A federal judge struck down large parts of pro-Palestinian activist Momodou Taal’s lawsuit against the Trump administration on Thursday. According to the released decision, Taal’s motion to prevent U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement from arresting him was denied as was his request for a nationwide injunction pausing the enforcement of two Trump executive orders.
The decision was a setback for Taal and the two other plaintiffs as they claimed the executive orders targeted pro-Palestinian speech and violated their First and Fifth amendment rights. Despite the court ruling, the suit was not dismissed entirely. Shortly before the ruling was published, lawyers representing Taal filed an amended complaint that compiled information revealed by the federal government during court proceedings, and petitioned the court to prevent his detention by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Previously, on March 20, Taal’s lawyers filed a temporary restraining order asking the court to prevent the federal government from arresting or deporting Taal on the basis of the executive orders contested by the lawsuit. This came after reported sightings of law enforcement outside of Taal’s home.
Following the reports, it was revealed in court filings that days earlier on March 14, the U.S. State Department revoked Taal’s student visa and ICE began its efforts to “perform a civil arrest and process him for removal proceedings before an immigration judge,” according to testimony from Anthony Patrone, deputy special agent in charge for ICE’s Buffalo field office.
In her decision on Thursday, Judge Elizabeth Coombe of the Northern District of New York, stated that the court did not have the jurisdiction to prevent “removal proceedings” against Taal, denying the March 20 temporary restraining order. Removal proceedings are the legal processes to determine whether a non-citizen can remain in the country,
Coombe further explained in her decision that Congress removed the ability of district courts to decide “legal and factual questions” related to eligibility for removal proceedings. Since, the March 20 temporary restraining order requested the judge to prevent the enforcement of two executive orders “by which removability will be determined,” Coombe held that this was outside the court's authority.
Instead, Coombe maintained that to dispute his removal order, Taal would need to go through an immigration court or a federal court of appeals.
The new set of filings from Taal’s counsel on Thursday showcase a “narrower” attempt at challenging Taal’s potential detainment by ICE in court. In the amended complaint and new motion for an emergency temporary restraining order, Taal petitions for a writ of habeas corpus — which is a means of reviewing the legality of an executive detention. Taal’s lawyers describe in the emergency temporary restraining order explaining why the district court would now have jurisdiction.
“Congress has provided for district court jurisdiction over claims arising from a visa revocation when it forms the “sole ground for removal,” Taal’s counsel wrote, adding that “This action is brought through a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus”
Following Thursday’s emergency temporary restraining order, Coombe directed the federal government to respond by no later than Monday, March 31, at 5:00 p.m.
Benjamin Leynse is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He is a News Editor for the 143rd editorial board, and a former senior writer. He can be reached at bleynse@cornellsun.com.
