ATProto Browser

Record data

{
  "uri": "at://did:plc:va3hqvyuyh4sgvsmwtrpuem5/app.bsky.feed.post/3llry6hht3s2q",
  "cid": "bafyreiefs4ahr5zzwt5oaf5w5okiqfi3hekq65hrjyz2tvzzewdwwr2jje",
  "value": {
    "text": "We've asked a federal court to enter a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's policy of rounding up and attempting to deport students and faculty for expressing pro-Palestinian views.\n\nBrief here: knightcolumbia.org/documents/dc...\n\nAnd here's the main First Amendment argument:",
    "$type": "app.bsky.feed.post",
    "embed": {
      "$type": "app.bsky.embed.images",
      "images": [
        {
          "alt": "Selection of linked legal brief:\n\nThe ideological-deportation policy violates the First Amendment because it suppresses protected expression based on its viewpoint.\n\nAs an initial matter, the speech at issue here—criticism of Israel’s policies, criticism of our own government’s policies relating to the Middle East, and advocacy of Palestinian rights—is at the very core of the First Amendment’s protection. This speech “is at the heart of current political debate among American citizens,” Ragbir v. Homan, 923 F.3d 53, 69 (2d Cir. 2019), cert. granted, judgment vacated on other grounds sub nom. Pham v. Ragbir, 141 S. Ct. 227 (2020), and accordingly the ideological-deportation policy “trenches upon an area in which the importance of First Amendment protections is at its zenith,” id. at 70 (quoting Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 421–22, 425 (1988)); see also Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1034 (1991).\n\nThat the speakers here are noncitizens does not change the analysis. As explained above, Plaintiffs assert the rights of their U.S. citizen members to receive information and ideas, and also assert their own rights as U.S.-based organizations. Plaintiffs and their U.S. citizen members are unquestionably entitled to the full scope of First Amendment protections. In any case, it is wellsettled that noncitizens living in the United States “are entitled to the full panoply of First Amendment rights.” Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1063–66 (9th Cir. 1995); see also Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945) (“Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”); Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 n.5 (1953) (the First and Fifth Amendments do not “acknowledge[] any distinction between citizens",
          "image": {
            "$type": "blob",
            "ref": {
              "$link": "bafkreihm7o3dcthb4kcbizysmorllhkdwnplav2msqreuzqugoobl42xfu"
            },
            "mimeType": "image/jpeg",
            "size": 600866
          },
          "aspectRatio": {
            "width": 1974,
            "height": 2000
          }
        }
      ]
    },
    "langs": [
      "en"
    ],
    "facets": [
      {
        "index": {
          "byteEnd": 250,
          "byteStart": 216
        },
        "features": [
          {
            "uri": "https://knightcolumbia.org/documents/dcda33nik6",
            "$type": "app.bsky.richtext.facet#link"
          }
        ]
      }
    ],
    "createdAt": "2025-04-01T23:02:44.554Z"
  }
}