A Cornell professor and two graduate students are suing the federal government, claiming that the enforcement of two of the Trump administration’s national security-related executive orders violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights.
Two of the plaintiffs — Momodou Taal, a Ph.D. candidate in Africana studies, and Sriram Parasurama, a Ph.D. student in plant sciences — are prominent pro-Palestinian protesters on campus. The third plaintiff is Prof. Mũkoma Wa Ngũgĩ, literatures in English, who is affiliated with the Africana Studies and Research Center.
The three now “fear government retaliation” for engaging in “constitutionally protected expression critical of U.S. foreign policy and supportive of Palestinian human rights,” according to the lawsuit.
Along with the plaintiff’s co-counsel, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee filed a formal complaint on their behalf to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York on Saturday.
Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian demonstration leader and recent Columbia master’s graduate, was arrested by officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on March 8, despite being a lawful U.S. resident on a green card. His arrest represents the first carried out under the Trump administration in connection to college protest activity, with the president warning it is the “first arrest of many.”
The complaint alleges that the two executive orders, which target protecting Americans from foreign nationals and combating antisemitism, are unconstitutional since their enforcement has created a “chilling effect” on their right to free speech.
The complaint also alleges that both executive orders are unconstitutionally vague and the “severe” threat of deportation or criminal prosecution “based on vague, subjective, and overbroad standards that grant unfettered discretion to government officials” raises due process concerns under the Fifth Amendment.
“Because each executive order fails to provide sufficient notice of the type of speech barred, it denies Plaintiffs’ due process right to conform their speech to the orders,” the lawsuit states. The plaintiffs have motioned for a national injunction to temporarily halt the government’s enforcement of parts of the two executive orders while their constitutionality is examined.
“Only in a dictatorship can the leader jail and banish political opponents for criticizing his administration. A nationwide injunction is therefore necessary while the Court considers the merits,” Taal stated in a press release.
‘An Amorphous and Subjective Standard’: Jan. 20 Executive Order
On Jan. 20, President Donald Trump announced an executive order titled Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorist and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats. The order recommends the government take “any actions necessary to protect the American people from the actions of foreign nationals who have undermined or seek to undermine the fundamental constitutional rights of the American people.”
The plaintiffs claim that the government’s standards are too “vague,” allowing government officials to enforce severe penalties, such as deportation or criminal prosecution.
“[The Jan. 20 executive order] imposes an amorphous and subjective standard for what constitutes a ‘hostile attitude’ toward U.S. ‘government,’ ‘institutions,’ ‘culture,’ or ‘founding principles,’ depriving Plaintiffs of fair notice and sweeping up substantial amounts of protected speech,” the lawsuit states.
Encouragement of ‘Criminal Prosecution’: Jan. 29 Executive Order
In a Jan. 29 executive order titled Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism, the Trump administration announced that the U.S. would combat antisemitism “vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove or otherwise hold to account” those who engage in “unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.”
The order includes provisions for the relevant federal departments to familiarize higher education institutions, such as Cornell, about potential violations so that such institutions “may monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff.”
These recommendations, the order states, are to ensure that reports will lead to “as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to investigations,” and “if warranted, actions to remove such aliens.” The order also explicitly links surveillance to immigration enforcement, including deportation, which the lawsuit alleges is an “encouragement of … criminal prosecution for engaging in constitutionally protected expression.”
The plaintiffs also express concern about the executive order’s content-based restrictions, most notably that “public statements [by the Trump administration] reveal … conflate criticism of the Israeli government and participation in pro-Palestinian advocacy — such as protests against the Israeli military’s operations in Gaza — with antisemitism.”
“[We are] challenging the Trump Administration’s unconstitutional campaign against free speech—particularly as it targets international students and scholars who protest or express support for Palestinian rights,” the ADC stated in its press release.
Taal has been suspended twice by the University in connection to pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
The University first suspended him on April 26, 2024, for his role in the pro-Palestinian Arts Quad encampment. Taal was suspended for the second time by the University in September due to his involvement in the disruption of a career fair attended by defense contractors L3Harris and Boeing.
Facing deportation and the termination of his F-1 visa, his second suspension drew national attention and sparked campus campaigns in his support. International students on their second or third suspension are in violation of F-1 regulations and could have their student visas terminated, requiring them to leave the country.
A citizen of both the United Kingdom and the Republic of The Gambia, Taal has had an approved F-1 student visa since 2022, according to the lawsuit.
After a two-week appeals process, the University decided that Taal could continue his studies in the U.S. during his suspension, but he remains banned from campus until the end of this semester.
‘The Loss of Mr. Taal’s Voice’
The complaint also alleges that the federal government has infringed on all three plaintiffs’ First Amendment right to receive information, including the right to hear and engage with each other’s speech.
Ngũgĩ and Parasurama claim they have been deprived of their right to listen to Taal’s ideas, given his withdrawal from public engagements where “[he] used to be able to speak his mind freely.”
“As a result of the executive orders, Mr. Taal has been forced to profoundly alter his prior speech and association patterns,” the lawsuit states. “He lives in constant fear that he may be arrested by immigration officials or police as a result of his speech.”
The lawsuit states that after the executive orders were issued, Taal canceled speaking engagements and declined invitations to participate in public events, which he had previously attended and viewed as “integral” to his advocacy work and development.
The engagements include academic conferences, public political meetings, off-campus protests and “less formal political discussions in public places like cafés, sidewalks, restaurants, and other locations,” the complaint states.
“The loss of Mr. Taal’s voice in these spaces has diminished the richness and diversity of political dialogue within the community and has deprived the citizen-Plaintiffs of an important source of intellectual and organizing leadership,” the lawsuit states.
A Culture of Fear
The complaint details a broader culture of fear created by the enforcement of the Trump administration’s executive orders that has affected Taal, who declined to attend a conference in Toronto, Ontario and is afraid of traveling to London to visit family and friends “for fear of being unlawfully detained and deported upon arrival at a U.S. port of entry.”
Ngũgĩ, Taal and Parasurama also allege that the executive orders infringe on their right to free association, which refers to the ability to associate with other individuals when engaging in free speech activity.
According to the lawsuit, they have not met in person and stopped interacting with each other in public locations “for fear that mere association could be construed as ‘anti-government’ or ‘anti-Semitic.’” The lawsuit also stated that “they no longer feel safe meeting and brainstorming in public.”
“The resulting isolation has eroded their ability to engage in collective action and has undermined their ability to freely express their views on contemporary political events,” the lawsuit states.
Taal has reportedly been singled out for his speech and immigration status, including by Rep. Jason Smith (R-M.O.), chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, as well as by Betar US, a pro-Israel organization, and newsgroups like The Washington Free Beacon.
Smith sent a series of letters to former President Martha Pollack in January 2024 regarding concerns about Cornell’s “approach to protecting Jewish students” amid several pro-Palestinan demonstrations on campus.
At the time, Smith specifically referred to a “student leader” who stated at a Feb. 2, 2024, rally: “We take our cue from the armed resistance in Palestine. We are in solidarity with the armed resistance in Palestine from the river to the sea.” The Sun attributed this quote to Taal in prior coverage.
“These draconian executive orders aim to crack down on those willing to protest against our country’s active role in the genocide of the Palestinian people,” Parasurama said in an ADC press release. “They are part of a broader moral crisis our nation is grappling with. This lawsuit allows us to recover our basic rights and protect international students like Momodou Taal.”
Benjamin Leynse ’27 contributed reporting.
