Carrie DeCell

@carriedecell.bsky.social

Senior Staff Attorney & Legislative Advisor, Knight First Amendment Institute (she/her)

The Trump administration tried to use visa denials and deportation to silence researchers who study social media. A court just said no. Sunday Tagliasacchi and Elisabeth Snyder, former legal externs at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, break down the CITR v. Rubio ruling.

Trump Cannot Use Immigration Law to Silence Technology Researchers

Sunday Tagliasacchi and Elisabeth Snyder detail an initial court victory for the Coalition for Independent Technology Research in CITR v. Rubio.

buff.ly

The Trump admin is continuing its invasive data collection efforts. Last week, it approved a USCIS plan to collect social media handles from the more than 3 million people applying each year to change their immigration status, as well as (in some cases) the handles of their U.S. citizen relatives.

Trump Administration Will Collect Social Media Handles from Legal Immigrants and U.S. Citizens

The new requirement poses serious threats to free speech and privacy rights.

brennancenter.org

CBP wants to collect social media handles from the roughly 14.5 million travelers visiting annually from countries deemed our “close allies.” This proposal comes after the administration has openly declared its intent to use social media to screen people for speech it doesn’t like. 1/

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision; Arrival and Departure Record (Form I-94) and Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA)

The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review an...

federalregister.gov

⬇️ NEWS: “This is a historic ruling that should have immediate implications for the Trump administration’s policies. If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government can’t imprison people simply because it disagrees with their political views." knightcolumbia.org/content/in-l...

In Landmark Ruling, Federal Court Says Trump Administration Violated First Amendment By Deporting Foreign Citizens for Pro-Palestinian Advocacy

knightcolumbia.org

A huge win in @knightcolumbia.org's challenge to the Trump admin's policy of targeting noncitizen students and faculty for deportation based on their pro-Palestinian speech. Thank you @aaup.org and @mesa1966.bsky.social for trusting in us to represent you. knightcolumbia.org/content/in-l...

In Landmark Ruling, Federal Court Says Trump Administration Violated First Amendment By Deporting Foreign Citizens for Pro-Palestinian Advocacy

knightcolumbia.org

BREAKING: WE WON!!! 💥 💥 💥 Federal Judge William G. Young ruled today in our lawsuit against the Trump administration that the policy of arresting, detaining, & deporting noncitizen students & faculty members for their pro-Palestinian advocacy violates the 1st Amendment. Full ruling here:

Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law – #261 in American Association of University Professors v. Rubio (D. Mass., 1:25-cv-10685) – CourtListener.com

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. FINDINGS OF FACT AND RULINGS OF LAW, PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 52(A)(Sonnenberg, Elizabeth) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/30/2025: # 1 Main Document) (J...

courtlistener.com

Arresting and threatening to deport students because of their participation in political protest is the kind of action one ordinarily associates with the world’s most repressive regimes. It’s genuinely shocking that this appears to be what’s going on right here. 1/

Re: the FTC and the platforms We *should* be concerned about platform power over speech, but it isn’t censorship. As the Supreme Court said last year, the companies’ editorial decisions to moderate content are protected by the First Amendment. 1/

TikTok’s future will turn on politics, not on today’s ruling, but by upholding the ban, the Court has markedly expanded the government’s power to censor in the name of national security. Its implications for TikTok may be limited, but the ruling creates a lot of space for other repressive policies.

Yes: "Ultimately, the global community sees the extraordinary abuses facilitated by the spyware industry & perpetrated by its clients. A global regime of control & accountability, driven by human rights standards & with which gov'ts find it in their best interests to comply, must be the endgame."

Post nicht verfügbar.