A demonstrator holds a sign outside the U.S. Capitol on March 25, 2025, protesting the detainment by immigration authorities of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A group of progressive U.S. House Democrats on Tuesday rebuked the detainment by immigration authorities of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil and demanded that he be released from a Louisiana detention center.

At a press conference steps outside the U.S. Capitol, Reps. Delia Ramirez of Illinois, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Pramila Jayapal of Washington state and Greg Casar of Texas argued that Khalil’s First Amendment rights were violated, as the Syria-born lawful permanent resident appeared to be targeted for his activism and not any immigration violations.

“The detention and threatened deportation of Mahmoud is illegal, and it is a direct assault on our constitutional rights to due process, freedom of speech and right to protest and on dissent itself,” Tlaib said.

Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Mike Zamore, national director of policy and government affairs at the American Civil Liberties Union, joined the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus in speaking out against Khalil’s arrest Tuesday.

Both advocacy groups are among those providing legal representation for Khalil.

“We should also be clear that this is not a regular deportation proceeding,” Warren said.

“What this is is an attempt at disappearance, again, something that happens routinely in authoritarian countries, and it is happening right here.”

In a filing on Sunday, the administration alleged that Khalil did run afoul of immigration law, saying he lied on his permanent residency application when he “withheld membership in certain organizations and failed to disclose continuing employment by the Syria Office in the British Embassy in Beirut.”

Court challenge

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Khalil — a former Columbia University student who helped organize protests against the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza — in New York City this month. He was later moved to a detention facility in Louisiana.

Khalil challenged the lawfulness of his detention in a New York federal court, and a federal judge last week transferred his case to a court in New Jersey.

The administration claimed that Khalil “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization” and is calling for his deportation.

President Donald Trump has vowed to crack down on students protesting against the war in Gaza.

He and his administration conflated Khalil’s protests of the war in Gaza with support for Hamas to rationalize the arrest.

Backlash

The lawmakers’ event Tuesday was part of the backlash against the arrest that civil rights groups view as targeting political speech.

Tlaib referenced a letter Khalil wrote inside the detention center, where he described his arrest as a “direct consequence” of exercising his right to free speech.

“The Trump administration is targeting me as part of a broader strategy to suppress dissent,” Khalil wrote. “Visa-holders, green-card carriers, and citizens alike will all be targeted for their political beliefs.”

Jayapal dubbed the administration’s actions regarding Khalil “unconstitutional.”

The Washington state Democrat, who led the Congressional Progressive Caucus  until this year, said Khalil’s detainment marked the start of a “chilling war” on free speech rights in the United States.

Casar added “the administration targeting people for detention based on their political views should send a chill down the spine of every single American.”

“This administration’s plans will not end with Mr. Khalil — they will target activists who speak out about the plundering of taxpayer dollars by billionaires,” said the Texas Democrat, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

“They will target those whistleblowers who speak out about the incompetence that we see within this administration,” he said.

Meanwhile, the American Association of University Professors, its chapters at Harvard University, Rutgers University and New York University, along with the Middle East Studies Association, filed suit against the Trump administration on Tuesday to block them “from carrying out large-scale arrests, detentions, and deportations of noncitizen students and faculty members who participate in pro-Palestinian protests and other protected First Amendment activities.”

Trinity Lutheran Church in Madison, Wisconsin | Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner

Who gets to decide what is Christian? What does religious liberty look like today? With so much unsettling and destabilizing news coming from the new administration in Washington, DC, it’s hard to keep up with and keep track of everything. We believe, however, that a recent decision by the President is a dangerous threat to religious liberty, promotes Christian Nationalism, and all people who care about our democracy need to take note. 

We, the Lutheran (ELCA) bishops in Wisconsin and Upper Michigan, are concerned about an executive order signed by President Trump on Feb. 6 that established a new “Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias.” This task force has the duty to “identify any unlawful anti-Christian policies, practices, or conduct by an agency.” While some might think that all Christians would support an effort to root out “anti-Christian bias,” that’s not the case. We believe this executive order is a threat to the religious pluralism enshrined in the Constitution and does not actually protect Christians. Instead, this order aligns the federal government with Christian Nationalism, a dangerous conflation of fundamentalist Christianity, conservative politics, and fierce patriotism that distorts what it means to be an American citizen and an engaged Christian in society.

With this executive order, the federal government has given itself the authority to define what might be considered “anti-Christian,” and therefore also the authority to define what is Christian — a power which belongs to the Church alone, not the federal government. This executive order violates religious freedom, corrupts the separation of church and state, and creates a more hostile environment for Christians and all citizens who believe differently than the current administration and its religious advisors.

We feel so strongly that this task force is a threat to our values and our freedom that we wrote a public statement and invited religious leaders and others to sign on (https://www.wichurches.org/articles/religious-liberty). We now have over 250 signers, and we invite all who care about religious freedom and the preservation of our democracy to join us. 

Christian Nationalism is a dangerous ideology that distorts the Gospel and turns Jesus and Christianity into a weapon for power and division instead of a movement towards love and justice. It demands that a particular brand of Christianity be privileged by the state and impose that singular belief system in order to be a “good American.” (For more information on Christian Nationalism, check out www.christiansagainstchristiannationalism.org.) 

In order to protect religious freedom, the federal government must not align with one religious ideology but rather honor the constitutional mandate to defend space for religious pluralism and ensure that each member of society is free to practice their religion, or no religion, while keeping the peace and working together for the common good. Please join us as we call upon the President of the United States and all elected officials to protect religious freedom in our country and uphold the constitution of the United States of America.

Faithfully,

Bishop Paul Erickson, Greater Milwaukee Synod ELCA

Bishop Anne Edison-Albright, East Central Synod of Wisconsin ELCA

Bishop Felix Malpica, La Crosse Area Synod ELCA

Bishop Martin Halom, Northwest Synod of Wisconsin ELCA

Bishop Katherine Finegan, Northern Great Lakes Synod ELCA

Bishop Joy Mortensen-Wiebe, South-Central Synod of Wisconsin ELCA

The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)

I’ve studied the rulings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for well over a decade, and for most of that time, the court tended to put corporations and employers over workers or consumers. That has changed in the last couple of years. And now that voters have elected a pro-worker majority, billionaires like Elon Musk are spending big to return a pro-corporate majority to power. 

In a 2023 report that I authored for People’s Parity Project Action, we found that the state Supreme Court had ruled for corporations or employers in most of the cases where individuals were on the other side. The report commented on the stakes of that year’s election: “Instead of the reactionary justices who’ve put corporations over workers, [Wisconsinites] could have a majority that gives everyone a fair shot.”

In the weeks after our report was released, around the time of the spring 2023 election, the high court ruled for workers or consumers in several cases. Later that year, Judge Janet Protaseiwicz was sworn in, forming a progressive, pro-democracy majority. 

Around a year ago, this new majority ruled along ideological lines in a case that impacted workers across the state. The appeal involved unemployment insurance for Catholic Charities and some affiliated charities that help the poor and people with disabilities find jobs. The nonprofit employers tried to argue that they were exempt from the unemployment insurance system under the “ministerial” exception, which applies to employers that are both controlled by a religious organization and “operated primarily for religious purposes.” 

The court ruled 4–3 that the organizations aren’t “operated primarily for religious purposes.” The justices examined the activities of the groups (job training, help with daily living activities, etc.) and concluded that they aren’t religious. As the court notes, the smaller charities weren’t even receiving funding from Catholic Charities and were primarily funded through government contracts. 

The majority emphasized that the unemployment statute has always been interpreted broadly to cover as many workers as possible, ever since the state became the first to set up such a system in 1932. The statute says that unemployment compensation addresses an “urgent public problem” by sharing the burdens of unemployment. 

This ruling meant that dozens of Catholic Charities workers and all of its sub-organizations’ employees — the people who help people in need find jobs — can get unemployment benefits if they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The Freedom from Religion Foundation noted that a ruling in favor of Catholic Charities would have jeopardized unemployment insurance for thousands of workers at “religiously-affiliated hospitals and colleges.” 

Justice Rebecca Bradley, whose dissent was partially joined by the other conservatives, began with a Bible verse and an invocation of “Jesus Christ himself.” She argued for deferring to an employer’s stated motivations to determine if its workers are ministerial. 

Bradley also argued that the majority’s ruling violates the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The case is now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has expanded the First Amendment rights of religious employers at the expense of their workers. Though this case implicates the First Amendment, most cases involving workers only involve state law. This means that the Wisconsin Supreme Court gets the final say. 

Right now, billionaires and corporations are spending big to end the pro-worker majority and put the state Supreme Court’s power back in the hands of right-wing justices who will rule in their favor. With Musk-aligned groups pouring in at least $12 million, spending in the race is on track to break the record for spending in a U.S. judicial election — a record set in 2023 in Wisconsin, the election that changed control of the court. 

The pro-corporate majority that presided over the state for a decade-and-a-half first came to power in 2008. In that year’s election, corporate interests deliberately targeted a justice who had ruled against the manufacturers of dangerous lead paint. This majority was mired in conflicts of interest and bitter interpersonal conflicts. In 2010, they adopted an ethics rule that was literally written by a corporate-funded group that backed the conservative justices. A few years later, they shut down a campaign finance investigation into big business groups that had spent millions to get them elected. 

For billionaires and corporations, the stakes are clear in this year’s high court election. Wisconsin judges are ruling on cases affecting voters, workers, and people facing criminal charges. 

In one case, Musk’s Tesla car company is currently appealing a judge’s decision to deny it an exemption to a state law that prohibits car companies from owning car dealerships. Musk’s company wants to open four dealerships throughout the state — at a time when those dealerships are facing hundreds of protests in states around the country. If a Tesla customer sues the company, Musk would probably prefer that a pro-corporate judge hear the case. 

With the court’s current majority in power, workers and consumers actually have a shot at justice. The justices have made progress in protecting democracy. They finally struck down gerrymandered election districts and overturned a prior ruling that barred the use of ballot drop boxes. 

Musk and his wealthy friends want to take all of that away. But in Wisconsin, the voters decide who sits on their state’s highest court. 

Open records and access to government is important for government transparency and trust. (Photo from www.sunshineweek.org)

A legacy of Wisconsin’s progressive tradition is its strong open records law, which compels the government to conduct its business in full view of the public and respond promptly to citizen demands for records from state agencies, public schools, city halls and police departments.

Just before Sunshine Week, this week’s annual mid-March public education campaign celebrating the importance of open records and freedom of information, the Wisconsin Examiner proudly accepted the 2025 Media Openness Award from the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council for our reporters’ work forcing police department records into the open. 

Attorney Tom Kamenick, who runs the Wisconsin Transparency Project, the state’s only open records focused law firm, won settlements in two cases, against the city of Black River Falls and the Wauwatosa Police Department, and both government entities changed their policies so that future public records requests will be met expeditiously and without burdensome fees.

The city of Black River Falls attempted to charge more than $4,000 to fulfill reporter Henry Redman’s request for records regarding the disappearance and death of a Native American man whose family doubted police accounts of his apparent suicide. The family members were told by city staff that city officials advised them to ignore the family’s pleas for more information about their loved one’s death.  

“So when we brought the lawsuit, yes, it was about making the request a little cheaper than $4,400,” Redman said in accepting the award at the March 6 Wisconsin Newspaper Association dinner. “But it was also about changing the system in a small corner of the state, so people in Black River Falls, reporters and citizens alike, can turn a critical eye on their local government officials and help families like my sources get answers.”

Sharing the award was Isiah Holmes who, in a separate lawsuit, sued the Wauwatosa Police Department for failing to respond in a timely manner to his records requests filed in 2020 and 2021, “that the Tosa PD had essentially just decided to just not respond to — to ignore,” Holmes said. 

As part of the settlement, the department released hundreds of emails as well as interrogation video. 

“It’s not just about our requests,” said Holmes. “It’s about anyone who has to go to the Tosa PD, for example, people who may not have the knowledge or resources that we have as journalists. And actually, it’s kind of an act of bravery, depending upon what agency you’re dealing with, to go up and even ask for records.” Hopefully, he added, “we helped make that process a little bit easier for people.”

Sunshine Week had its beginnings shortly after 9/11 when, in the name of national security, the government began to make all kinds of previously available information secret. 

Tim Franklin, the editor of the Orlando Sentinel, noticed that data and information that was once readily available was disappearing from government websites. “Suddenly, we’re seeing government secrecy at an all-time high,” Franklin is quoted as saying on the official Sunshine Week website. “It was becoming an issue that was unchecked because anytime it was questioned, the response was “it’s a matter of national security.’”

Even the Florida state Legislature started passing government secrecy bills at an alarming clip. 

Standing up to that pressure, as a group of journalists and First Amendment advocates in Florida did, is critical to the health of our democracy. But that’s not always clear to the public.

In moments of moral panic, whether over an imaginary communist menace during the McCarthy era or a fictitious “invasion” of violent criminals from other countries in our current moment, people forget that defending free speech, dissent, and public scrutiny of government are essential to our liberty and democracy.

As we enter a dark period in American history, with a president who took office and immediately began flouting the law, ransacking federal agencies, letting an unelected billionaire seize citizens’ private data, deporting people without due process, and promising to use the full force of the federal government to persecute his enemies, we need sunshine on the activities of our elected officials more than ever. 

Thank God for journalists and citizens who are willing to commit those little acts of bravery Holmes describes. Those watchdogs will help see us through to a brighter day.