by Boston (AP) A lawsuit contesting a Trump administration strategy of detaining and expelling academics and students who took part in pro-Palestinian protests and other political activities is set to begin a federal bench trial on Monday.
It would be one of the first cases to go to trial after being brought by a number of university groups against President Donald Trump and his administration. The plaintiffs seek U.S. District Judge William Young to declare that the policy is unconstitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates how federal agencies create and publish regulations, and the First Amendment.
The impact of the policy has been immediate. In their pretrial brief, the plaintiffs claimed that noncitizen academics and students nationwide have been intimidated into silence.
They noted that academics and students are avoiding political demonstrations, cleaning up their social media accounts, and avoiding public interactions with organizations that support pro-Palestinian causes. They’re avoiding some of the scholarship and public writing they might have otherwise done. In the classroom, they are even self-censoring.
It is anticipated that a number of academics will speak about how the policy and the ensuing arrests have caused them to stop advocating for Palestinian human rights and denouncing the practices of the Israeli government.
The U.S. government has been cracking down on foreign scholars and students at a number of American universities since Trump took office by using its immigration enforcement powers.
In reference to the Palestinian militant group that struck Israel on October 7, 2023, Trump and other leaders have charged demonstrators and others with being pro-Hamas. Numerous demonstrators have claimed that they were criticizing Israel’s wartime actions.
The plaintiffs specifically name a number of activists, such as Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and Columbia University alumnus who was freed last month following 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has come to represent Trump’s crackdown on demonstrations on college campuses.
Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University student who was freed from an immigration prison in Louisiana in May, is also included in the case. She was arrested while strolling down a Boston suburb street and held for six weeks. She claims that after co-writing an opinion piece last year criticizing the school’s response to Israel’s assault in Gaza, she was unlawfully arrested.
The plaintiffs also claim that the Trump administration started a social media surveillance operation, provided names to institutions they want to target, and utilized Trump’s own words when he said that Khalil’s arrest was the first of many to follow.
In court filings, the government contended that the plaintiffs are challenging a policy they created under the First Amendment.
They don’t look for this software in any laws, rules, regulations, or instructions. They make no claims that it is documented elsewhere. The government claims that they don’t even make an effort to pinpoint its precise words and content. Since there is no such policy, none of that is remarkable.
They contend that the plaintiffs’ case also rests on a misinterpretation of the First Amendment, which, according to established Supreme Court practice, applies differently in the context of immigration than it does at home.
Plaintiffs argue, however, that the trial will reveal that the Trump administration has carried out the policy in a number of ways, such as by developing a procedure for identifying participants in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and publishing official guidelines on canceling visas and green cards.
Plaintiffs wrote that defendants had explained their policy, supported it, and claimed political credit for it. Amazingly, they claim that the policy doesn’t exist at all until now that it has been contested. However, the trial’s evidence will demonstrate that the policy’s existence is unassailable.
Extra News Alerts
Receive breaking news as it happens.
