SYRACUSE, N.Y. — The legal fight of Momodou Taal, a pro-Palestinian activist and international graduate student, began in court on Tuesday as a federal judge heard the first arguments of Taal’s lawsuit against the Trump administration.
At the heart of the hearing was Taal’s possible U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrest and questions over the jurisdiction of the U.S District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Taal, who didn’t appear in court over continued fears of arrest is suing the federal government along with Prof. Mũkoma wa Ngũgĩ, literatures in English, and Sriram Parasurama, a Ph.D. student in plant sciences, claiming that the enforcement of two presidential executive orders violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights. The case now awaits Northern District of New York Judge Elizabeth Coombe’s decision.
The Department of State revoked Taal’s F-1 student visa on March 14, according to court documents, one day before he and two other Cornell plaintiffs filed their lawsuit. However, Taal only received notification of his visa revocation in an email sent to his lawyers on March 21, the same day that the Department of Justice told Taal to surrender himself to ICE custody.
In the hour-long hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs and federal government fielded questions from Coombe.
Ethan Kanter, chief of the national security unit for the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation, emphasized the existing statutes of the Immigration and Nationality Act as the two legal parties contested the jurisdiction of the Northern New York District Court.
Kanter argued that because Taal’s F-1 student visa was revoked on March 14, one day before he filed a lawsuit, the Immigration and Nationality Act would mandate that Taal’s case should be heard not at the district level but during removal proceedings in a federal court of appeals. Removal proceedings are the legal process to determine whether a non-citizen can remain in the country.
Eric Lee, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, admitted that the federal government “gain[ed] points” with the law for revoking Taal’s visa before his lawsuit was filed. However, Lee argued, the actual injury that Taal sustained began before his loss of legal status, which would make the case not subject to the INA.
Coombe also directed both parties to argue whether the lawsuit demonstrated a tangible injury to which redress could be applied.
A crowd of supporters rally for the plaintiffs outside the James M. Hanley U.S. Courthouse.
The initial filing of Lee’s plaintiffs emphasized the broader implications of the executive orders for “millions across the country.” However, at court on Tuesday, he was pressed to present only the specific injuries that the two executive orders caused Taal and the two other plaintiffs.
Lee’s argument rested on Taal’s self censure. According to Lee, after two of Trump’s executive orders were issued, Taal began withdrawing from forms of public engagement, declining to speak publicly, attend protests, and converse with colleagues.
Alleging that the enforcement of a Jan 20. order titled Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorist and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats and a Jan. 29 order titled Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism chills Taal’s right to free speech, the plaintiffs’ legal team is requesting a nationwide injunction to halt the enforcement of parts of the orders.
Kanter claimed that the lawsuit failed to identify a tangible harm against Taal, Ngũgĩ and Parasurama. Kanter’s understanding that executive orders are predominantly internal facing documents that are contingent with the existing law. Both executive orders have provisions that emphasize their implementation is “consistent with applicable law.”
Kanter argued in court that the executive orders never directed agencies to target or limit speech. A question from Coombe challenged this.
Citing testimony from Roy Stanley, unit chief of the Counterterrorism Intelligence Unit for ICE Homeland Security Investigations Office of Intelligence, Coombe asked if his testimony on behalf of the federal government was cause for scrutiny in relation to her Friday directive. Previously Coombe had directed the federal government to determine whether the executive orders challenged in the lawsuit were the basis for Taal’s “anticipated surrender to ICE,” on Friday.
On Saturday, the government responded claiming their request for Taal’s arrest was not based on the orders.
Stanley testified in an affidavit submitted to court that “To implement this Executive Order, the HSI Office of Intelligence proactively reviews open-source information to identify individuals subject to the Executive Order.”
Taal was notably not present at the hearing. Lee stated that it was unclear whether the Trump administration is following the law, and explained that Taal faces an active threat and risk of arrest, which prevented him from attending.
As Lee, Christopher Godshall-Bennett, legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and the rest of Taal’s legal team and supporters await Coombe’s decision, they remain hopeful in their fight to protect free speech.
“We think we made some convincing arguments,” Lee said. “We think we’re right on the law, on the policy … [and] on the morals.”
After the hour-long hearing, around 100 individuals gathered in front of the federal courthouse building, holding signs that said “Momodou could be you” and “Free speech!!! Support Momodou.” One attendee waved a large Palestine flag.
The Coalition for Mutual Liberation, along with the Syracuse and Finger Lakes chapters of the Party for Socialism & Liberation and the Ithaca Committee for Justice in Palestine, organized a “Pack the Court,” in a show of support for Taal. The Syracuse Peace Council, Syracuse Democratic Socialists, Jewish Voice for Peace City of Syracuse and Central New York Solidarity circulated similar posts on social media.
Lee, Godshall-Bennett, immigration lawyer Mohammad Saleem, Ngũgĩ and Parasurama each briefly addressed the attendees before taking questions from the press.
“This crowd, the show of support, has been a testament to if you come after one of us, you come after all of us,” Parasurama said. “This fight for Momodou isn’t just for Momodou. It is just as much for every single victim of the American empire.”
“Free, free Palestine!” the crowd chanted as the press conference ended.
Lee stated that while he would do whatever he could in the courts, the responsibility to “defend democracy” was the crowd’s duty. He believes that Taal’s situation is not an isolated incident and encouraged attendees to exercise their First Amendment rights “as actively and vigorously” as they can before the Trump administration “takes it away” from them.
“Ultimately, our appeal is to you,” Lee addressed the crowd. “If [the First Amendment] is going to be protected, it’s not just going to be protected by lawyers in the courts, it's going to have to be protected by the American population.”
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.
