

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.

Partnership for Civil Justice Fund counsel Mara Verheyden-Hilliard: 202.232.1180 x202, mvh@justiceonline.org
Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas: 720-251-0425, gabbas@cair.com
CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-744-7726, ihooper@cair.com
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF), the Georgia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Georgia) and CAIR Legal Defense Fund today welcomed a "major victory" in their lawsuit against Georgia's no boycott of Israel law after a federal district court ruled that the State of Georgia's 2016 law punishing boycotts of Israel is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF), the Georgia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-Georgia) and CAIR Legal Defense Fund today welcomed a "major victory" in their lawsuit against Georgia's no boycott of Israel law after a federal district court ruled that the State of Georgia's 2016 law punishing boycotts of Israel is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment.
There will be a briefing on this case live at 3 p.m. ET on CAIR's Facebook page
In an order released today, Judge Mark Cohen ruled that the University System of Georgia violated journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin's constitutional rights when it cancelled her speaking engagement on a college campus because she refused to sign a state-mandated oath pledging not to engage in boycotts of Israel. Martin is a well-known advocate of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, which the court ruled is protected by the First Amendment.
READ THE COURT'S DECISION HERE
In his 29-page decision, Judge Cohen identified extensive constitutional problems with Georgia's anti-BDS law. He held that the anti-BDS law "prohibits inherently expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment," which "burdens Martin's right to free speech." Judge Cohen also ruled that the anti-BDS law's requirement that Martin sign an oath to refrain from boycotting Israel is "no different than requiring a person to espouse certain political beliefs or to engage in certain political associations."
The court relied heavily on NAACP v. Claiborne, the Supreme Court's landmark decision protecting the right to boycott.
"This outrageous effort by Georgia politicians to censor free speech rights for a cause they oppose was ruled unconstitutional today," said Partnership for Civil Justice Fund counsel Mara Verheyden-Hilliard. "This ruling comes at a crucial moment, when millions of Americans are questioning the use of U.S.-provided weapons in the onslaught against the Palestinian people and makes clear that the Constitution protects participation in the BDS movement, just as it protected the seminal civil rights and labor organizing boycotts that moved our society forward."
In a statement, CAIR Georgia Executive Director Murtaza Khwaja said:
"Whether in speaking out against voter suppression laws here in Georgia or human rights violations against the Palestinian people, Georgians are actively engaged in their constitutionally protected right to free speech and coordinated boycott. Now, as much as ever, these rights must be cherished and preserved. The court's decision's today is a significant step in ensuring Georgians are able to do so freely today and in future."
"Israel's latest violent onslaught against Palestinians underscores the importance of advocacy for Palestinian human rights," said CAIR Senior Litigation Attorney Gadeir Abbas. "By standing up against this illegal anti-BDS law, Abby Martin ensures that all Americans have the freedom to stand up for Palestine."
In a statement, award-winning journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin said:
"I am thrilled at the judge's decision finding this law unconstitutional as it so clearly violates the free speech rights of myself and so many others in Georgia. My First Amendment rights were restricted on behalf of a foreign government, which flies in the face of the principles of freedom and democracy.
"The government of Israel has pushed state legislatures to enact these laws only because they know that sympathy and support for the population they brutalize, occupy, ethnically cleanse and subject to apartheid, is finally growing in popular consciousness --they want to hold back the tide of justice by preemptively restricting the right of American citizens to peacefully take a stand against their crimes."
While the judge's opinion clearly indicates his view that the law is unconstitutional, the decision does not yet strike down the law. The next stage of the case will regard what steps the court will take to address to the constitutional violation identified.
BACKGROUNDER
Numerous advocacy groups and state legislators, including then-House Minority Leader Stacey Abrams, opposed Georgia's anti-BDS law as a violation of free speech when the state legislature first considered it.
Similar measures have been enacted in 25 other states as part of an effort to block the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Modeled after the global South African anti-apartheid movement, the BDS movement's stated goal is to pressure the Israeli government to end its occupation of Palestinian territory.
CAIR, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other civil rights organizations have filed free speech lawsuits against anti-BDS laws in Arkansas, Arizona, Maryland, and Texas, where CAIR won a landmark legal victory in 2019.
The federal court in Texas held that the state's anti-boycott law "threatens to suppress unpopular ideas" and "manipulate the public debate" on Israel and Palestine "through coercion rather than persuasion." The Court concluded: "This the First Amendment does not allow."
CAIR's mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, based in Washington, D.C., is a public interest legal organization that has litigates on behalf of political organizations and activists across the country to protect and defend First Amendment rights. For more information go to www.JusticeOnline.org.
The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund is a public interest legal organization that brings a unique and cutting edge approach dedicated to the defense of human and civil rights secured by law, the protection of free speech and dissent, and the elimination of prejudice and discrimination. Among the PCJF cases are constitutional law, civil rights, women's rights, economic justice matters and Freedom of Information Act cases.
(202) 232-1180"Bigotry has been his brand since day 1," said Congresswoman Yvette Clarke.
As President Donald Trump refuses to apologize for a now-deleted social media post in which former President Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama are portrayed as apes, the head of the Congressional Black Caucus on Friday blasted what she called the "bigoted and racist regime" in the White House.
“It’s very clear that there was an intent to harm people, to hurt people, with this video,” Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-NY) said in an interview with the Associated Press. "Every week we are, as the American people, put in a position where we have to respond to something very cruel or something extremely off-putting that this administration does. It’s a part of their M.O. at this point."
After dismissing the widespread revulsion—including by some Republican lawmakers—over Trump's sharing of the racist election conspiracy video on his Truth Social network as "fake outrage," the White House subsequently claimed that an aide "erroneously made the post," which was deleted after nearly 12 hours online.
The president told reporters aboard Air Force one Friday evening, "I didn't make a mistake" and that he is the "least racist president you've had in a long time."
Trump launched his political career by amplifying the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States and his 2016 presidential campaign by calling Mexicans "rapists." Since then, he has made numerous bigoted statements about racial minorities, immigrants, Muslims, women, and others.
Brushing off the administration's explanation for Trump's post, Clarke said that "they don’t tell the truth."
"If there wasn’t a climate, a toxic and racist climate within the White House, we wouldn’t see this type of behavior regardless of who it’s coming from," she contended.
"Here we are, in the year 2026, celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States of America, the 100th anniversary of the commemoration of Black history, and this is what comes out of the White House on a Friday morning," the congresswoman added. "It’s beneath all of us."
Asked what it means that Trump—who rarely retracts anything—deleted the post, Clarke said, "I think it’s more of a political expediency than it is any moral compass."
"As my mother would say," she added, "'Too late. Mercy’s gone.'"
Civil rights groups also condemned Trump, with Color of Change posting on Facebook that "this is white supremacy expressed from the Oval Office."
"Trump resents what the Obamas represent: A Black family that is accomplished, respected, and widely admired," the group continued. "Their success contradicts the worldview he has spent years promoting. His attacks follow a clear trajectory—from birther conspiracies questioning Obama's legitimacy, to false accusations of treason, to now circulating imagery rooted in centuries of racial dehumanization used to justify slavery, lynching, and violence."
"Republican leadership has been silent," Color of Change added. "Elected officials who refuse to condemn this behavior are choosing to normalize it."
NAACP president Derrick Johnson said in a statement that "Donald Trump's video is blatantly racist, disgusting, and utterly despicable."
Johnson asserted that Trump is attempting to distract from the cost of living crisis and Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
"You know who isn't in the Epstein files? Barack Obama," he said. "You know who actually improved the economy as president? Barack Obama."
“Our concern remains centered on Liam and all children who deserve stability, safety, and the opportunity to be in school without fear," said an advocate for the family.
The Trump administration's bid to expedite deportation proceedings against 5-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos and his family faltered Friday as a judge granted them more time to plead their asylum case.
Danielle Molliver, an attorney for Ramos' family, told CNN that a judge issued a continuance in the case, meaning it is postponed to a later date.
The US Department of Homeland Security filed a motion Wednesday seeking to fast-track the Ecuadorian family's deportation. The family responded by asking the court for additional time to reply to the DHS motion.
Zena Stenvik, superintendent of the Columbia Heights Public Schools, where Ramos is a student, told CNN that Friday’s ruling “provides additional time, and with that, continued uncertainty for a child and his family."
“Our concern remains centered on Liam and all children who deserve stability, safety, and the opportunity to be in school without fear," Stenvik added. "We will continue to advocate for outcomes that prioritize children."
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Ramos and his father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias, in the driveway of their Columbia Heights home on January 20 during Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration's ongoing deadly immigration crackdown in the Twin Cities.
They were taken to the Dilley Immigration Processing Center southwest of San Antonio, Texas. Run by ICE and private prison profiteer CoreCivic, the facility has been plagued by reports of poor health and hygiene conditions and accusations of inadequate medical care for children.
Detainees report prison-like conditions and say they’ve been served moldy food infested with worms and forced to drink putrid water. Some have described the facility as “truly a living hell.”
Ramos, who fell ill during his detention in Dilley, and his father were ordered released earlier this month on a federal judge's order, and is now back in Minnesota.
Molliver accused the Trump administration of retaliating against the family following their release. Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin claimed that “there is nothing retaliatory about enforcing the nation’s immigration laws."
Arias told Minnesota Public Radio Friday that he is uncertain about his family's future.
"The government is moving many pieces, it's doing everything possible to do us harm, so that they’ll probably deport us," he said. "We live with that fear too."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), who helped accompany Ramos and his father back to Minnesota, said at a Friday news conference that DHS "should leave Liam alone."
“His family came in legally through the asylum process,” Castro said. “And when I left the Dilley detention center, one of the ICE officers explained to me that his father was on a one-year parole in place, so they should allow that to continue.”
"This decision will wipe out the availability of release through bond for tens of thousands of people," one critic noted.
A divided federal appellate panel ruled Friday in favor of the Trump administration's policy of locking up most undocumented immigrants without bond, a decision that legal experts called a serious blow to due process.
A three-judge panel of the right-wing 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled 2-1 that President Donald Trump's reversal of three decades of practice by previous administrations is legally sound under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). The ruling reverses two lower court orders.
"The text [of the IIRIRA] says what it says, regardless of the decisions of prior administrations," Judge Edith Jones—an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan—wrote for the majority. "That prior administrations decided to use less than their full enforcement authority... does not mean they lacked the authority to do more."
Writing in dissent, Judge Dana M. Douglas, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, asserted that "the Congress that passed IIRIRA would be surprised to learn it had also required the detention without bond of two million people. For almost 30 years there was no sign anyone thought it had done so, and nothing in the congressional record or the history of the statute’s enforcement suggests that it did."
This is a very, very bad decision from one of the two Reagan judges left on the Fifth Circuit, joined by one of the two most extreme Trump appointees on the court.And, it is about the issue I walked through at Law Dork earlier this week, in the context of Minnesota: www.lawdork.com/i/186796727/...
[image or embed]
— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) February 6, 2026 at 6:50 PM
"Nonetheless, the government today asserts the authority and mandate to detain millions of noncitizens in the interior, some of them present here for decades, on the same terms as if they were apprehended at the border," Douglas added. "No matter that this newly discovered mandate arrives without historical precedent, and in the teeth of one of the core distinctions of immigration law. The overwhelming majority elsewhere have recognized that the government’s position is totally unsupported."
Past administration generally allowed unauthorized immigrants who had lived in the United States for years to attend bond hearings, at which they had a chance to argue before immigration judges that they posed no flight risk and should be permitted to contest their deportation without detention.
Mandatory detention by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was generally reserved for convicted criminals or people who recently entered the country illegally.
However, the Trump administration contends that anyone who entered the United States without authorization at any time can be detained pending deportation, with limited discretionary exceptions for humanitarian or public interest cases. As a result, immigrants who have lived in the US for years or even decades are being detained indefinitely, even if they have no criminal records.
According to a POLITICO analysis, more than 360 judges across the country—including dozens of Trump appointees—have rejected the administration's interpretation of ICE's detention power, while just 26 sided with the administration.
While US Attorney General Pam Bondi hailed Friday's ruling as a "significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn," some legal experts said the decision erodes constitutional rights.
"AWFUL news for due process," American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick said on social media in response to Friday's ruling. "This decision will wipe out the availability of release through bond for tens of thousands of people detained in or transported to Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi by ICE."
While Friday's ruling only applies to those three states, which fall under the 5th Circuit Court's jurisdiction, there are numerous legal challenges to the administration's detention policy in courts across the country.