Courts and First Amendment

U.S. District Judge William Young issued a nationwide remedial order barring the Trump administration from altering the immigration status of noncitizen members of the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association who were members between March 25 and Sept. 30, 2025, whose status had not expired and who committed no crimes after Sept. 30, 2025, and he ruled that any such change will be presumed retaliatory, shifting the burden to the government to prove otherwise. Young said the president, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged in an “unconstitutional conspiracy” to chill pro‑Palestinian speech and tied the order to a broader campaign targeting thousands of campus protesters, while the administration argues the individuals were “pro‑Hamas”; AP has not identified any members whose status has been changed.

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond unanimously threw out all remaining convictions of Virginia Islamic scholar Ali al‑Timimi on Jan. 9, ruling that his post‑Sept. 11 statements urging followers to travel abroad for militant training were protected by the First Amendment. Al‑Timimi had been sentenced to life in prison in 2005 on 10 counts, including soliciting treason, after advising a group of Washington‑area Muslim men to go to Pakistan to join a militant group that could potentially fight U.S. troops in Afghanistan; some bought weapons and trained but none actually fought. Writing for the court, Judge James Wynn said that 'plenty of speech encouraging criminal activity is protected' and stressed that constitutional protection 'does not depend on the popularity or palatability of the message,' but is 'most vital when speech offends, disturbs or challenges prevailing sensibilities.' The men in the so‑called 'paintball terrorists' case had used paintball games in Virginia as paramilitary practice, and several served lengthy terms on related charges, underscoring how aggressively the government once wielded material‑support and solicitation statutes in the post‑9/11 climate. The ruling marks a rare and sweeping appellate repudiation of an early war‑on‑terror prosecution, and will likely fuel new scrutiny of how far U.S. authorities can go in criminalizing extremist advocacy that stops short of concrete, imminent action.

A Davidson County Chancery Court judge has temporarily ordered Tennessee prison officials to let media witnesses observe nearly the entire lethal-injection process, siding with a coalition of news outlets that argued existing protocols violated First Amendment rights. Chancellor I'Ashea L. Myles granted a preliminary injunction requiring curtains to the witness room be opened at 10 a.m.—when the condemned is strapped to the gurney and IV lines are inserted—and remain open until the official pronouncement of death, instead of the current 10‑ to 15‑minute viewing window after drugs are administered. The order also allows execution‑team members to wear full protective suits and optional masks to conceal their identities, addressing the state’s claimed security concerns. The lawsuit, brought by organizations including The Associated Press, contends the public has a constitutional right to know how Tennessee carries out death sentences “from the time the condemned enters the execution chamber until after the condemned is declared dead.” Tennessee’s Department of Correction, which has defended its limits as necessary for safety and argued the press has no special access rights, did not immediately comment on whether it will appeal. The case could influence similar battles over execution transparency in other death‑penalty states as courts confront secrecy around lethal‑injection procedures and drug protocols.