"This case -- perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court -- squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally "yes, they do." "No law" means "no law." The First Amendment does not draw President Trump's invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence. See Section III.A infra. No one's freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike."
"Judge Young's 161-page decision ripped the administration for flexing immigration laws to abduct and threaten to deport individuals legally within the United States based on pro-Palestinian statements. The sweeping opinion comes after a bench trial conducted to determine if the administration acted to unconstitutionally chill the free speech rights of non-citizen members of plaintiff educational associations."
"Armed with this established principle of law, Judge Young determined that officials up and down the administration acted "deliberately and with purposeful aforethought" to chill First Amendment rights."
A federal ruling affirms that non-citizens lawfully present in the United States possess the same First Amendment free speech protections as citizens. Officials used immigration authority to threaten deportation of legally present individuals for pro-Palestinian statements, creating an unconstitutional chilling effect on speech. The analysis holds that limits on speech apply equally to citizens and non-citizens and that no executive action may carve out a contrary distinction. A bench trial examined whether the government's actions were deliberately intended to suppress protected expression, leading to findings of purposeful conduct to chill speech.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]