Tag: personal freedoms

Muslim civil rights group CAIR sues Texas over Abbott’s ‘terrorist’ designation

[ad_1]

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A prominent Muslim advocacy organization is taking Texas to court, arguing that Gov. Greg Abbott’s decision to brand it a “foreign terrorist organization” tramples both the U.S. Constitution and state law.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin chapters filed a federal lawsuit Thursday seeking to overturn Abbott’s proclamation issued earlier in the week.

“This attempt to punish the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization simply because Governor Abbott disagrees with its views is not only contrary to the United States Constitution, but finds no support in any Texas law,” the group said in its lawsuit.

Founded in 1994, CAIR operates 25 chapters nationwide, including a small Texas staff of eight employees and two contractors, according to the filing.

TEXAS GOV ABBOTT DECLARES CAIR, MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS TERRORIST GROUPS, PREVENTING LAND PURCHASES

The Council on American-Islamic Relations’ (CAIR) Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin chapters asked a federal judge to strike down the declaration from the governor. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

“CAIR-Texas and the Texas Muslim community are standing up for our constitutional rights by directly confronting Greg Abbott’s lawless attack on our civil rights,” CAIR-Texas said in a statement. “We are not and will not be intimidated by smear campaigns launched by Israel First politicians like Mr. Abbott. Mr. Abbott is defaming us and other American Muslims because we are effective advocates for justice here and abroad. We plan to continue exercising our constitutional rights, defending civil rights, and speaking truth to power, whether in defense of free speech, religious freedom and racial equality here in Texas or in defense of human rights abroad.”

Abbott’s order extended the “terrorist” label to the Muslim Brotherhood, even though federal authorities have never classified either group that way.

The governor’s decree also bars CAIR from purchasing land in the Lone Star State under a new statute aimed at curbing purchases tied to “foreign adversaries.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s proclamation states that CAIR is blocked from purchasing land in the Lone Star State. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

The group’s filing contends Abbott relied on “inflammatory statements with no basis in fact,” selectively citing remarks by affiliates to paint CAIR as sympathetic to terrorism.

“The lawsuit we have filed today is our first step towards defeating Governor Abbott again so that our nation protects free speech and due process for all Americans,” CAIR Litigation Director and General Counsel Lena Masri said in a statement. “No civil rights organizations are safe if a governor can baselessly and unilaterally declare any of them terrorist groups, ban them from buying land, and threaten them with closure. We have beaten Greg Abbott’s attacks on the First Amendment before, and God willing, we will do it again now.”

The Muslim Legal Fund of America also said it is “proud to defend the constitutional rights of CAIR-Texas and the right of all Texans to engage in free speech and uphold civil rights without facing lawless and defamatory attacks by Greg Abbott.”

“Mr. Abbott’s unconstitutional proclamation undermines the very foundational notions of due process that our system depends upon and it must not stand,” said Muslim Legal Fund of America attorney Charlie Swift. “For the sake of our nation’s basic freedoms, Greg Abbott’s latest attack on the American people must be defeated.”

ANTI-ISLAM PROTESTERS, MUSLIMS CLASH IN DEARBORN, MICHIGAN, AFTER MAN ATTEMPTS TO BURN QURAN

CAIR accused the governor of relying on “inflammatory statements that have no basis in fact.” (Ron Jenkins/Getty Images)

Earlier this year, Texas Republicans sought to stop a Muslim-centered planned community around one of the state’s largest mosques near Dallas.

Abbott and other Republican state officials opened investigations into the development linked to the East Plano Islamic Center (EPIC), claiming the group is attempting to create a Muslim-exclusive community that would implement Islamic law.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

EPIC City representatives called the attacks alleging Islamic law misleading, dangerous and without basis.

The U.S. Justice Department closed a federal civil rights investigation into the planned community without bringing any charges or lawsuits.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[ad_2]

Source link

November 21, 2025
Labor unions sue Trump administration over social media monitoring of visa holders

[ad_1]

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Three labor unions filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Thursday, arguing that the federal government violated the First Amendment rights of visa holders legally in the U.S. by using a program to search their social media for specific viewpoints, including criticism of the U.S. government and Israel.

United Auto Workers, Communications Workers of America and the American Federation of Teachers sued the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

This comes after the State Department said it had revoked the visas of at least six people over social media comments made about late conservative activist Charlie Kirk following his murder last month.

“Plaintiffs represent thousands of people whose speech is chilled by the threat of adverse immigration action if the government disapproves of anything they have expressed or will express,” the lawsuit reads.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO VET LEGAL IMMIGRANT APPLICANTS FOR ‘ANTI-AMERICANISM’ AND ANTISEMITISM

Three labor unions sued the Trump administration over alleged First Amendment violations of visa holders. (Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images)

Administration officials have purported that foreigners do not have the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens and do not have a right to hold a visa, as the federal government seeks to target them for speech.

“The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country, commit acts of anti-American, pro-terrorist, and antisemitic hate, or incite violence. We will continue to revoke the visas of those who put the safety of our citizens at risk,” State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott said in a statement.

The lawsuit points to high-profile cases and the comments of federal officials to argue that a government program uses artificial intelligence and other automated tools for surveillance of visa holders’ posts and targets people critical of the Trump administration and what the government considers to be “hateful ideology.”

The federal government has broadly defined support for terrorism to include criticism of U.S. support for Israel and the Jewish State’s military action, as well as support for Palestinians. The government has used this as a justification to cancel visas.

FEDERAL JUDGE LAUNCHES SCATHING BROADSIDE OF TRUMP’S EFFORTS TO DEPORT PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTESTERS

The State Department said it had revoked the visas of at least six people over social media comments made about late conservative activist Charlie Kirk following his murder last month. (Getty Images)

The unions’ complaint cited the case of green card holder Mahmoud Khalil, who was released in June following months in detention after the government attempted to deport him for participating in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University.

The lawsuit said the immigration threats over views disapproved by the government have prompted some union members to withdraw from publicly affiliating with their unions at organizing events, step down from leadership roles and “deleted, refrained from, or otherwise altered their social media and online engagement with the unions.”

“This loss of engagement has harmed the plaintiffs’ ability to further their organizational missions and impeded their ability to carry out their responsibilities, which include recruitment, retention, and organization of union members; advocacy on behalf of union members; and the promotion of civic and political engagement among union members,” the lawsuit said.

Many union members have stopped expressing their views because “the government has promised and proven that saying the wrong thing can trigger life-altering immigration consequences, particularly for visa holders and Lawful Permanent Residents,” the complaint reads.

The federal government has broadly defined support for terrorism to include criticism of U.S. support for Israel. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January, the administration has searched for online posts to target foreigners for the potential rescinding of their visa.

On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order to ensure visa holders “do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.”

Over the summer, the State Department said it would start requesting that applicants make their social media accounts public for government monitoring and that interviews with applicants would determine who may pose a threat to national security.

Reuters contributed to this report.

[ad_2]

Source link

October 17, 2025
Federal appeals court approves Illinois restrictions on carrying guns on public transit

[ad_1]

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A federal appeals court approved Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transit, reversing a lower court ruling that found the gun restrictions passed more than a decade ago violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals handed down its decision on Tuesday, with Judge Joshua Kolar writing for the majority that the ban “is comfortably situated in a centuries-old practice of limiting firearms in sensitive and crowded, confined places.”

“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to self-defense. It does not bar the people’s representatives from enacting laws—consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of regulation—that ensure public transportation systems remain free from accessible firearms,” Kolar wrote.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS NEW MEXICO’S 7-DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR GUN PURCHASES, SAYING IT VIOLATES 2ND AMENDMENT

A federal appeals court approved Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transit. (AP)

“We are asked whether the state may temporarily disarm its citizens as they travel in crowded and confined metal tubes unlike anything the Founders envisioned,” the judge continued. “We draw from the lessons of our nation’s historical regulatory traditions and find no Second Amendment violation in such a regulation.”

Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois sided with four plaintiffs who claimed that restricting people from carrying guns on public buses and trains was unconstitutional.

The district court relied on a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, in which a new standard to determine whether a gun restriction is unconstitutional was established. To meet that standard, the government must show there is a “historical tradition of firearm regulation” that supports the law. The court said there were no analogous conditions justifying the gun restrictions on public transit.

Last year, a lower court sided with four plaintiffs who claimed that restricting people from carrying guns on public buses and trains was unconstitutional. (Photo by Gregory Potter/Interim Archives/Getty Images)

But the appeals court found the ban was constitutionally protected.

“Our concern is whether the law aligns with the nation’s tradition,” the majority opinion reads. “We hold that [the law] is constitutional because it comports with regulatory principles that originated in the Founding era and continue to the present.”

The case, started by several Illinois gun owners and backed by gun rights groups, is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While plaintiffs argued that the transit restrictions flouted the high court’s 2022 Bruen decision, the Seventh Circuit said the state had shown a sufficient historical basis for treating crowded public transport as a “sensitive place.”

The public transit firearm ban was implemented in 2013, when Illinois became the last state in the country to approve carrying concealed weapons in public.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES CALIFORNIA AMMUNITION BACKGROUND CHECKS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The public transit firearm ban was implemented in 2013. (Christopher Dilts/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

On top of prohibiting guns on buses and trains, the measure restricted gun possession in hospitals and some other public spaces.

Kolar, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, was joined in the majority opinion by Judge Kenneth Ripple, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan. Judge Amy St. Eve, who was selected by President Donald Trump during his first term, wrote a separate concurring opinion.

“I write separately to highlight a difficult jurisdictional question that today’s opinion prudently reserves for a future case: how to assess redressability where a plaintiff defines her injury as the inability to engage in protected activity—not the threat of prosecution for doing so—and an unchallenged law also prohibits that precise activity,” St. Eve wrote.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[ad_2]

Source link

September 3, 2025