March, 19 2025, 02:09pm EDT

Court Rules Mahmoud Khalil’s Lawsuit Challenging His Unlawful Detention by ICE Should Move Forward in New Jersey
This comes after ICE arrested Mr. Khalil for his support for Palestinian rights and sent him to a detention facility 1,400 miles away from his family
NEW YORK
The Southern District Court of New York ruled that the case challenging ICE’s unlawful detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate student and lawful permanent resident, should be transferred to New Jersey. The Trump administration had sought to transfer the case to Louisiana. The judge also reaffirmed a previous ruling that blocked Mr. Khalil’s deportation in the absence of a court order.
“This is a first step, but we need to continue to demand justice for Mahmoud. His unlawful and unjust detention cannot stand. We will not stop fighting until he is home with me,” said Dr. Noor Abdalla, the wife of Mahmoud Khalil.
Mr. Khalil’s legal team had argued that if the court allowed this case to play out in Louisiana, it would be rewarding the Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to manipulate jurisdiction by transferring Mr. Khalil across state lines in the middle of the night.
In the early morning hours after his arrest, Khalil’s attorneys filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that ICE’s arrest and detention of Khalil on the basis of his speech and activism for Palestinian human rights violates the Due Process Clause and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Right before his habeas petition was filed, he was transferred under ICE custody to a facility in New Jersey, before being sent to Louisiana.
In a letter written from the Louisiana detention center yesterday, Mahmoud Khalil shared: “In the weeks ahead, students, advocates, and elected officials must unite to defend the right to protest for Palestine. At stake are not just our voices, but the fundamental civil liberties of all. Knowing fully that this moment transcends my individual circumstances, I hope nonetheless to be free to witness the birth of my first-born child.”
The case can now proceed expeditiously to two pending motions that seek Mr. Khalil’s release from custody. Today’s order states that these motions remain pending on the same schedule originally issued. Mr. Khalil’s legal team has sought his release on bail, and submitted reams of letters in support of that request and a declaration from his wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla.
His lawyers are also urging the court to issue a preliminary injunction that would immediately release him from detention and block the Trump administration’s invocation of the foreign policy bar, a vague, rarely-used provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. The foreign policy bar authorizes the government to exclude or remove noncitizens whom the U.S. secretary of state designates as foreign policy concerns. The administration is invoking the provision to revoke the visas and green cards of noncitizens who have engaged in speech in support of Palestinian rights. As the filings document, the administration is abusing the INA’s foreign policy provision to retaliate against the constitutionally protected expression of views the administration opposes.
Mr. Khalil is represented by Amy Greer from Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the American Civil Liberties Union, and Alina Das, co-director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at New York University (NYU) School of Law.
The following are quotes from Mr. Khalil’s legal team:
Samah Sisay, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights:
“The government transferred Mr. Khalil to a remote private prison in Louisiana hours after his arrest and the filing of his original habeas petition – an intentional and retaliatory attempt to silence his speech in support of Palestinian rights and interfere with the jurisdiction of the New York and New Jersey Courts. Mr. Khalil should be free and home with his wife awaiting the birth of their first child, and we will continue to do everything possible to make that happen.”
Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union:
“This is just the beginning, but it is a moment to celebrate. The court’s ruling sends a critical message to courts across the country, who are sure to face similar unprecedented challenges to their authority in the days that come, that the judiciary must not shy from its constitutional role. And no judicial role is more important than acting as a check on executive abuses the Trump administration has made the defining feature of its first 60 days. After this first step, we will eagerly and aggressively seek to get Mahmoud out, bring him home, and then defend his and others’ right to speak freely about Palestine or any other issue without fear of detention and deportation.”
Ramzi Kassem, Professor of Law at the City University of New York and Co-Director of CLEAR, a legal non-profit and clinic:
“The government first moved Mahmoud to Louisiana, then it tried to move his federal case there, too, hoping for better odds in court. The judge rightly rejected that approach and transferred the case to a court in the greater New York City area, close to Mahmoud’s home, where the case and, most importantly, Mahmoud himself, belong.”
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union:
“With this decision, the Court rightfully rejected the Trump administration’s cruel ploy to move Mahmoud Khalil’s case to Louisiana. This ruling sends a message loud and clear that Trump and his MAGA cronies cannot just manipulate and abuse the judiciary as they please to suppress the speech of activists for Palestinian rights. This is an important step toward ensuring that the administration's unconstitutional practices are stopped in their tracks and that Mr. Khalil is reunited with his family in New York. We are ready to defend Mr. Khalil’s rights in New Jersey to secure his immediate release.”
Amy Greer, associate attorney at Dratel + Lewis:
“We are ready to fight just as hard for Mr. Khalil in the district of New Jersey. He was taken by plainclothes federal agents, transferred in the middle of the night across state lines, and has been detained for over a week now, all because of his advocacy for Palestinian freedom. We will not stop working until Mr. Khalil is home with his wife."
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) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
FCC Moves to Yank Disney Broadcast Licenses as Trumps Demand ABC Fire Kimmel
"This is a clear attack on the First Amendment and a political stunt designed to intimidate critics, retaliate against a comedian practicing free speech through satire, and send a message to anyone who dares to speak out."
Apr 28, 2026
Press freedom advocates on Tuesday forcefully condemned the Republican-dominated Federal Communications Commission—and FCC Chair Brendan Carr in particular—for moving to challenge Disney-owned ABC's broadcast licenses as President Donald Trump again pressures to network to fire late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel.
"The First Amendment and the FCC's mandate do not permit the agency to use broadcast licenses as weapons to punish broadcasters for constitutionally protected content they air," declared Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern.
"Brendan Carr was once a serious communications lawyer, and has repeatedly and correctly said that the FCC has no role in policing content, whether news reporting or comedians’ late night jokes," Stern pointed out. "Carr's decision to abandon his principles to kiss up to Trump to advance his career does not change the law that Carr knows full well applies."
"The FCC is neither the journalism police nor the humor police," he added. "This is nothing but illegal jawboning intended to intimidate ABC into kissing the ring."
Kimmel—whom ABC briefly suspended last year amid pressure from Carr over comments the comedian made about assassinated right-wing activist Charlie Kirk—joked last Thursday that the first lady, Melania Trump, had "a glow like an expectant widow." Two days later, a gunman attempted to enter the White House Correspondents' Dinner—and on Monday, he was charged with trying to assassinate the president.
Also on Monday, both Donald and Melania Trump separately took to social media, calling for Kimmel to be fired. The comedian, meanwhile, opened his Monday night monologue to crowd chants of "Jimmy" and defended his joke, highlighting the Trumps' age gap.
On Tuesday, Semafor reported the FCC's plans to challenge the ABC licenses, which weren't slated for review until at least 2028. Other outlets began confirming the reporting, citing unnamed sources, and the agency ultimately issued the anticipated order—which says that "the FCC has been investigating Disney's ABC stations for possible violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and the FCC’s rules, including the agency's prohibition on unlawful discrimination."
The order, signed by David J. Brown, chief of the Video Division, directs ABC to "file license renewals for all of their licensed TV stations within 30 days—in other words, by May 28, 2026." Those stations are WABC-TV (New York), KABC-TV (Los Angeles), WLS-TV (Chicago), WPVI-TV (Philadelphia), KTRK-TV (Houston), KGO-TV (San Francisco), WTVD-TV (Raleigh-Durham), and KFSN-TV (Fresno).
As CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter explained: "The order will not affect the local stations right away. It is just the start of a protracted legal process, and ABC has broad legal protections. Nevertheless, the FCC order is an extraordinary escalation by the Trump administration."
"The FCC had not filed an early-renewal order in decades, according to a source familiar with the matter, until Monday, when the agency took action against a small station license holder called Bridge News," Stelter noted. "Both Bridge and Disney will now go through a lengthy hearing process, giving the stations multiple chances to respond."
Disney said in a statement that "we have received the Federal Communications Commission's order initiating an accelerated review of the licenses held by ABC's owned television stations. ABC and its stations have a long record of operating in full compliance with FCC rules and serving their local communities with trusted news, emergency information, and public‑interest programming."
"We are confident that record demonstrates our continued qualifications as licensees under the Communications Act and the First Amendment, and are prepared to show that through the appropriate legal channels," the company continued. "Our focus remains, as always, on serving viewers in the local communities where our stations operate."
Commissioner Anna Gomez—currently the FCC's only Democratic appointee—said that "the effort to challenge the licenses of ABC/Disney-owned stations is the FCC's most egregious attack on the First Amendment to date. But it will fail. This should be a lesson to media companies that no amount of capitulation to this administration will buy them protection."
Jessica J. González, co-CEO of the advocacy group Free Press, was similarly optimistic. She said that "Carr will try to dress up this latest attack like a legitimate FCC procedure, but his motivations are clear. He is using his position of power to silence dissent at the president's beck and call. This extraordinary and unconstitutional attack on the media is nothing more than another favor to the most fragile president in U.S. history."
"The FCC’s ongoing attack on lawful and important diversity, equity, and inclusion programs is immoral," she argued. "The timing of this move suggests unconstitutional retribution for a joke Donald Trump didn't like. Either way, this dangerous attack on free speech won’t stand up to any First Amendment test. We've seen Carr violate his oath to uphold the Constitution again and again. It's time for Congress to impeach him."
González added that "for its part, ABC and Disney leadership need to stand strong on behalf of their First Amendment right to air content without government intrusion and censorship. Buckling in advance to pressure by this administration and its obsequious FCC chairman didn't work for the broadcaster when it suspended Kimmel last year. It would be a grave mistake to buckle in advance again to these kinds of chilling government threats from Trump's censorship czar."
The organization MoveOn has launched a petition in support of Kimmel, which already has over 257,000 signatures.
"The Trump administration's targeting of ABC's broadcast licenses sends a chilling message: Fall in line or face consequences," said MoveOn Civic Action chief communications officer Joel Payne. "This is a clear attack on the First Amendment and a political stunt designed to intimidate critics, retaliate against a comedian practicing free speech through satire, and send a message to anyone who dares to speak out."
"ABC and Disney must not back down to Donald Trump or any bureaucrat in his administration doing his bidding," Payne stressed. "This is bigger than just an attempt to bully Jimmy Kimmel—this is about telling the American people what to think, what to laugh at, what to say, and what to criticize. Our members will fight any efforts to weaponize the government to punish speech and will hold corporations who bow to this pressure accountable."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Demands Release of Gaza's Dr. Abu Safiya After Israeli Court Extends Detention
“Dr. Abu Safiya is currently held in Negev Prison under harsh conditions, without access to his medication or receiving medical treatment, despite the deterioration of his health," said the Israeli-based Physicians for Human Rights Israel.
Apr 28, 2026
An Israeli human rights group is demanding the release of Dr. Hussam Abu Safiya, director of the Kamal Adwan Hospital in Gaza, after a court ordered his detention extended.
Physicians for Human Rights Israel on Tuesday blasted the Beersheba District Court for extending the detention of Abu Safiya, who has been held in prison since December 27, 2024, without being charged with any criminal offenses.
The court justified keeping Abu Saifya detained under Israel's Unlawful Combatants Law, which allows for the detention of Palestinians for long periods without trial.
“The court upheld the detention despite arguments that detaining a doctor while performing his medical duties constitutes unlawful detention,” said Physicians for Human Rights Israel. “Dr. Abu Safiya is currently held in Negev Prison under harsh conditions, without access to his medication or receiving medical treatment, despite the deterioration of his health."
The group added that it is demanding "the immediate release of Dr. Abu Safiya along with 13 other detained doctors, as well as all medical personnel currently held in Israel. We call on the international community to intervene and put an end to this abuse."
The US-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) also slammed the court ruling, calling Abu Safiya's detention "a grave injustice and a blatant violation of fundamental human rights and due process."
"As a physician and hospital director, Dr. Abu Safiya dedicated his life to saving others," CAIR added, "yet he now faces indefinite imprisonment under conditions that credible reports indicate include torture, denial of medical care, and severe mistreatment."
A 2025 report from Amnesty International, which has also called for Abu Safiya's release, said that the Gaza-based physician "was detained in the course of caring for his patients and carrying out his medical duties."
Amnesty also noted that, prior to his detention, Abu Safiya and other colleagues at the Kamal Adwan Hospital had "provided human rights and humanitarian organizations with reliable information about the health situation" in Gaza, which has been left devastated by years of Israeli attacks that have killed at least 72,000 Palestinians.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Energy Crisis of His Own Making, Trump Slammed for Using Taxpayer Money to Cancel Wind Projects
"We the taxpayers are going to pay companies $900 million... to NOT build wind power at a time when electricity prices are spiking and we need more clean power?" said one expert.
Apr 28, 2026
President Donald Trump's administration this week shelled out even more US taxpayer money to get energy firms to cancel planned renewable energy projects.
As The New York Times reported, the US Department of the Interior on Monday announced plans to reimburse energy companies a combined $885 million in exchange for forfeiting their leases to build wind farms in federal waters off the coasts of New York, New Jersey, and California.
The companies involved in the projects have promised promised to invest in fossil fuel energy projects, "including liquefied natural gas facilities along the Gulf Coast," the Times reported.
The agreements with the energy companies are similar to a deal the administration struck earlier this year with French firm TotalEnergies, which agreed to forfeit its leases for projects off the coasts of New York and North Carolina in exchange for $928 million that would be plugged into fossil fuels.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blasted the administration for killing the projects planned off the coast of his state, decrying "a reckless decision that hurts working families and the economy."
"Once again, Donald Trump is attacking New York offshore wind at the behest of his fossil fuel donors with no justification," Schumer said.
Costa Samaras, director of the Carnegie Mellon University Scott Institute for Energy Innovation, expressed disbelief that the administration was killing clean energy projects at a time when Americans are suffering from surging gas prices, which on Tuesday hit their highest level in four years.
"Hold on," he wrote in a social media post. "We the taxpayers are going to pay companies $900 million, which is more than six times what we spend on wind power research and development, to NOT build wind power at a time when electricity prices are spiking and we need more clean power?"
New polling suggests that Trump's blanket opposition to wind power projects is becoming politically costly.
As Gizmodo reported on Tuesday, a recent survey conducted by GOP public opinion research firm the Tarrance Group found that "nearly three-quarters (74%) of voters favor the construction of offshore wind projects off the coast of their own state, with majorities favoring in every state surveyed."
The poll found that even Republican voters have grown more supportive of wind power projects, with support for offshore wind rising by 30 percentage points over the last year.
In its analysis of the poll, the Tarrance Group said that more voters have come around to supporting offshore wind due in part to "ongoing concerns about energy prices," which have spiked since Trump launched an illegal war with Iran in February.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


