SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
college students
Case Challenging Trump's 'Ideological Deportations' of Pro-Palestine Students Heads to Court
"The policy chills noncitizens from speaking and, by extension, robs these organizations and their U.S. citizen members of noncitizens' perspectives on a matter of significant public debate," the Knight Institute said in a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Jul 07, 2025
The Trump administration, for the first time, had to defend its policy of deporting immigrants for their political views in court Monday.
A case filed by a group of professors will be heard in a Massachusetts federal court. The lawsuit challenges attempts by the Trump administration to arrest and remove foreign-born college students from the country based purely on their pro-Palestine speech.
Though hundreds of cases have been filed against the Trump administration since January, this is one of very few that has reached the trial phase.
The case was filed in March by Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute on behalf of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP); AAUP's Harvard, NYU, and Rutgers campus chapters; and the Middle East Studies Association.
It is one of half a dozen other lawsuits filed following the arrest of Columbia graduate student and protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, who was abducted in the dead of night by plainclothes ICE officers and shipped to a detention center for nearly three months.
Khalil and several other students had their legal immigration status revoked not for having committed any crime, but because the Trump administration deemed their views at odds with the "foreign policy objective[s]" of the United States.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the defendant in this case, has acknowledged stripping the legal status of hundreds of student protesters based on their speech.
"The policy chills noncitizens from speaking and, by extension, robs these organizations and their U.S. citizen members of noncitizens' perspectives on a matter of significant public debate," the Knight Institute said in a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs.
In a pre-trial brief, the group argued that this "ideological deportation policy" illegally discriminates against students and faculty based on their pro-Palestinian viewpoints.
"The First Amendment framework that applies is straightforward," the brief said. "If a regulation of speech discriminates based on content or viewpoint, then the regulation is 'presumptively unconstitutional' unless the government demonstrates that it is 'narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.'"
The plaintiffs argue that the intent behind the Trump administration's stripping of green cards and visas from legal holders was to punish speech they found disfavorable and to coerce others into silence.
"Noncitizen members of the AAUP have been chilled by these ideological deportations and forced to self-censor in a variety of different ways, and citizen members have been harmed as a result, because they have been deprived of the insights and engagement of their non-citizen students and colleagues," the brief said.
They cited examples of professors scrubbing their social media accounts to remove commentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict, abandoning research on the Middle East that could prove too "nuanced" for the administration's liking, and even cancelling international travel for academic opportunities for fear of being disallowed entry back into the country.
"The First Amendment does not permit government officials to use the power of their office to silence critics and suppress speech they don’t like," said Andrew Manuel Crespo, a Harvard Law professor and general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter.
The AAUP lawsuit marks the first time the Trump administration will defend its use of deportations for political speech in court. But it is not the first time the courts will rule on its attacks against higher education.
Courts have blocked the Trump administration's efforts to ban Harvard from hosting foreign students and strip its funding, saying the measures violated due process.
While the case over deportations deals with non-citizens, AAUP President Todd Wolfson said it has implications for free speech for everyone in America.
"The Trump administration is going after international scholars and students who speak their minds about Palestine, but make no mistake: they won't stop there," Wolfson said. "They'll come next for those who teach the history of slavery or who provide gender-affirming health care or who research climate change or who counsel students about their reproductive choices. We all have to draw a line together—as the old labor movement slogan says: an injury to one is an injury to all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Audio Reveals Top GOP Lawyer's 2024 Strategy: Make It Harder for College Students to Vote
"Instead of fighting for the people or actually earning the votes, Republicans' only plan is to try to 'combat' voting on college campuses," said Rep. Summer Lee.
Apr 21, 2023
A longtime Republican lawyer who aided former President Donald Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election told GOP donors that the party should be working to roll back voting on college campuses and other initiatives aimed at expanding ballot access, according to audio obtained by progressive journalist Lauren Windsor.
"What are these college campus locations?" Cleta Mitchell, a top GOP attorney and fundraiser asked during a presentation at the Republican National Committee's donor retreat in Nashville last weekend.
"What is this young people effort that they do? They basically put the polling place next to the student dorm so they just have to roll out of bed, vote, and go back to bed," lamented Mitchell, an avid voter suppression campaigner who has represented Republican organizations, individual lawmakers, and right-wing groups such as the National Rifle Association.
According to The Washington Post, which reviewed a copy of Mitchell's Nashville presentation, the GOP attorney's remarks "offered a window into a strategy that seems designed to reduce voter access and turnout among certain groups, including students and those who vote by mail, both of which tend to skew Democratic."
"Mitchell focused on campus voting in five states—Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Virginia, and Wisconsin—all of which are home to enormous public universities with large in-state student populations," the Post reported Thursday. "Mitchell also targeted the preregistration of students, an apparent reference to the practice in some states of allowing 17-year-olds to register ahead of their 18th birthdays so they can vote as soon as they are eligible."
\u201cEXCLUSIVE AUDIO: Trump coup attorney Cleta Mitchell wants to "combat" voting on college campuses, citing North Carolina and Wisconsin, and says that when Republicans win the state Senate in Virginia, they can eliminate 45 days of early voting and same day voter registration.\u201d— Lauren Windsor (@Lauren Windsor) 1682005267
Ben Wikler, the chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, noted in response to Mitchell's presentation that "Wisconsin has 320,000 college students."
"If the GOP had won the state Supreme Court race, they would've—as this speech makes clear—engineered a crackdown on student voter freedoms," Wikler wrote on Twitter. "Instead, thanks in part to student turnout, democracy lives on in Wisconsin."
"The Trump machine wants to disenfranchise students," Wikler added. "We're fighting them in WI. They've got their eye on our state, and NC and VA too."
Republican lawmakers in dozens of states across the country have introduced at least 150 bills aimed at restricting ballot access this year, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
"Two of the more radical proposals include a Texas bill that would allow presidential electors to disregard state election results and a Virginia bill that would empower a random selection of residents to void local election results," the group observed.
In her speech to Republican donors, Mitchell said GOP lawmakers should be using their dominance in state legislatures to "combat" voting by college students and measures such as same-day voter registration.
Mitchell pointed specifically to North Carolina, where Republicans now have veto-proof majorities in both legislative chambers thanks to erstwhile Democratic state Rep. Tricia Cotham, who recently switched parties.
"Instead of fighting for the people or actually earning the votes, Republicans' only plan is to try to 'combat' voting on college campuses and prevent students and young people from participating in our democracy," Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) wrote Thursday. "They are SHAMELESSLY and DESPERATELY saying the quiet part out loud."
The New York Times reported last month that Republicans, "alarmed over young people increasingly proving to be a force for Democrats at the ballot box," have already been "trying to enact new obstacles to voting for college students" in recent weeks.
"In Idaho, Republicans used their power monopoly... to ban student ID cards as a form of voter identification," the newspaper reported. "But so far this year, the new Idaho law is one of few successes for Republicans targeting young voters. Attempts to cordon off out-of-state students from voting in their campus towns or to roll back preregistration for teenagers have failed in New Hampshire and Virginia."
"Even in Texas, where 2019 legislation shuttered early voting sites on many college campuses, a new proposal that would eliminate all college polling places seems to have an uncertain future," the Times added.
The intensifying GOP campaign against youth voting comes after young people had a major impact on the 2022 midterms. As researchers noted in a recent analysis for the Brookings Institution, strong enthusiasm and turnout among young voters "enabled the Democrats to win almost every battleground statewide contest and increase their majority in the U.S. Senate."
"To the GOP: I hope you're afraid," tweeted Olivia Julianna, director of politics and government affairs at Gen-Z for Change. "I hope you wake up every morning haunted by the chants of young voters protesting your attacks on our rights. You should be afraid. Because you're going to lose power, one vote at a time."
Keep ReadingShow Less
1984 Arrives Thirty Years Late: Say Goodbye to Privacy Forever if This Bill Passes
Legislation called "The Student Right to Know Before You Go Act" has been introduced in both houses of Congress. Nice name, no? Don't you think you should have "the right to know before you go" to a college or university?
What it really means is that the federal government will:
Jun 22, 2015
Legislation called "The Student Right to Know Before You Go Act" has been introduced in both houses of Congress. Nice name, no? Don't you think you should have "the right to know before you go" to a college or university?
What it really means is that the federal government will:
authorize the creation of a federal database of all college students, complete with their personally identifiable information, tracking them through college and into the workforce, including their earnings, Social Security numbers, and more. The ostensible purpose of the bill? To provide better consumer information to parents and students so they can make "smart higher education investments."
Big Data, the answer to all problems. All you need do is surrender your privacy and become someone's data point, perhaps the point of sales.
Barmak Nassirian, writing on the blog of Studentprivacymatters, warns about the dangers this legislation poses. He wrote originally in response to an article endorsing the legislation by researchers at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, who viewed the invasion of personal privacy as less significant than the need for consumer information about one's choice of a college or university:
First, let's be clear that the data in question would be personally identifiable information of every student (regardless of whether they seek or obtain any benefits from the government), that these data would be collected without the individual's consent or knowledge, that each individual's educational data would be linked to income data collected for unrelated purposes, and that the highly personal information residing for the first time in the same data-system would be tracked and updated over time.
Second, the open-ended justification for the collection and maintenance of the data ("better consumer information") strongly suggests that the data systems in question would have very long, if not permanent, record-retention policies. They, in other words, would effectively become life-long dossiers on individuals.
Third, the amorphous rationale for matching collegiate and employment data would predictably spread and justify the concatenation of other "related" data into individuals' longitudinal records. The giant sucking sound we would hear could be the sound of personally identifiable data from individuals' K12, juvenile justice, military service, incarceration, and health records being pulled into their national dossiers.
Fourth, the lack of explicit intentionality as to the compelling governmental interest that would justify such a surveillance system is an open invitation for mission creep. The availability of a dataset as rich as even the most basic version of the system in question would quickly turn it into the go-to data mart for other federal and state agencies, and result in currently unthinkable uses that would never have been authorized if proposed as allowable disclosures in the first place.
This is a bill that conservatives and liberals should be fighting against. Imagine if such a data set existed; how long would it be before the data were hacked for fun and profit, exposing personally identifiable information about students who had never given their consent? Didn't the government recently become aware of a massive hack of its personnel records?
According to the New York Times:
For more than five years, American intelligence agencies followed several groups of Chinese hackers who were systematically draining information from defense contractors, energy firms and electronics makers, their targets shifting to fit Beijing's latest economic priorities.
But last summer, officials lost the trail as some of the hackers changed focus again, burrowing deep into United States government computer systems that contain vast troves of personnel data, according to American officials briefed on a federal investigation into the attack and private security experts.
Undetected for nearly a year, the Chinese intruders executed a sophisticated attack that gave them "administrator privileges" into the computer networks at the Office of Personnel Management, mimicking the credentials of people who run the agency's systems, two senior administration officials said. The hackers began siphoning out a rush of data after constructing what amounted to an electronic pipeline that led back to China, investigators told Congress last week in classified briefings.
How long will a treasure trove of personally identifiable student data remain confidential?
If this bill passes, farewell to privacy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular