Trump admin asks top US court to reverse pro-Palestinian scholar’s release

Debate over Badar Khan Suri’s release sparks a renewed legal clash over authority between US federal courts and Trump’s immigration system.

Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University scholar from India, speaks after he was released from a US immigration detention facility on May 14, 2025, in Alvarado, Texas, the United States [Kendria LaFleur/AP]

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn the decision to release a Georgetown University scholar who had advocated for Palestinian rights and opposed Israel’s war in Gaza.

Georgetown scholar and postdoctoral fellow Badar Khan Suri was released last year after a judge heard claims that his detention violated his due process and free speech rights under the US Constitution.

On Monday, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) petitioned the high court to consider whether federal immigration law barred the lower-court judge from ordering Suri’s release.

Suri, an Indian citizen, was first arrested by masked US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers outside his home in Rosslyn, Virginia, in March 2025 amid the Trump administration’s targeted crackdown and mass deportation campaigns of foreign nationals and visa holders engaged in pro-Palestinian activism across college ‌campuses.

At the time, critics accused the Trump administration of targeting him based on his familial ties. His wife is the daughter of Ahmed Yousef, a former adviser to assassinated Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh.

Suri was brought to Texas after his detention and freed in May 2025 on the orders of a district court judge, on the grounds that he was likely to succeed in proving his arrest was in retaliation for his constitutionally protected speech.

The Trump administration has argued that the judge should not have interfered in the case.

In July , the Virginia-based US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled in a 2-1 decision that nothing prevented a lower-court judge from hearing a challenge to someone’s allegedly unconstitutional detention, even if it related to deportation proceedings pending before the immigration courts.

Solicitor General D John Sauer argued that the Fourth Circuit’s ruling threatened nationwide immigration enforcement by letting detainees bypass immigration courts to contest their deportations.

“That is all practically ⁠disastrous,” Sauer said.

Sauer noted that a different appeals court had reached the opposite conclusion earlier this year, overturning a ruling that freed pro-Palestinian activist and former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil , who had been released on bail in June last year after spending more than 100 days in ICE detention.

In January, the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that lower federal district courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear immigration or detention challenges while active removal proceedings are ongoing. While the order did not influence the core First Amendment arguments in Khalil’s case, it stripped away crucial procedural safeguards.

巴达尔·汗·苏里获释引发的争议，再次激起美国联邦法院与特朗普移民系统之间关于管辖权的法律冲突。

2025年5月14日，来自印度的乔治城大学学者巴达尔·汗·苏里从美国德克萨斯州阿尔瓦拉多的一处移民拘留中心获释后发表讲话。[肯德里亚·拉弗勒/美联社]

美国总统唐纳德·特朗普的政府已要求美国最高法院推翻释放乔治城大学一名学者的决定，该学者曾倡导巴勒斯坦人的权利并反对以色列在加沙的战争。

乔治城大学学者兼博士后研究员巴达尔·汗·苏里去年获释，此前一名法官听取了有关其拘留违反了美国宪法规定的正当程序和言论自由权利的指控。

周一，美国司法部向最高法院提出申请，要求审议联邦移民法是否禁止下级法院法官下令释放苏里。

苏里是印度公民，2025 年 3 月，他首次被蒙面的美国移民和海关执法局 (ICE) 官员在其位于弗吉尼亚州罗斯林的家门外逮捕。当时正值特朗普政府针对参与大学校园亲巴勒斯坦活动的外国公民和签证持有者开展有针对性的打击和大规模驱逐行动之际。

当时，批评人士指责特朗普政府因其家族关系而对其进行打压。他的妻子是艾哈迈德·优素福的女儿，艾哈迈德·优素福曾是遇刺身亡的哈马斯政治领导人伊斯梅尔·哈尼亚的顾问。

苏里被拘留后被带到德克萨斯州，并于 2025 年 5 月根据地区法院法官的命令获释，理由是他很可能成功证明他的逮捕是对他受宪法保护的言论的报复。

特朗普政府辩称，法官不应该干预此案。

7 月，位于弗吉尼亚州的美国第四巡回上诉法院以 2 比 1 的裁决认定，即使与移民法院正在审理的驱逐出境程序有关，也没有任何事情能够阻止下级法院法官审理对某人涉嫌违宪拘留的质疑。

司法部长 D John Sauer 认为，第四巡回法院的裁决威胁到全国范围内的移民执法，因为它允许被拘留者绕过移民法庭来对他们的驱逐出境提出异议。

“这简直就是一场灾难，”绍尔说。

绍尔指出，今年早些时候，另一家上诉法院得出了相反的结论，推翻了释放亲巴勒斯坦活动家、前哥伦比亚大学学生马哈茂德·哈利勒的裁决。哈利勒在被美国移民及海关执法局拘留 100 多天后，于去年 6 月获得保释。

今年1月，美国第三巡回上诉法院裁定，在遣返程序进行期间，下级联邦地区法院无权审理移民或拘留方面的争议案件。虽然该裁决并未影响哈利勒案中涉及的第一修正案核心论点，但却剥夺了至关重要的程序保障。