Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world. It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments in the field.
“When a government weaponizes immigration to punish speech, millions of immigrants and citizens feel that blow,” Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi said in a statement last week. His yearlong legal battle escalated recently. An immigration judge ordered that Mahdawi be removed to Jordan—entirely due to his pro-Palestinian activism. Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), he is appealing to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. See updated CGFoE analysis here.
Mahdawi’s case shows how the administration has consistently defied the law to target speech protected by the First Amendment. A green card holder, Mahdawi co-founded the Palestinian Student Union with Mahmoud Khalil, another targeted activist. In April 2025, masked, plainclothes ICE agents arrested Mahdawi for deportation as he stepped out of his naturalization interview. A memo by Secretary of State Marco Rubio alleged his pro-Palestinian activism posed “serious adverse foreign policy consequences”—as in Khalil’s case, too. After over two weeks in custody, Mahdawi was released on bail.
His legal fight unfolds along two tracks: the immigration case where the court can only rule on his immigration status, not on the merits, and the federal court, which will rule on the constitutional and procedural claims. Even though the former was dismissed in February 2026, the government pursued a cynical move: it appealed the case within the executive branch-controlled immigration court system. This April, citing Rubio’s memo, the Board of Immigration Appeals found Mahdawi could be deported; a new judge—the judge who had terminated his case was later fired—issued a removal order on June 3.
“The question that is at stake [is],” Mahdawi said on Democracy Now!, “Do we believe in the rule of law according to the Constitution, or do we believe in the rule of whoever is in power?” For now, his pending habeas petition protects him against deportation. “This case is really a bellwether for how America is going to protect or not protect all of our freedom of speech,” Nate Wessler of ACLU told Columbia Daily Spectator. “The First Amendment is the predecessor right to all our other rights. If we can’t speak freely and express ourselves about the issues of the day, what do we have left?”
Columbia University student and Palestinian activist Mohsen Mahdawi has been battling the Trump administration in court for over a year. In a recent escalation, an immigration judge ordered that Mahdawi be removed to Jordan—because of his protected speech. He is appealing to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Photo credit: Stella Ragas / Columbia Daily Spectator
United States
Massimiliano Cali v. Trump
Decision Date: May 13, 2026
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of sanctions imposed on Francesca Albanese under Executive Order 14203. The suit was brought by Albanese’s husband, Massimiliano Cali, and their minor daughter, L.C., who argued that the sanctions targeted Albanese’s advocacy and non-binding recommendations to the International Criminal Court (ICC) concerning alleged war crimes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Government countered that the Order targeted conduct, not speech—Albanese’s engagement with the ICC against US and Israeli nationals—and that the designation was justified by national security and the United States’ sovereignty and foreign-policy interests. On the merits, the Court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed because the designation was a content-based regulation of Albanese’s protected speech. The Court explained that her only engagement with the ICC was offering a non-binding opinion. As such, the measure was presumptively unconstitutional and was not narrowly tailored to the Government’s asserted interests. Finding irreparable harm and that protecting speech is always in the public interest, the Court granted the injunction.
B.B. v. Capistrano Unified School District
Decision date: March 10, 2026
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case, holding that elementary school students’ speech is protected under the First Amendment and must be analyzed under the Tinker v. Des Moines framework. The case arose after a first-grade student was allegedly punished for giving a drawing containing the phrase “Black Lives Matter… any life” to a classmate, which school officials deemed inappropriate, leading to claims of unconstitutional restriction and retaliation. The Court rejected the lower court’s conclusion that the speech was unprotected, emphasizing that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” and that restrictions must be justified by more than “a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” Applying Tinker, the Court found genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the speech interfered with the rights of others or justified disciplinary action, and stressed that schools bear the burden of showing that their actions were “reasonably undertaken to protect the safety and well-being” of students. It further held that age, while relevant, is not dispositive, and vacated both the First Amendment claim and the related retaliation claim on that basis.
Smith and Radhakrishnan v. Trump
Decision Date: July 18, 2025
A United States District Court granted a preliminary injunction, finding that an Executive Order likely violates the First Amendment by preventing individuals from assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC). Two human rights advocates, who had to cease their work with the ICC under threat of penalties, challenged the Executive Order and sought the injunction as an interim remedy. The Court held that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits because the restriction was insufficiently tailored as, even assuming a significant national security interest, the order broadly prohibited speech unrelated to protecting US personnel and so the measure restricted “substantially more speech than necessary.” The Court also found that there would be irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction due to the chilling effect on First Amendment rights and held that the balance of equities and public interest favored protecting constitutional freedoms.
The First Amendment Is No Word Game: Reading Chiles v. Salazar from Geneva, by Lautaro Furfaro. In this article, Lautaro Furfaro, Senior Legal Researcher at CGFoE and Professor of International Human Rights Law at the University of Buenos Aires, unpacks the US Supreme Court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar, contrasting the Court’s First Amendment framing of conversion therapy bans with international human rights standards on so-called conversion practices. “The Court reassures readers that states may still prohibit aversive physical interventions,” Furfaro writes. “But words can also diagnose inferiority, instruct a child to understand the self as a defect, and do so with the authority of a license on the wall.”
● US: Amid Projectiles and Tear Gas, RSF Provides Protective Gear to Journalists. As rallies against the immigration crackdown outside the Delaney Hall detention center continue in New Jersey, press freedom violations have surged. The protests express solidarity with the detainees at Delaney Hall on hunger and labor strikes over inhumane conditions—see more in CGFoE’s Protest Monitor from June 4. The US Press Freedom Tracker has documented dozens of assaults on journalists covering these events. At least three of them were arrested. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) supports at-risk on-the-ground journalists with protective gear. Are you a US-based reporter in need of first aid kits, masks, helmets, or press vests? Apply for RSF’s emergency funding here.
● Kenya: Law Society Files Contempt of Court Application Against Government. The JURIST reports that the Katiba Institute (KI) and the Law Society of Kenya filed a contempt-of-court application against the Kenyan government for its violations of court orders requiring “full disclosure of documents, agreements, and safety protocols” related to the US-funded Ebola quarantine facility—intended for US citizens only. “The fact that construction continues and vital documents remain hidden, in direct violation of a High Court order,” said Nora Mbagathi of KI, “shows that the US and Kenyan government see themselves as above our courts.” Protests against the facility have been met with excessive force—at least three people were killed.
● ARTICLE 19: When Censorship Becomes a Crime—Free Expression in Systems of Gender Persecution and Apartheid. ARTICLE 19’s new legal brief outlines how freedom of expression violations underpin systems of gender persecution, primarily drawing on the examples of Afghanistan and Iran. The brief calls for the codification of gender apartheid in the draft Crimes Against Humanity Treaty, which is currently under negotiations by states. “Recognition would signal that the international community stands with those on the frontlines of the struggle for gender justice,” ARTICLE 19 argues, “and affirm that the voices of women and girls must be heard and protected.
This Week in Protests
On Thursday, June 11, in Mexico City, Mexico, amid ramped-up World Cup security, hundreds rallied against state inaction as nearly 135,000 people remain missing. On Friday in Kinshasa, DR Congo, a rally against the bill letting the president rule beyond term limits ended in clashes, tear gas, with 20 injured. In the UK: On Friday in London, 72 Palestine Action supporters were arrested as Filton 4 activists faced sentencing—to between five and eight years; responding to anti-immigration unrest, thousands rallied against racism in Belfast, Derry, Brighton on Saturday; on Monday, London’s Court of Appeal upheld the government’s decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group (around 3,000 have been arrested since the 2025 ban). On Saturday in Tirana, Albania, 100,000-200,000 joined one of the country’s largest anti-government rallies, sparked by a Trump-family-linked resort. That day in Rome, Italy, tens of thousands joined a counter-rally in support of migration. Around 20,000 protested G7 policies in Geneva, Switzerland, on Sunday—initially peaceful, the march spiraled into violence. That day across the US, the No Kings movement marked its fourth action, pivoting from street marches to a First Amendment concert in New York.
Afghanistan: June 2026
Last Tuesday, June 9, in Afghanistan’s western province of Herat, dozens protested against the arrests of women accused of violating the strict hijab dress code. The Taliban forces opened fire, killing at least two, including a child.
Background & Demands: On June 5, the Taliban’s Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice called for even stricter adherence to the dress code, requiring women to cover head-to-toe, with a burka or chador, concealing their faces. As of June 7, at least 30 women were detained for alleged “non-compliance.” A local activist said that, despite being fully covered, the women had been “manhandled” during the arrests, which angered their families. In the Hazara district of Jibrail, around 70 people protested the arrests and chanted for “Education, work and freedom.”
Significance: With protests against the Taliban’s decisions banned, public dissent is exceptionally rare. Samira Hamidi of Amnesty International observed that the “protest, especially with the participation of men after a long time, reflects growing public anger at the Taliban’s five years of systematic targeting of women and girls.”
State Response: The Taliban’s spokesman in Herat denied that arrests for hijab violations had taken place. During the June 9 protest, the Taliban deployed excessive force, and some protesters reportedly threw stones. Videos and witnesses confirm that the Taliban forces beat protesters, shot toward the crowds, and detained at least 13.
Toll: At least two people, including a boy, were killed. More than 20 were injured.
FoE Violations: This episode is a direct assault on the freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly. Condemning the arrests over dress code violations and use of force against protesters, UN experts said that stone-throwing did not meet the strict threshold for the use of lethal force. Human Rights Watch stressed that the event was far from isolated: “The Taliban have been committing a widespread and systemic gender-based attack on women and girls in Afghanistan that amount to crimes against humanity.”
CoE Call for Proposals: Youth Facing Disinformation—Why Journalists Matter. Ahead of a high-level conference in Strasbourg on November 9-10, 2026, the Council of Europe invites early-career journalists, media creators, and youth organizations, among others, to apply for a grant to support “youth-led projects addressing disinformation, media literacy, journalists’ safety and freedom of expression” by July 1. Separate applications to join Strasbourg’s conference and workshops as participants will open on July 6. Learn more here.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.