

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“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," said Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodríguez, who assumed the role of interim president following the US abduction of Nicolás Maduro, said in a televised address Saturday that "we will never again be a colony of any empire," defying the Trump administration's plan to indefinitely control Venezuela's government and exploit its vast oil reserves.
“We are determined to be free,” declared Rodríguez, who demanded that the US release Maduro from custody and said he is still Venezuela's president.
“What is being done to Venezuela is barbaric," she added.
Rodríguez's defiant remarks came after US President Donald Trump claimed he is "designating various people" to run Venezuela's government, suggested American troops could be deployed, and threatened a "second wave" of attacks on the country if its political officials don't bow to the Trump administration's demands.
Trump also threatened "all political and military figures in Venezuela," warning that "what happened to Maduro can happen to them." Maduro is currently detained in Brooklyn and facing fresh US charges.
Rodríguez's public remarks contradicted the US president's claim that she privately pledged compliance with the Trump administration's attempts to control Venezuela's political system and oil infrastructure. The interim president delivered her remarks alongside top Venezuelan officials, including legislative and judicial leaders, Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, and Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, a projection of unity in the face of US aggression.
"Doesn’t feel like a nation that is ready to let Donald Trump and Marco Rubio 'run it,'" said US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who condemned the Trump administration for "starting an illegal war with Venezuela that Americans didn’t ask for and has nothing to do with our security."
"The 'Trump corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine—applied in recent hours with violent force over the skies of Caracas—is the single greatest threat to peace and prosperity that the Americas confront today," said Progressive International.
US President Donald Trump and top administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, characterized Saturday's assault on Venezuela and abduction of the country's president as a warning shot in the direction of Cuba, Mexico, Colombia, and other Latin American nations.
During a Saturday press conference, Trump openly invoked the Monroe Doctrine—an assertion of US dominance of the Western Hemisphere—and said his campaign of aggression against Venezuela represented the "Donroe Doctrine" in action.
In his unwieldy remarks, Trump called out Colombian President Gustavo Petro by name, accusing him without evidence of "making cocaine and sending it to the United States."
"So he does have to watch his ass," the US president said of Petro, who condemned the Trump administration's Saturday attack on Venezuela as "aggression against the sovereignty of Venezuela and Latin America."
Petro responded defiantly to the possibility of the US targeting him, writing on social media that he is "not worried at all."
In a Fox News appearance earlier Saturday, Trump also took aim at the United States' southern neighbor, declaring ominously that "something's going to have to be done with Mexico," which also denounced the attack on Venezuela and abduction of President Nicolás Maduro.
"She is very frightened of the cartels," Trump said of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. "So we have to do something."
"This armed attack on Venezuela is not an isolated event. It is the next step in the United States' campaign of regime change that stretches from Caracas to Havana."
Rubio, for his part, focused on Cuba—a country whose government he has long sought to topple.
"If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I'd be concerned, at least a little bit," Rubio, who was born in Miami to Cuban immigrant parents, said during Saturday's press conference.
That the Trump administration wasted no time threatening other nations as it pledged to control Venezuela indefinitely sparked grave warnings, with the leadership of Progressive International cautioning that "this armed attack on Venezuela is not an isolated event."
"It is the next step in the United States' campaign of regime change that stretches from Caracas to Havana—and an attack on the very principle of sovereign equality and the prospects for the Zone of Peace once established by the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States," the coalition said in a statement. "This renewed declaration of impunity from Washington is a threat to all nations around the world."
"Trump has clearly articulated the imperial logic of this intervention—to seize control over Venezuela's natural resources and reassert US domination over the hemisphere," said Progressive International. "The 'Trump corollary' to the Monroe Doctrine—applied in recent hours with violent force over the skies of Caracas—is the single greatest threat to peace and prosperity that the Americas confront today."
"Trump has no right to take us to war with Venezuela. This is reckless and illegal," said Rep. Greg Casar. "Congress should vote immediately on a War Powers Resolution to stop him."
Members of the US Congress on Saturday demanded emergency legislative action to prevent the Trump administration from taking further military action in Venezuela after the president threatened a "second wave" of attacks and said the US will control the South American country's government indefinitely.
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), said that "Congress should vote immediately on a War Powers Resolution to stop" President Donald Trump, whose administration has for months unlawfully bombed boats in international waters and threatened a direct military assault on Venezuela without lawmakers' approval.
"Trump has no right to take us to war with Venezuela. This is reckless and illegal," said Casar. "My entire life, politicians have been sending other people’s kids to die in reckless regime change wars. Enough. No new wars."
Another prominent CPC member, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), said in response to the bombing of Venezuela and capture of its president that "these are the actions of a rogue state."
"Trump’s illegal and unprovoked bombing of Venezuela and kidnapping of its president are grave violations of international law and the US Constitution," Tlaib wrote on social media. "The American people do not want another regime change war abroad."
Progressives weren't alone in criticizing the administration's unauthorized military action in Venezuela. Establishment Democrats, including Sen. Adam Schiff of California and others, also called for urgent congressional action in the face of Trump's latest unlawful bombing campaign.
"Without congressional approval or the buy-in of the public, Trump risks plunging a hemisphere into chaos and has broken his promise to end wars instead of starting them," Schiff said in a statement. "Congress must bring up a new War Powers Resolution and reassert its power to authorize force or to refuse to do so. We must speak for the American people who profoundly reject being dragged into new wars."
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said he will force a Senate vote next week on a bipartisan War Powers Resolution to block additional US military action in Venezuela.
"Where will this go next?" Kaine asked in a statement. "Will the president deploy our troops to protect Iranian protesters? To enforce the fragile ceasefire in Gaza? To battle terrorists in Nigeria? To seize Greenland or the Panama Canal? To suppress Americans peacefully assembling to protest his policies? Trump has threatened to do all this and more and sees no need to seek legal authorization from people’s elected legislature before putting servicemembers at risk."
“It is long past time for Congress to reassert its critical constitutional role in matters of war, peace, diplomacy, and trade," Kaine added. "My bipartisan resolution stipulating that we should not be at war with Venezuela absent a clear congressional authorization will come up for a vote next week."
The lawmakers' push for legislative action came as Trump clearly indicated that his administration isn't done intervening in Venezuela's internal politics—and plans to exploit the country's vast oil reserves.
During a press conference on Saturday, Trump said that the US "is going to run" Venezuela, signaling the possibility of a troop deployment.
"We're not afraid of boots on the ground," the president said in response to a reporter's question, adding vaguely that his administration is "designating various people" to run the government.
Whether the GOP-controlled Congress acts to constrain the Trump administration will depend on support from Republicans, who have largely applauded the US attack on Venezuela and capture of Maduro. In separate statements, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) described the operation as "decisive" and justified.
Ahead of Saturday's assault, the Republican-controlled Congress rejected War Powers Resolutions aimed at preventing Trump from launching a war on Venezuela without lawmakers' approval.
One Republican lawmaker who had raised constitutional concerns about Saturday's actions, Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, appeared to drop them after a phone call with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
But Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) noted in a statement that both Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth "looked every senator in the eye a few weeks ago and said this wasn’t about regime change."
"I didn’t trust them then, and we see now that they blatantly lied to Congress," said Kim. "Trump rejected our constitutionally required approval process for armed conflict because the administration knows the American people overwhelmingly reject risks pulling our nation into another war."