In a slew of court documents filed over the weekend, the federal government and lawyers representing pro-Palestinian activist Momodou Taal battled over the lawfulness of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s request to detain him. The validity of Taal’s lawsuit against the federal government and the jurisdiction of the district court system to preside over the case was also contested.
The federal government argued in court filings submitted Saturday that the ICE request for Taal, a Ph.D. candidate in Africana studies, to surrender himself did not conflict with his ongoing lawsuit because the revocation of his visa began on March 14, one day before the suit was filed. The government also claimed that the lawsuit itself lacked “standing” because it did not show how free speech was legitimately threatened.
On Friday, Taal was told to turn himself in to ICE less than a week after he and two others sued the federal government for violating their First and Fifth amendment rights. ICE’s request took place hours after Taal’s lawyers made an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order on Thursday to preemptively prevent his arrest or detainment on the basis of the contested Trump administration executive orders.
In response to these actions, Elizabeth Coombe, U.S. District judge of the Northern District of New York, 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.
Can Taal be Detained by ICE?
A flurry of activity before Tuesday’s scheduled court hearing revealed how Taal was identified by the federal government as a target for ICE arrest, as well as a timeline of events leading up to the revocation of his F-1 student visa.
The federal government said that ICE identified Taal in relation to Executive Order 14188, “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” but claimed that it was not based on the challenged executive orders in the lawsuit. The executive order provides measures to “combat anti-Semitism” and “report activities by alien students.”
In Saturday’s filing, the government argued that even without the executive order, ICE could “take all of the same enforcement actions based on preexisting authority.”
The federal government explained in the filing that on March 14, one day before Taal filed his lawsuit, ICE identified him for “disruptive actions” he took. ICE then contacted the Department of State who immediately terminated his student visa, according to Saturday’s filing. ICE would later begin attempts to locate Taal that same day.
According to testimony submitted to court by John Armstrong, senior bureau official for the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, said Taal would not be notified of the change to his visa status until March 21.
In their reply on Sunday, Taal’s lawyers emphasized that all the federal government’s action took place one day before Taal filed his lawsuit. They also questioned why the federal government did “not provide a reason for the sudden urgency to address the protest that had taken place six months prior.”
The protest that Taal’s lawyers refer to and the federal government included in Saturday’s filing was the Sept. 18 disruption of a career fair with representatives of weapons manufacturers Boeing and L3Harris in attendance. Taal was later suspended by the University for his alleged involvement and faced the potential loss of his F-1 student visa, though he was later allowed to continue his studies remotely.
The Lawsuits’ Validity
The federal government also made challenges to the legal standing of the Taal’s lawsuit and the jurisdiction of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in presiding over it in their Saturday filing.
The loss of Taal’s legal status the day prior to filing the lawsuit led the federal government to argue Saturday that his complaint could only be heard during “removal proceedings” in a federal court of appeals — the legal process to determine whether a non-citizen can remain in the country.
Separately, the federal government argued in their filing that Taal’s lawsuit was based on “obvious misreadings” of the executive orders that failed to see how they were primarily internal policy objectives to be implemented “consistent with applicable law.”
The federal government also claimed that the orders in question “do not outlaw certain speech” but rather “illegal conduct.”
In their Sunday reply, Taal’s lawyers pushed back, explaining the implementation of the orders to be a targeted effort to find non-citizens in violation of its directives. Taking Taal’s case, his attorneys argue his visa was flagged due to his protest involvement.
“The Orders are no mere ‘internal directives,’... but are directions to arrest individuals based on their speech,” Taal’s lawyers wrote.
As of publication, no further action by either party was recorded on the court docket. The first hearing of the lawsuit is set to take place Tuesday at 2 p.m. in Syracuse, New York.
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.
