ATProto Browser

ATProto Browser

Experimental browser for the Atmosphere

Post

NEW: The Trump policy of targeting noncitizens who speak out for Palestinian rights and Rubio's use of the "foreign policy ground" for deportation are impermissibly vague, on top of violating 1A and 5A rights, Mahmoud Khalil's attorneys tell Judge Farbiarz. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...

May 7, 2025, 11:59 PM

Record data

{
  "uri": "at://did:plc:qrllvid7s54k4hnwtqxwetrf/app.bsky.feed.post/3lomm5th5js2i",
  "cid": "bafyreifjgvpo5mjmtuoz3y67hgacihidi7eb6n6l2as7ghoqzjdmbdgg5y",
  "value": {
    "text": "NEW: The Trump policy of targeting noncitizens who speak out for Palestinian rights and Rubio's use of the \"foreign policy ground\" for deportation are impermissibly vague, on top of violating 1A and 5A rights, Mahmoud Khalil's attorneys tell Judge Farbiarz. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...",
    "$type": "app.bsky.feed.post",
    "embed": {
      "$type": "app.bsky.embed.images",
      "images": [
        {
          "alt": "INTRODUCTION\nPursuant to this Court's order, ECF 228, the petitioner submits this\nsupplemental briefing solely regarding his due process void-for-vagueness claims.\nThese claims focus on the government's announced policy to arrest, detain, and seek to deport noncitizens who engage in protected expression in support of Palestinian rights or critical of Israel (the \"Policy\"), and its use of 8 U.S.C. 8 1227(a)(4)(C) (the\n\"Foreign Policy Ground) to effectuate the Policy. Mr. Khalil raises two independent\nbut related vagueness arguments.\nFirst, he argues that the government has adopted a Policy that is\nimpermissibly vague and should be enjoined for the same reasons courts routinely\nfind that policies, both written and unwritten, run afoul of due process: this Policy\nprovides no notice to noncitizens regarding which of their otherwise-lawful\nexpressive activity will result in the government targeting them for arrest, detention\nand removal, and it gives government officials unfettered discretion to target\ndisfavored speech.\nSecond, Mr. Khalil argues that the Foreign Policy Ground is itself\nimpermissibly vague as applied to him through the Rubio Determination because\nneither the statue, past executive practice, nor the legislative history gave Mr. Khalil any notice, in advance of the government's enforcement, that he could possibly be\nsubject to detention and removal for participating\n-alongside thousands of others",
          "image": {
            "$type": "blob",
            "ref": {
              "$link": "bafkreiecqz64bryuaarpoug5jqdxnwaxfjtuiik7as3c27332jvqynzjhu"
            },
            "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
            "size": 497087
          },
          "aspectRatio": {
            "width": 1192,
            "height": 1540
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    "langs": [
      "en"
    ],
    "facets": [
      {
        "index": {
          "byteEnd": 299,
          "byteStart": 258
        },
        "features": [
          {
            "uri": "https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.564334/gov.uscourts.njd.564334.233.0.pdf",
            "$type": "app.bsky.richtext.facet#link"
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "createdAt": "2025-05-07T23:59:54.857Z"
  }
}