The Trump administration announced this week that they were going to deport foreign nationals involved in what they consider illegal support for Hamas during recent campus demonstrations. Many of these students claim that their actions were simply free speech, and they often have a good defense. The court battles that are about to emerge from this will be part of a longer attempt to balance security and freedom of speech. UNC Chapel Hill is likely to be part of the latest chapter in that story.
In the immediate aftermath of the Oct. 7 attacks on southern Israel — where scores of civilians were mercilessly slaughtered, raped, or kidnapped by Hamas — protests broke out across American campuses. To the disgust and anger of many, the demonstrations were frequently supportive of the attack, which was the largest pogrom against Jews since WWII.
One of the most notable protests was on the UNC Chapel Hill campus here in our state. Before any significant military response had even been launched by Israel, students and outside activists chanted against Israel and used the image of a paraglider (the method used by Hamas to cross the border into a peace concert, where they raped and murdered hundreds) to organize their events. As you can see, the paraglider image was used by UNC Chapel Hill activists on Oct. 12, only days after the attack and before Israel launched their full-scale response.
The general public saw this, and similar demonstrations at other campuses, as a clear sign of support for Hamas (a designated foreign terrorist organization by the United States) and their actions. More than 40 Americans were killed on Oct. 7, with many others dragged back to Gaza as hostages where they experienced horrific abuse and often, ultimately, death.
Demonstrations celebrating the attack and rallying around the paraglider as a symbol felt a bit like if crowds held up airplanes after Sept. 11 and rallied in support of Al Qaeda. This kind of speech pushes right up against what a civilization can accept if it takes its own survival seriously. But unless the speech crosses some very specific lines, American citizens generally have fairly wide latitude to display despicable views.
The Trump administration is about to make the case, though, that if you are a foreign national, and you are showing clear support for a designated foreign terrorist organization, like Hamas or Al Qaeda, there is not nearly the latitude. It will likely come down to what legally constitutes “support.”
Mahmud Khalil, a Columbia University grad student who helped lead the most notorious pro-Palestine demonstrations, was just arrested this past weekend and taken to a federal facility in Louisiana. He is a Syrian national of Palestinian heritage who has a green card. Complicating matters further, he also has an American wife who will soon give birth to their first child.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said at a briefing that “Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the secretary of State has the right to revoke a green card or a visa for individuals who are adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States of America.”
She continued, saying that “Mahmud Khalil was an individual who was given the privilege of coming to this country to study at one of our nation’s finest universities and colleges, and he took advantage of that opportunity, of that privilege by siding with terrorists — Hamas terrorists who have killed innocent men, women, and children.”
In a post on X, US secretary of state Marco Rubio suggested that deporting those like Khalil will be Trump administration policy.
And this week, speaking in favor of those protesters at UNC Chapel Hill, the ACLU of North Carolina and some aligned groups filed a lawsuit challenging the school’s “ongoing punishment of certain individuals involved in the nondisruptive, pro-Palestine encampment on campus last spring.”
The lawsuit specifically surrounds an unauthorized encampment from April 26 to April 30, 2024, and how the demonstrators were given short notice to disperse or face arrest.
The ACLU-NC press release says:
Law enforcement then forcibly cleared the encampment and violently arrested the students and non-students on site, kicking the cane out from under one visibly disabled protestor, causing her to tear her rotator cuff. Arrested students were, without any form of due process, immediately suspended from classes and issued trespass bans from campus. Arrested non-students were charged with criminal trespass and, without any form of due process, immediately issued lifetime bans from campus. This lawsuit alleges that these actions violate the rights to free speech, due process, and the right to be free from excessive force by law enforcement.
According to the Free Speech Center, “time, manner, and place restrictions” on free speech are accepted as long as they pass a three-prong test outlined in the 1989 Supreme Court case Ward v. Rock Against Racism. The regulations must be “content neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open alternative channels for communicating the speaker’s message.”
The administration’s “time, manner, and place” restriction, in this case on multiple days of unauthorized camping, would seem to meet these requirements. As long as this restriction would be applied neutrally to other groups attempting the same, there would appear to be a “significant governmental interest” in not having the campus occupied in this way and other opportunities for the students to get their message out there.
But a statement in the release, from Reem Subei, senior staff attorney for Muslim Advocates, said UNC’s response is
“part of a national trend of state repression against the student movement for Palestine. Whether it’s through academic disciplinary action, arrest and criminalization, or deportation, universities and law-enforcement agencies are trying to silence speech for Palestinian lives and freedom. And this is coming at a cost not only to brave protesters but to everyone’s right to dissent against government harm. It contradicts the First Amendment and must be stopped.”
Now all of these cases will play out in the courts, probably with some wins and losses for both sides. In our system, which seeks to preserve both the right to speech and to security, the balance should continue to respect both values. Those advocating for causes, even ones we find despicable, should be protected; while those violating legitimate “time, manner, and place restrictions” or giving support to designated foreign terrorist organizations should see consequences.
