This is an important story and solid analysis, but your comment in the first graf that the USS Cole attack has been “mostly forgotten” was gratuitous and inaccurate—we always remember the tragic deaths of service members.

Talking noncitizens’ free speech & judicial deference at @TheAALS New Orleans Wed. @ 8 am in the Nat’l Security section program, w/ more on deference from @ssinnar@bsky.social, John Dehn, Nahal Kazemi & Rachel VanLandingham

7) If the Board of Immigration Appeals affirms Judge Coman’s decision, SCOTUS may ultimately decide whether the case of #Khalil becomes a comparable milestone

6) There’s no clear statement in the foreign-policy provision; an analogous clear statement test in Ex parte Endo helped end the Japanese-American internment and in Kent v. Dulles dimmed the McCarthy Era blacklist

5) David Martin & I have explained that a statute that ends LPR status so abruptly must include a “clear statement” that Congress planned this outcome: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

4) For LPRs, who have reasonably relied on building a life in the US, such amorphous charges don’t provide the clear notice that Due Process requires

Pressed for evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, government cites its power to deport people for beliefs The U.S. government has submitted a two-page memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio as its main evidence in its deportation case against Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil.

3) To meet this test, Sec’y of State Rubio asserted that Khalil had engaged in “antisemitic protests & disruptive activities”—there’s nothing more concrete in Sec’y Rubio’s letter: apnews.com/article/mahm...

2) In cases of political speech, INA sec. 1227(a)(4)(C), which Judge Coman cited, turns on the Secretary of State’s discretion to find that a noncitizen whom the provision covers has compromised a “compelling US foreign policy interest”

1) The immigration case of LPR Mahmoud #Khalil is in opening rounds; Immigration Judge Jamee Coman’s finding of removability under the INA’s foreign-policy provision does not herald the case’s outcome: www.nytimes.com/2025/04/11/n...

13) SG invocation of intrusive NLRB rulemaking chases a chimera, not an actual risk

12) The collapse of the Biden joint-employer rule has pushed the NLRB back to its adjudicatory origins, with no forays into regs on the horizon

11) Biden reg w/ broad definition of joint employer foundered due to clash with underlying statute & Loper Bright’s overruling of Chevron deference

10) Both Trump I and Biden hoped to provided more stable guidance thru regs

9) NLRB had earlier provided this guidance through adjudication, with oscillating outcomes that varied with POTUS

8) Identity of employer is ancillary to NLRB’s decisions re whether employer has committed unfair labor practices

7) The Biden admin. joint-employer rule with broad definition sought to replace narrower Trump I rule

6) But this exception proves the rule of NLRB preference for adjudication over regs

5) SG makes much of tangled NLRB rulemaking re “joint employer” who can be liable for unfair labor practices; this definition matters for firms contracting for services from other companies

4) Preference for adjudication over rulemaking dates to the NLRB’s founding

3) Bulk of NLRB activity is adjudicatory, which can breed “policy oscillation” w/ changes in administration, per NYU labor prof Sam Estreicher: scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcont...

2) SG says rulemaking is executive in nature, not adjudicatory, and points to regs from NLRB, but gov’t overstates the case

1) One issue in #HumphreysExecutor case Trump v. Wilcox is nature of power exercised by @NLRB and @USMSPB, which SG raised in stay request to SCOTUS (admin. stay by CJ): www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24... from 2_Wilcox-Harris%20Appl.pdf (🧵from X)

In case of LPR protester Mahmoud #Khalil, vagueness and lack of notice still mar the government’s immigration filings, which allege amorphous “antisemitic protests & disruptive activities.” David Martin & I explain that Due Process requires more: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

In case of LPR protester Mahmoud #Khalil, vagueness and lack of notice still mar the government’s immigration filings, which allege amorphous “antisemitic protests & disruptive activities.” David Martin & I explain that Due Process requires more: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

In case of LPR protester Mahmoud #Khalil, vagueness and lack of notice still mar the government’s filings, which allege amorphous "antisemitic protests & disruptive activities." David Martin & I explain that Due Process requires more: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

In case of LPR protester Mahmoud #Khalil, vagueness and lack of notice still mar the government’s immigration filings; David Martin & I explain that Due Process requires more: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

7) INA sec. 1227(a)(4)(C), the basis for Sec’y Rubio’s letter, only cites “adverse foreign policy consequences” to the US, but doesn’t expressly include LPRs; courts should read this provision as not applying to LPRs, given their reliance interests

6) David Martin & I have explained that Congress needs to provide a “clear statement” that it planned such an abrupt end to an LPR’s status: www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-...

5) #SCOTUS has long held that loss of LPR status is the “equivalent of banishment”

4) “Antisemitic protests” & “disruptive activities” are amorphous, debatable terms that include a vast range of speech and conduct, from criticism of gov’t policy to raised voices on public sidewalks