“Mr. Ahmed studies and engages in civil discourse regarding the content moderation policies of major social media companies in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union,” his lawsuit said. “There is no conceivable foreign policy impact from his speech acts.”
Ahmed alleged in his complaint that Rubio has so far provided no evidence that Ahmed poses such a significant threat that he should be removed. He argued that “applicable statutes expressly prohibit removal based on a noncitizen's 'past, present or anticipated beliefs, statements or associations'.”
According to the 2021 DHS guidance cited in the lawsuit, “noncitizens' exercise of their First Amendment rights … should never be a factor in the decision to take enforcement action.”
To avoid deportation based solely on views, Rubio had to brief the chairs of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to explain what “compelling U.S. foreign policy interests” would be at risk if Ahmed or others targeted by a visa ban entered the U.S. But there is no evidence that Rubio took these steps, Ahmed claimed.
“The government does not have the power to punish Mr. Ahmed for his research, protected speech, and advocacy, and Defendants cannot avoid these constitutional limitations simply by alleging that Mr. Ahmed's presence or activities have 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States,'” said a press release from his legal team. “There is no credible argument for Mr. Ahmed's immigration detention, apart from his wife and young child.”
X lawsuit offers clues for defending Trump officials
To some critics, it appears the Trump administration is going after CCDH to continue the battle Musk has already lost. In his lawsuit against CCDH, Musk's It seems likely that US officials will make similar arguments in their CCDH fight.
