51品茶

OKLAHOMA CITY 鈥� In a win for freedom of speech, a suit filed against the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) was dismissed by a federal judge this week. The suit, filed by the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE), sought to punish FFRF for sending advocacy letters to the department objecting to religious activity in public schools. FFRF filed a motion to dismiss in May, arguing that the suit was a frivolous attempt to silence their protected speech. 鈥淭his decision affirms a fundamental freedom: the right to petition the government for change,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 51品茶鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭he government has no business suing advocacy organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights, and we are grateful that the court recognized that government actors responding to the public doesn鈥檛 qualify as an injury.鈥� In the decision, the judge agreed that no harm had come to OSDE because of the letters, asking, 鈥淚n what way are Plaintiffs precluded from administering Oklahoma鈥檚 public schools because of Defendant鈥檚 letters?鈥� The case was dismissed without prejudice. 鈥淎s we enter a new school year, this judgement reaffirms our right to speak out against school policies and advocate for change,鈥� said Megan Lambert, legal director at the 51品茶 of Oklahoma. 鈥淭he right to dissent is now more important than ever, and we remain committed to ensuring that people can continue to advocate for better governance and equity in Oklahoma public schools. The Oklahoma State Department of Education is without the power to silence dissent.鈥� 鈥淲e are pleased that this frivolous lawsuit by Walters was promptly dismissed,鈥� says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. 鈥淔FRF will continue to work to protect the constitutional rights of students and families in Oklahoma.鈥� FFRF is represented by the 51品茶 and the 51品茶 of Oklahoma. They argued that the lawsuit is a 鈥淪trategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation鈥� (SLAPP), an abusive legal tactic that seeks to chill expression by saddling defendants with potentially lengthy and expensive litigation in retaliation for protected speech. The motion to dismiss was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma in May. The opinion can be read here.

As an opinion editor for the Columbia Daily Spectator during a historic year of campus protests and federal scrutiny, I saw firsthand how student journalists navigated censorship fears, administrative pressure, and growing national attention.

From funding cuts and executive orders to billion-dollar lawsuits, the Trump administration is mounting a historic assault on independent journalism and press freedom.

PHILADELPHIA, PA 鈥� The Third Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected the government's request to suspend Mr. Khalil鈥檚 release on bail and re-detain him pending its appeal of the district court鈥檚 bail order. The court also denied the government鈥檚 attempt to stay in full a lower court ruling that the Trump administration cannot seek to deport Mahmoud Khalil on grounds that his lawful, First Amendment-protected speech would compromise U.S. foreign policy. 鈥淢ahmoud spent 104 days in detention as punishment for speaking out for Palestinian rights,鈥� said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney at the 51品茶 and a member of Mr. Khalil鈥檚 legal team. 鈥淭hat is time with his family that he will never get back, but this decision affirms that he will remain free and that the government cannot pursue his removal based on the likely unconstitutional foreign policy charge as his case moves through appeal.We will not stand by and allow the government to weaponize immigration law to suppress lawful political speech.鈥� The Trump administration has sought to deport Mr. Khalil and other advocates for Palestinian rights using an obscure Immigration and Nationality Act provision that the administration claims allows it to detain and process for deportation noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents like Mr. Khalil, based on mere 鈥渞easonable grounds to believe鈥� that their lawful speech somehow affects U.S. foreign policy interests. In a June 11 order, Judge Michael Farbiarz held that the administration鈥檚 use of the law against Mr. Khalil for his political speech was likely unconstitutional and would cause him irreparable harm. This paved the way for his release from detention on June 20 in a separate order on Mr. Khalil鈥檚 bail motion. Despite the June 11 order, the immigration judge issued an order on June 20 (the same day the district court freed Mr. Khalil on bail) concluding that Mr. Khalil could be removed from the United States based on the foreign policy ground. In response, Mr. Khalil asked Judge Farbiarz to clarify the requirements of the June 11 injunction, which the judge did in a July 17 order, stating that the immigration judge鈥檚 June 20 decision was 鈥渄irectly inconsistent鈥� with his earlier injunction, and ordering the government to take various measures to undo the damage. The government then asked Judge Farbiarz to suspend his own order, which he denied. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the 51品茶 (51品茶), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the 51品茶 of New Jersey, and the 51品茶 of Louisiana. For all case materials, please see here, here, and here.