Key Updates
Summary
Combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.
Legal Challenges
| Date Complaint Filed | March 18, 2025 |
| Venue | United States District Court for the Northern District of New York |
| Summary |
Plaintiffs (whose scholarly work criticizes Israel) contend that Executive Order 14188 violates their First Amendment rights by broadly defining anti-Semitism to encompass protected political speech, specifically criticism of the Israeli government and advocacy supporting Palestinian rights. They argue that this expansive interpretation effectively suppresses dissenting viewpoints by imposing harsh penalties including deportation, prosecution, and government monitoring. Plaintiffs also challenge the order under the Fifth Amendment, asserting that its vague and overly broad language denies fair notice and invites arbitrary enforcement, exacerbating the chilling effect on constitutionally protected expression. |
| Case Updates |
On March 19, 2025, plaintiff Momodou Taal reported on social media that law enforcement officers from an unidentified agency visited his residence in Ithaca, New York. He expressed concerns that they intended to detain him, especially since this occurred shortly after a federal judge scheduled an in-person hearing for the lawsuit. A telephone conference was initially set for March 19, 2025, at 2:00 PM. However, it was canceled approximately an hour before it was to begin. The court has rescheduled an in-person hearing for March 25, 2025, at 2:00 PM in Syracuse, New York. Both parties are required to submit their written arguments before this hearing. An initial telephone conference has been scheduled for June 25, 2025, at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Miroslav Lovric. |
| Related Cases |
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) v. Trump et al. The ADC, along with co-counsel, filed a lawsuit seeking a nationwide injunction against the enforcement of Executive Orders 14161 and 14188. They argue that these orders violate constitutional rights, particularly targeting international students and scholars advocating for Palestinian rights under the guise of national security. Cornell University Students and Professors v. Trump et al. A group of students and professors at Cornell University filed for an emergency injunction against the Trump administration, challenging the constitutionality of Executive Orders 14161 and 14188. They contend that these orders infringe upon free speech protections by targeting activists critical of U.S. and Israeli policies. Mahmoud Khalil v. William P. Joyce et al. Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian, recent Columbia University graduate, and lawful permanent resident, filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction and challenging his detention and attempted deportation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Khalil, who had participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations, argues that his detention violates his constitutional rights, including the First and Fifth Amendments, and constitutes retaliation for his advocacy. Khalil also challenges the application of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) “Foreign Policy Ground” provision, which allows deportation if the Secretary of State determines that a noncitizen’s presence or activities could have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States. The New York federal judge temporarily blocked Khalil’s deportation and later transferred the case to the District of New Jersey for further proceedings. Yunseo Chung v. Trump et al. Yunseo Chung, a junior at Columbia University and lawful permanent resident from South Korea who has lived in the United States since childhood, filed a lawsuit challenging her detention and deportation under a State Department policy linked to Executive Order 14188. Chung contends that the policy infringes upon her First and Fifth Amendment rights by targeting her for participating in pro-Palestinian protests. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, halting her detention while the case is ongoing. |
