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
center for constitutional rights
Using ICE to Freeze Speech Isn't New, But Has an American Spring Arrived?
Mohsen Madhdawi is now free, but the fight for immigrant justice goes on for all those illegally detained for speaking their mind or asserting their constitutional rights of free speech and assembly.
May 01, 2025
You may not have heard but Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) planted a covert informant within a migrant rights organization, engaged in widespread electronic and physical surveillance of its members, and utilized other government agencies to collect information about them, which led to the detentions, and at times deportations, of some of its key members. They did this to freeze the organization’s political speech and put an end to their organizing.
You may or may not be surprised that this started during the Obama administration and ending during Trump’s first term—well before the onslaught of constitutional and human rights abuses against politically active immigrants (and others) that we have seen over the last several weeks.
The use of immigration enforcement to freeze political speech is not new; in fact, it’s a practice that dates far back in the country’s history.
However, it’s possible the current administration is pushing the practice to a breaking point and waking the U.S. public up to its gross and extreme injustices. And we just may have seen one of the first signs of this breaking point with the release of Palestinian rights activist and green card holder Mohsen Mahdawi on Wednesday.
To start, the organization mentioned above is a powerful and internationally recognized migrant rights group, Migrant Justice, which has been organizing migrant workers in the state of Vermont’s dairy industry since 2009. Migrant Justice is perhaps best known for its work improving conditions for migrant workers on farms sourced by the ice cream brand Ben & Jerry’s (now owned by Unilever) but out of necessity expanded its organizing to include fighting for protections from police and ICE collaborations, winning access to drivers’ licenses for undocumented residents in Vermont, successfully organizing workers in the construction industry, expanding access to in-state tuition and financial aid for undocumented residents in the state, and fighting to keep many immigrants out of detention (among other ongoing campaigns and programs).
For its successes, however, the group garnered much attention from the country’s increasingly belligerent and internally focused immigration enforcement agencies.
“I've brought you a famous person,” an ICE officer boasted when he brought Enrique Balcazar, one of the organization’s lead organizers, into detention, mockingly referring to the national recognition Balcazar had gained for his work.
The depth to which ICE knew the details of Migrant Justice members’ lives, references to colleagues and friends and family, and a specific refusal for those detained to contact other Migrant Justice members, whom the officers specified by name, all revealed that ICE had been surveilling the group down to the minute details of their lives through what Migrant Justice has since shown were illegal means and reasons.
However, Migrant Justice, being who they are, sent the Trump administration back to their corner.
In a subsequent lawsuit filed by the group in 2018 against the Department of Homeland Security, they argued that ICE did not have probable cause to go after its members, and none of them fit the high priority ‘criminal’ profile of immigration cases that ICE claims to focus on. Instead, Migrant Justice argued, they had been targeted specifically for their successful organizing and that the federal government was attempting to retaliate and freeze their speech by harassing, intimidating, and deporting them. In so doing, ICE infringed on their First Amendment rights.
Migrant Justice went on to engage in an ongoing public campaign in support of their case, with large support in the state of Vermont including rallies at the Federal courthouses in Burlington, garnering national attention.
ICE eventually said uncle. By 2020 DHS settled outside of court with Migrant Justice. As a part of the stipulations of the settlement, ICE implemented a policy in which employees are obligated to act “in accordance with the First amendment, including its commitment to not profile, target on account of, or discriminate against any individual or group for exercising First Amendment rights.” This new wording clarified that all migrants (regardless of status) are protected under this constitutional right.
However, several years later, the Trump administration is at it again, as we have seen with the detention and attempted disappearance of Palestinian rights activists and other organizers of various backgrounds and immigration statuses. Once again, we see an executive branch using immigration enforcement in attempts to freeze speech. A few of those recently detained for their speech include Georgetown Professor Badar Khan Suri; Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, Tufts University Student Rumeysa Ozturk; Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil; Aditya Wahyu Harsono; Farmworker union leader Alfredo “Lelo” Juarez Zeferino; and 37 workers at a roofing company in Washington state who had not too long ago attempted to unionize.
This is not to mention the more than 1,000 international students across 160 colleges that had their visas or legal status revoked or the countless others taken from their homes, places of worship, schools, vehicles, you name it, and detained or deported without due process—another constitutionally protected right.
And just last Monday evening, Border Patrol agents detained eight farmworkers associated with Migrant Justice on a dairy farm in Northern Vermont, in addition to one other who was on his way to deliver groceries to farm workers on that very same farm. Migrant Justice is now rallying for their release.
The connection between Migrant Justice’s ongoing struggle and what is happening to Palestinian rights activists today is not lost on the group.
In fact, these farmworkers were held in the same room as Mohsen Mahdawi prior to his release.
In an earlier speech at a rally for Palestinian rights activist Mahmoud Khalil, Balcazar, stated:
“…for this organizing, the struggle in which we find ourselves, we have faced persecution from immigration authorities. Immigration uses the threat of detention and deportation to keep us silent, just as they do with Mahmoud Khalil and all the immigrant students who are fighting against the genocide in Gaza.”
He continued:
“I went through what Mahmoud Khalil is going through today…but thanks to the brave and powerful solidarity of the community, [we] won back our freedom. We fought our case to stay in this country and denounced ICE’s abuse of power. It was a long fight, but we won. And we are going to win the freedom of Mahmoud Khalil. We demand that this government respect the constitutional right of freedom of expression! Free Mahmoud Khalil now!”
In their case, Migrant Justice and their legal representation (ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, and others) had followed in a long line of court cases that have proven that immigrants, of all statuses, are protected under the U.S. constitution; and thus the U.S. government cannot use immigration enforcement to retaliate for political reasons.
The history of case law in the U.S. is quite clear:
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) - Supreme Court unanimously ruled biased enforcement of the law against non-citizens is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
- Bridges v. Wixon (1945) - Supreme Court ruled in favor of an immigrant’s First Amendment right to free speech: “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country”
- Chew v. Colding (1953) - Supreme Court ruled in favor of an immigrant’s First and Fifth amendments
- Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973) - found that all persons accused of a crime on U.S. soil, no matter their immigration status, are guaranteed due process
- Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) - Supreme Court ruled due process, a Constitutional right, applies to everybody in the U.S. even if their presence is “unlawful, involuntary, or transitory”
- In 2014 several federal district courts found ICE detainer requests that kept noncitizens in custody longer than citizens was unconstitutional, e.g., Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Cty. (2014).
- For a more comprehensive review of this history check out Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal.
And Migrant Justice’s case influenced coinciding cases that had similarly dealt with the question of First Amendment rights for immigrant organizers. Notably, shortly after the settlement, migrant rights activists Maru Mora-Villalpando and Ravi Ragbir won their respective cases against ICE and the right to remain in the country.
The U.S. Department of Justice has, throughout history, repeatedly attempted to deny constitutional rights for documented and undocumented immigrants alike. And, of course, there are cases that have not fallen in favor of immigrant plaintiffs, often due to abstract (and arguably unconstitutional) legal practices such as the Plenary Power doctrine, in which the court has at times deferred jurisdictional authority over matters of immigration to the Executive branch.
Despite some legal setbacks for immigrant rights over time, however, the federal court system has increasingly taken up immigrant rights cases, and despite some cases to the contrary, have mostly shown in undeniable ways that immigrants are included within the U.S. Constitution’s protections. I argue that this has happened in tandem with public protest, immigrant rights campaigns, and a shift in public opinion.
At this point, any case against the federal government on the grounds of constitutional rights for immigrants in the U.S. should be cut and dry. But it’s painfully obvious we should not feel comfortable resting on those laurels. We know this administration is breaking the law – denying rights that they have no authority to take away. So, what is to be done?
As history has shown us, rights aren’t won or protected in the courts alone, in a vacuum. Any legal scholar will tell you; it is the timbre of public opinion, and protest, that the courts often react to when making these decisions. Public opinion, can certainly affect the way the federal courts lean, as was seen in the civil rights movement and its relationship to the massive gains made during the years of the Warren Court era (1953-1969). While rights won through civil rights movements are latent within the constitutional expression “we the people,” those words only come into fruition when people challenge the forms of power within American democracy that seek to border, territorialize, and limit inclusion of those rights to just a select few.
The same is possible for all persons present in this country regardless of immigration status. While mass public outrage increased during Trump’s first term, it is building arguably to new heights today, particularly against its most publicly visible acts like the disappearance of Palestinian rights activists and the mass deportation of immigrants to a prison known for its torturous conditions in El Salvador.
Last weekend saw another round of mass protests across the country against the Trump administration’s extra-judicial actions. Last weekend also saw the U.S. Supreme Court block the Trump administration from sending another group of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador with no due process. And we saw a federal judge order the Trump administration to transfer Rumeysa Ozturk to Vermont, stating, "The government cannot undermine the justice system and attempt to manipulate a case's jurisdiction by secretly transporting and imprisoning someone over a thousand miles from home." And after a considerable amount of pushback, including 65 lawsuits, the Trump administration appears to be reversing its attempts to strip thousands international students of their visas through the SEVIS system.
The Supreme Court is today stacked with judges implanted by Trump in his first term. And yet, today, they appear to be, in some cases, holding him accountable to the law, in what I might argue is in lockstep with immigrant rights activists and the supporting public opinion that is only made known by those growing crowds of protesters who dare to continue speaking out.
For the last two weeks I have attended morning rallies outside of the Federal courthouses in Burlington for the release of Mohsen, the same place we rallied for in support for Migrant Justice’s case against ICE almost 7 years ago. The crowd last Wednesday was big. The crowd Wednesday was even bigger. One can assume that the chants of “Free Mohsen!” and “Free them all!” could be heard inside the court room.
And the whole world heard that same crowd burst out when Mohsen walked free from building, peace signs in the air.
What history tells us is that we must continue showing up in protest in the streets, outside of court rooms, outside of detention centers, in our public spaces, and show the courts, and all of our branches of government for that matter, where our alliance lies: not with some rogue executive branch bent on ruling at will, but in the principles laid out in the U.S. constitution, those of equal dignity and rights for all.
As Mohsen said today: “From this place, in front of this court, me standing here with you, among you, it sends a message that is loud and clear not only to Vermont but to the rest of America: We the people will hold the constitution accountable to the principles and values we believe in.”
The Trump administration has shown it is willing to defy court orders, and has now detained a judge for refusing to comply with an extrajudicial action by the Trump administration. Mohsen has court dates ahead of him yet. And there is a long road ahead for any of the current cases mentioned here. As some have suggested, the country may by on the brink of a constitutional crisis.
That is one reason why we all need to continue to protest and make our voices heard. Today, at your local May 1 rally is a great time to do so.
Today we remember (again) that together, working in tandem and in support of migrant activists from all backgrounds, we can all actually affect these processes.
I write this from the chilly state of Vermont one month into Spring. If you listen closely, you can hear a great thawing, as protesters continue to speak out in favor of the inalienable human, civil, and constitutional rights of all persons in the U.S. As the movement grows, perhaps we could be witnessing an American Spring in the name of human dignity, at least if we continue to fight for it. Its mud season in Vermont. Our boots are still laced up, but the heavy coats are being put away for the year. There is still some snow in the mountains, but the ice is sure to melt.
*A small portion of this article is excerpted from my book, Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal, recently published by University of Georgia Press.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Groups to UN: Trump Tactics Bear 'Hallmarks of Fascist Regimes'
"The human rights violations described in the report make clear that the U.S. is in an authoritarian political reality."
Apr 24, 2025
A coalition of human rights organizations on Wednesday submitted a report to the United Nations warning that U.S. President Donald Trump's far-right administration is exploiting a decades-long erosion of American democracy to consolidate power and undercut basic freedoms.
The report—crafted by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Muslim Advocates, and other organizations—argues that a "central feature" of the Trump administration's intensifying repression of dissent "is a metastasizing 'terrorism' framework that escalated in the aftermath of September 11th."
The report points to the administration's invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants en masse without due process and its use of the notorious Guantánamo Bay military prison to detain potentially thousands of migrants.
"The methods deployed in the name of 'counter-terrorism' and 'national security' evolved from emergency measures to common practices, ensnaring new populations and cannibalizing a broader range of issues," the report states. "Today, university students and professors that challenge support for Israel's genocide of Palestinians are being targeted. Environmental activists that oppose the plan to build a police training facility in a clear-cut forest outside of Atlanta, Georgia have been prosecuted as 'domestic terrorists.' And key to the administration advancing its anti-democratic and anti-rights agenda is the expansion of a vast surveillance infrastructure of law enforcement agencies with the aid of unaccountable tech magnates."
The report, which was submitted to the U.N. Human Rights Council ahead of a formal review of U.S. compliance with human rights obligations, calls on the international community do whatever it can to push back against the Trump administration's agenda, including by pressuring the White House to end its use of the Alien Enemies Act and cease targeting Palestinian rights advocates.
"In just 100 days, the Trump administration has inflicted enormous damage to human rights in the United States and around the world."
Nadia Ben-Youssef, advocacy director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said in a statement that "the human rights violations described in the report make clear that the U.S. is in an authoritarian political reality where the Trump administration, Congress, and state governments have fully suspended international human rights and are engaging in tactics of repression that are hallmarks of fascist regimes."
"Our hope is that the report sounds the alarm for the international community to act with greater urgency to challenge this administration and its belligerent efforts to dismantle constitutional protections and international norms," said Ben-Youssef.
The coalition delivered its report to the U.N. as human rights organizations took stock of the Trump administration's devastating assault on civil liberties, the climate, workers, public health, immigrants, and more during the first 100 days of his second term.
Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Thursday that "since January, the administration has unlawfully transferred Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, to his home country, deported other immigrants to El Salvador under circumstances that amount to enforced disappearance, and removed asylum seekers with various nationalities to Panama and Costa Rica in violation of international law."
"The administration has also attacked the rights to freedom of speech and assembly, including by arbitrarily detaining and seeking to deport noncitizens because of their activism related to Palestine," the group added. "These damaging policies are reverberating globally as the Trump administration has slashed support for human rights beyond U.S. borders. The administration abruptly ended US foreign aid programs, putting many people who were benefiting from them in life-threatening peril."
Tanya Greene, U.S. program director at HRW, said that "in just 100 days, the Trump administration has inflicted enormous damage to human rights in the United States and around the world."
"We are deeply concerned that these attacks on fundamental freedoms will continue unabated," Greene added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Memo Shows Trump Admin Targeted Mahmoud Khalil 'Solely Because It Disagrees With His Speech'
"Controversial speech is not illegal, and political speech that criticizes the Israeli government or U.S. foreign policy is constitutionally protected," said the NYCLU's interim legal director.
Apr 10, 2025
An attorney for former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil said Thursday that a memo submitted to an immigration judge shows that the U.S. government "is clearly going after Mahmoud and persecuting him for exercising his First Amendment rights."
"After a month of hiding the ball since Mahmoud's late-night unjust arrest in New York and taking him away to a remote detention center in Louisiana, immigration authorities have finally admitted that they have no case whatsoever against him," the lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout, said in a statement about a two-page memo from the U.S. Deparment of State that was published by The Associated Press.
Plainclothes federal agents accosted Khalil, a green-card holder who finished his graduate studies at Columbia last year, and his pregnant wife—Noor Abdalla, a U.S. citizen—at their building in New York City on March 8 and took him into custody. Abdalla has said that "this felt like a kidnapping because it was," and Khalil calls himself a "political prisoner."
As Van Der Hout explained Thursday: "The government has charged Mahmoud with a rarely used provision of the immigration laws targeting the deportation of even lawful permanent residents like Mahmoud—but Secretary of State Marco Rubio has provided no proof or evidence that these charges bear any viability against Mahmoud. Further, Secretary Rubio has shown that this is merely about targeting Mahmoud's free speech rights about Palestine."
"If anything, this document only underscores the startling escalation of Trump's war on dissent and efforts to remove people who disagree with him or U.S. policy."
The AP noted that "a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, did not respond to questions about whether it had additional evidence against Khalil, writing in an emailed statement, 'DHS did file evidence, but immigration court dockets are not available to the public.'"
Rubio's memo was submitted to Judge Jamee Comans ahead of an immigration court hearing scheduled for Friday in Jena, Louisiana—and after the judge said earlier this week that the federal government "either can provide sufficient evidence or not," and "if he's not removable, I'm going to terminate this case."
The memo suggests campus protests against the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip were inherently discriminatory against Jewish people, stating that Rubio determined the activities and presence of Khalil and another lawful permanent resident whose name is redacted "would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest."
"These determinations are based on information... regarding the participation and roles of [redacted] and Khalil in antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States," the memo continues. "The public actions and continued presence of [redacted] and Khalil in the United States undermine U.S. policy to combat antisemitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States."
Van Der Hout said that "an immigration judge would have to find that the secretary of state has 'reasonable ground' to believe that the immigrant's presence or activities in the U.S. 'would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,' and that his presence—though he has only engaged in lawful conduct that is protected by the First Amendment—'compromise[s] a compelling United States foreign policy interest,' which purportedly justifies the government's ability to override the U.S. Constitution's free speech clause. But Rubio cites no real foreign policy issues or evidence whatsoever, and it is critically important to note that the U.S. government is always constrained by the Constitution, regardless of what its officials might think."
"The two-page memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press, does not allege any criminal conduct by Khalil" "Rather, Rubio wrote Khalil could be expelled for his beliefs." Free this man immediately. apnews.com/article/mahm...
[image or embed]
— Adil Haque (@adhaque.bsky.social) April 10, 2025 at 2:13 PM
In addition to Van Der Hout's firm, Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR) project, New York University Immigrants' Rights Clinic, and the national, New Jersey, and New York arms of the ACLU.
Molly Biklen, interim legal director at the NYCLU, said that Rubio's memo "underscores that the government has ripped Mahmoud Khalil from his home and nine-months pregnant wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, solely because it disagrees with his speech. Controversial speech is not illegal, and political speech that criticizes the Israeli government or U.S. foreign policy is constitutionally protected."
The New York Timesreported earlier this week that under President Donald Trump, nearly 300 students have had visas revoked and could face deportation. Biklen said that "if anything, this document only underscores the startling escalation of Trump's war on dissent and efforts to remove people who disagree with him or U.S. policy. It's nothing more than a naked attack on all of our free speech rights."
Khalil's immigration case is occurring alongside a federal court battle in New Jersey, where his lawyers are arguing that he has been unlawfully detained. Referencing the latter proceedings, CCR staff attorney Samah Sisay said that the Rubio memo "shows that the secretary of state's determination that Mr. Khalil is deportable is based solely on his free speech activities as he has alleged in his habeas litigation."
"The government has not stated any legitimate foreign policy interest that is negatively impacted by Mr. Khalil but instead erroneously attributes prejudiced views to him for participating in the student encampment at Columbia University and speaking out against the United States' support of Israel's genocide in Gaza," Sisay added. "The government has not met its burden, and Mr. Khalil should be released."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular