A federal court in Indiana has ordered ICE to immediately release Salah Sarsour, a lawful permanent resident, from detention. The judge found that Sarsour has successfully established a “substantial claim of First Amendment retaliation” for his speech in support of Palestinian rights. This ruling establishes important precedent for practitioners challenging detention of permanent residents under the government’s vague “foreign policy threat” authority.
What changed
The Terre Haute Division of the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ordered ICE to “immediately release” Salah Sarsour, a lawful permanent resident of the US, from ICE detention facilities. Sarsour, a Palestinian-born legal permanent resident, was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on March 30.
The government detained Sarsour under §212(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the government to block entry or remove foreign nationals deemed to have potentially “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the US. The government claimed he is a foreign policy threat, but Sarsour’s attorneys say he was actually targeted for speaking out against Israel.
In a 29-page decision, U.S. District Judge James Hanlon concluded that Sarsour presented evidence supporting a reasonable inference that his advocacy for Palestinian rights was “at least a motivating factor” in the government’s decision to detain him, describing that advocacy as core political speech protected by the First Amendment.
Judge Hanlon wrote that attorneys for ICE and the Department of Homeland Security did not provide enough evidence to refute Sarsour’s claims of retaliation for free speech, nor did they explain why Sarsour was suddenly considered a threat after more than three decades of legal residency in the United States. Hanlon ordered Sarsour’s immediate release while requiring him to remain in Wisconsin and continue participating in immigration proceedings.
Why it matters
This ruling creates a roadmap for defending lawful permanent residents detained under §212(a)(3)(C). The opinion demonstrates that federal judges will order release on habeas when the record shows (1) the government invoked a rarely-used, broad “foreign policy” ground, (2) the detainee engaged in protected political speech, and (3) the government cannot adequately explain why it suddenly deemed a decades-long LPR a threat.
Critically, the decision addresses whether he should remain in custody while his constitutional claims are litigated in federal court, but does not resolve the underlying immigration case or determine whether Sarsour is ultimately removable. This means you can win release while reserving all substantive defenses and without conceding removability.
This is not the first time ICE detained individuals for pro-Palestinian advocacy, utilizing much of the same arguments. The decision signals that courts will scrutinize such detentions closely, particularly when the client’s speech is core political expression on a matter of public concern.
Way forward
-
File or supplement habeas petitions for LPRs detained under §212(a)(3)(C), citing Judge Hanlon’s analysis of the First Amendment retaliation claim and the government’s failure to justify detention of a long-term resident.
-
Document the client’s protected speech: gather statements, social media, organizational affiliations, and dates of public advocacy to build the timeline showing the government’s sudden shift in treating the client as a threat.
-
Argue extraordinary circumstances: emphasize how long the client has lived in the US lawfully, the absence of criminal record, and the lack of any prior flag that changed to trigger detention.
-
Request release on own recognizance or minimal conditions, as Judge Hanlon did here; the government’s argument for a $25,000 bond and electronic monitoring was rejected.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. The information is based on the court decision and news reporting as of the date of publication. Immigration law is complex and constantly evolving; federal courts may reverse or limit this ruling on appeal. Always consult a licensed immigration attorney to assess your individual circumstances, and verify all citations against the primary source documents. Policy and judicial interpretations can change without notice.