over," Wolfers cautioned, referring to the Federal Reserve.
Alex Jacquez, chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, said the resumption of the illegal war would "continue hammering Americans’ budgets at home."
"Gas prices have already started to rise again and last month’s inflation data is stale," said Jacquez. "Trump’s debacle in the Middle East will have lasting, layered effects on our economy for months to come. Working families struggling to make ends meet should lay blame squarely on the president."
Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, said the latest consumer price data show "it's still tough for middle-class and moderate-income Americans," as "inflation is wiping out wage gains for many."
More ominously, Long added, "The question is whether this relief is only temporary as the war in Iran restarts."
Project management professional Larry Boorstein warned Trump against spiking the football over the relatively tame inflation data from last month.
"Prices are down because oil prices dropped after the US-Iran MOU," Boorstein wrote. "Prices for food, both at home and away from home, increased, as did prices for shelter. Energy prices fell enough to more than offset increases in food and shelter prices. What's not so good is Trump declared the MOU dead July 8. Oil prices are ticking up again."
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) put the economic damage caused by the Iran war into perspective by noting that it has cost US consumers over $56 billion so far in the form of higher gas prices, or just under $500 per household.
"Families shouldn’t be paying the price for Trump’s reckless decisions," wrote Lofgren.
Trump has threatened to deploy the military against the "enemy within" and has recently promoted the idea that "democratic socialism must be criminalized."
As he pushed for Congress to approve $350 billion in new spending requested by the Pentagon, House Speaker Mike Johnson suggested Tuesday that some of the funds were needed for "fighting communism on our own shores," an ominous notion in light of President Donald Trump's threats to deploy the US military against his domestic enemies.
In addition to the already record-breaking $1.1 trillion military spending bill that was approved last month by the House Appropriations Committee, the Pentagon has requested a separate $350 billion package to be passed through a separate GOP-led spending bill known as "Reconciliation 3.0," which can pass without Democratic support.
Johnson (La.) has faced pushback from some GOP senators, including Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) and the hospitalized Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), as he's sought additional spending. During a press conference on Tuesday, Johnson made his case for Republicans to back the reconciliation proposal.
The speaker argued that the package included "transformational funding that will help us change the dynamic of the Department of War and make it more efficient and effective," including Trump's request to "effectively double the funding for national defense."
"Look, we live in dangerous times," Johnson said. "We're fighting communism on our own shores, and we're fighting evil terrorists and tyrants around the world, and we have to be able to protect our national security."
In the weeks following a series of Democratic primary victories by progressive and democratic socialist candidates in New York, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and elsewhere, Trump and his allies in the GOP have relentlessly hammered on the idea that the nation was under siege by "godless Communists" who want to “completely destroy the traditional American way of life,” rhetoric that echoed McCarthy era red-baiting to many critics.
In just two weeks since those primaries on June 23, Reuters found that Trump had invoked "communism" at least 81 times to demonize candidates and officials like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and others, who have promoted policies like Medicare for All, higher taxes on the wealthy, the expansion of public utilities, the abolition of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, cutting off aid to Israel, and other policies supported by large numbers of Democratic voters.
Trump's recent rhetoric has indicated that opposing "communism" goes beyond simply voting to keep these candidates out of power. He's referred to the so-called communists as "animals," as a "cancer" that needs to be "cut out fast."
He said during a July 3 speech outside Mount Rushmore that "communists" cannot be "loyal" to America and he will “send them into exile... send them quickly away.”
On Sunday, Trump reposted a video from the right-wing radio host Michael Savage with the title "DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM MUST BE CRIMINALIZED; LEADERS DEPORTED."
Johnson echoed Trump's rhetoric on Tuesday, continuing to describe passing the military spending proposal as part of the existential fight against internal communist enemies.
"THE BARBARIANS ARE INSIDE THE GATE!" Johnson posted to social media alongside a video of himself promoting the bill.
"We are fighting right now in Congress over whether we're going to maintain our status as a constitutional republic OR trade that in, dismantle the foundations and GO DOWN THIS DARK ROAD OF DEATH TO COMMUNISM," he continued. "THAT is the question."
With these comments, Johnson was explicitly tying increased military funding to Trump's fight against communism, though it's unclear which aspect of the budget proposal would be directed toward those ends.
Federal troops are generally barred from domestic law enforcement, though the president can deploy them in cases of domestic insurrection and violence that ordinary law enforcement cannot handle.
Trump has deployed active duty Marines to US cities like Los Angeles and ordered the National Guard to deploy to many others, including Portland, Memphis, and Chicago, which courts have said violated the law.
He has also suggested using armed forces to target his ideological enemies. During a speech to generals last year, he said cities should be used as “training grounds for our military" as they fight an "enemy within," which has included immigrants, the "radical left" and protest movements that have mobilized in opposition to his administration.
"This case will expose the scheme that sought to criminalize the Palestine solidarity movement in the US."
A lawsuit filed by former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil wasn't his first legal challenge stemming from his arrest last year for his Palestinian rights advocacy, but he emphasized that his decision to take members of the Trump administration and private pro-Israel organizations to court was "about far more than what was done to" him when he was detained for 104 days.
"This case will expose the scheme that sought to criminalize the Palestine solidarity movement in the US," said Khalil in a statement. "It is about a coordinated, ongoing plot to punish, silence, and intimidate everyone who dares to dissent and speak out for Palestinian liberation. We will hold them accountable.”
Represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the law firm Beldock Levine & Hoffman, Khalil sued the Heritage Foundation, Canary Mission, Betar, Trump administration adviser Stephen Miller, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin, his predecessor Kristi Noem, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and John Armstrong, an official at the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs.
The lawsuit was filed under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which was passed to stop efforts by vigilante groups like the KKK to coordinate with the government to strip individuals of their constitutional rights.
"Mahmoud is now using this statute to affirmatively challenge the illegal, anti-Palestinian, and anti-democratic public-private conspiracy to harass, intimidate, and punish Palestinians and their allies," said CCR.
Khalil: “I will not stop fighting until everyone who willingly contributed to my missing the birth of my son and to taking 104 days of my life from me answers for what they’ve done.” pic.twitter.com/x6iTgoxsXa
— Erik Uebelacker (@Uebey) July 14, 2026
As the Trump administration continues its efforts to deport Khalil, the lawsuit traces the alleged public-private conspiracy against pro-Palestinian organizers to October 2023, when Miller "vowed to punish Palestinians and their supporters through arrest and deportation."
A year later, the Heritage Foundation published Project Esther, which conflated criticism of Israel with antisemitism, claimed all pro-Palestinian organizers were Hamas supporters, and pledged to execute a plan to deport foreign protesters “when a willing administration occupies the White House.”
The Heritage Foundation said a “public-private partnership" would be required to carry out Project Esther. The lawsuit alleges that Canary Mission, an anonymously run Israeli surveillance and doxing organization, and Betar, a self-described vigilante group with a history of surveilling and harassing supporters of Palestinian rights, provided that partnership.
"Between March and May 2025, Miller, Rubio, Noem, and Armstrong used ICE to arrest or to try to arrest at least nine students or scholars pre-selected by the private groups," said CCR. "The federal defendants continue to seek Mr. Khalil’s deportation and pursue the conspiracy through sham, corrupted immigration proceedings under their control. Working together, the government and private co-conspirators sought to deny Palestinians and their supporters their constitutional rights: to equal protection, to freedom of speech and travel, to freedom from punitive detention, and, ultimately, to exist in this country."
As The New York Times reported, former Heritage Foundation national security director Robert Greenway said two months after Khalil was arrested that it was “no coincidence that we called for a series of actions to take place privately and publicly, and they are now happening.”
CCR pointed to a "range of harms" Khalil has suffered as the result of being targeted by the Trump administration, starting when he was arrested in March 2025. During three months in detention, he was sent to Jena, Louisiana—nearly 1,300 miles away from his family and lawyers—and was forced to miss the birth of his first child. He also faces "an ongoing threat to his lawful immigration status in the United States," with his attorneys preparing to appeal his deportation case to the US Supreme Court.
Baher Azmy, legal director for CCR, said that "the brazenness of this conspiratorial plan is matched only by the exquisitely detailed and shamelessly public record the conspirators produced of a collaborative plan to silence the growing student movement protesting US support for Israel’s genocidal campaign," referring to the country's assault on Gaza that began in October 2023 in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack.
“The conspirators acted through forms of state repression and arbitrary detention that numerous courts have found are blatantly unconstitutional," said Azmy. "They targeted Mr. Khalil, smeared him, and subjected him to the torment of detention for nothing other than being Palestinian and supporting Palestinian rights in order to send a message of terror across the student movement for Palestine."
"The KKK Act was designed to prevent conspiracies to stifle advocacy for political freedom," he added, "and together we are demanding accountability for this outrageous injustice.”