勛圖眻畦 of Iowa Calls Sahouri Prosecution "An Embarrassment"
The following statement regarding the acquittal of reporter Andrea Sahouri can be attributed to 勛圖眻畦 of Iowa Legal Director Rita Bettis Austen.
"Sahouri, a reporter covering the George Floyd protests last summer, was subjected to wrongful arrest, excessive force, and what appears to be retaliation for exercising the First Amendment right of newsgathering that we all have. The jury heard evidence that she was arrested and pepper-sprayed after clearly identifying herself as a Des Moines Register reporter.
The facts of her arrest are appalling, but the fact that the state has pressed on in prosecuting her after these facts became apparent has been an embarrassment for Polk County and the State of Iowa, attracting national and international condemnation.
We are relieved the jury acquitted Sahouri today, but underlying problems in our justice system have been laid bare. We join the many calls for reform of the Polk County Attorney's Office in light of this outlandish prosecution."
Learn More 勛圖眻畦 the Issues in This Press Release
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseJul 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Mahmoud Khalil Seeks to Challenge Governments Retaliatory, Post-Facto Charges Against Him in Federal Court
Following Mahmoud Khalils historic release on June 20, 2025, his legal team today filed a preliminary injunction motion challenging the government's attempts to detain and deport him based on a second immigration charge regarding alleged misrepresentations on his green card application as unconstitutional. The new motion argues that the governments post-hoc charge, which it levied one week after Mr. Khalil filed his habeas petition, was retaliatory and violated Mr. Khalils First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process rights. This action follows a couple significant rulings in June. First, the Court held that the original charges the government brought against Mr. Khalil the foreign policy ground were likely unconstitutional and blocked his detention on that basis. The government then shifted its justification for detention to the post-hoc charges. The following week, Judge Michael E. Farbiarz ordered Mr. Khalil's release, emphasizing that detention on such charges is extremely rare and affirming that he posed no danger or threat to the public. (The government has appealed both rulings, and is seeking to pause the release order in the appellate court.) The court has not yet formally blocked the second misrepresentation charge, as the motion now asks the court to do. Mr. Khalil, who the Trump administration detained for his speech in support of Palestinian rights, suffered in a remote detention facility in Jena, Louisiana for over three months more than 1,400 miles from his legal team, wife, and newborn son. Before the government issued these late-filed allegations against Mr. Khalil, their immigration case rested entirely on Secretary of State Marco Rubios foreign policy determination, which the federal court has now blocked. Below are quotes from Mr. Khalils legal team: The Trump administrations baseless, after-the-fact charges against Mahmoud Khalil are nothing more than further retaliation for his outspoken advocacy for Palestinian human rights, said Amy Belsher, Director of Immigrants Rights Litigation at the NYCLU. These flimsy accusations only reveal the targeted nature of his arrest and the ongoing attempts to silence and remove him. Its past time the government gave up its unlawful attacks on Mahmoud and his family. The government has gone to extraordinary and outrageous lengths in its attempt to silence Mahmoud Khalil, including leveling unsubstantiated and retaliatory charges against him, said Liza Weisberg, 勛圖眻畦-NJ Senior Staff Attorney. We will continue to defend Mr. Khalils freedom as he is targeted for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights, and we are confident he will ultimately prevail." "The government is using these trumped up charges to continue punishing Mahmoud Khalil for his political beliefs," said Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the 勛圖眻畦's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project. "This is textbook retaliation. The First Amendment squarely prohibits the government from abusing its powers to suppress dissent." Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the 勛圖眻畦 of New Jersey, the 勛圖眻畦 of Louisiana, and the 勛圖眻畦 (勛圖眻畦).Court Case: Khalil v. TrumpAffiliates: New York, New Jersey -
PodcastJul 2025
Free Speech
The ABCs of Free Speech with Emerson Sykes
By: 勛圖眻畦 -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Georgetown Scholar to Remain Free After Appeals Court Rejects Trump Admin Bid to Re-Detain Him
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected the Trump administrations request for a stay of a lower courts decision to release Dr. Badar Khan Suri from detention on bail. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested him on March 17th in retaliation for constitutionally protected speech and association, and he spent eight weeks in detention, mostly in Texas. Upon his release in May, he returned home to his wife and three children in Virginia, where his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of his arrest is proceeding. I am grateful for my freedom and for the time I have to spend with my family. I have faith that the American judiciary will protect my constitutional rights, said Dr. Badar Khan Suri. The Trump administration both appealed the ruling and sought a stay, which, if granted, would have allowed ICE to re-detain Dr. Khan Suri. With this decision, he will now remain free pending the Fourth Circuits consideration of the appeal. The governments opening brief is due on July 14. The Trump administration is trying to silence speech it doesnt agree with by targeting people like Dr. Khan Suri and Mahmoud Khalil, but ideas are not illegal, said Mary Bauer, executive director of the 勛圖眻畦 of Virginia. Americans dont want to live in a country where the federal government disappears people whose views it doesnt like. The First Amendment protects all of us regardless of citizenship from being punished by the government for our political speech. Dr. Khan Suri, an Indian national, is a visa holder whose wife and children are U.S. citizens. Prior to his arrest, Dr. Khan Suri and his wife, who is Palestinian American, were doxxed by groups that target advocates for Palestinian rights. Agents abducted Dr. Khan Suri outside his home because of his speech in support of Palestinian rights and his family ties to Gaza, then secretly transported him 1,500 miles away from his family and his attorneys, moving him between five different ICE facilities in three states in four days. The Fourth Circuit has prevented the government from re-detaining Dr. Khan Suri, recognizing what is at stake here: Dr. Khan Suris right to stand in solidarity with Palestinians, his continued freedom from punitive and retaliatory incarceration, and his freedom to be with his family and community, said Astha Sharma Pokharel, staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. He is challenging his arrest and detention under the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Separately, his immigration case, in which the Trump administration is seeking to deport him, is now also proceeding in Virginia. The appeals court has rightly denied the governments desperate and cruel attempt to re-detain Dr. Khan Suri over a thousand miles away from his family and community, said Scarlet Kim, senior staff attorney with the 勛圖眻畦s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. We will continue to work to vindicate Dr. Khan Suris First Amendment rights so that others do not have to fear imprisonment for speaking out about issues that matter to them." Todays ruling adds to a string of losses for the Trump administration in cases in which it has arrested immigrant students and academics for criticizing U.S. support of Israels assault on Gaza. In recent weeks, federal district courts have ordered Dr. Khan Suri, Tufts Ph.D student R羹meysa zt羹rk, and Columbia students Mohsen Mahdawi and Mahmoud Khalil released from detention. Dr. Khan Suri is represented in his federal lawsuit by the 勛圖眻畦 of Virginia, the 勛圖眻畦, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the HMA Law Firm, and the Immigrants and Non-Citizens Rights Clinic at the CUNY School of Law.Court Case: Suri v. TrumpAffiliate: Virginia -
Press ReleaseJun 2025
Free Speech
Arts Groups Argue Gender Ideology Still Unconstitutionally Penalized by National Endowment for the Arts
PROVIDENCE, R.I. Four arts organizations filed a motion for summary judgment today, arguing that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is violating the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act in its implementation of an executive order that prohibits federal funding for gender ideology. If the motion is granted, the suit could be resolved without trial. The motion comes after the NEA admitted that it would judge projects based on whether they promote what the government deems to be gender ideology and after it reinstated a requirement that grant applicants agree to abide by all executive orders when applying. Theatre is one of our most powerful reflections of humanitya space where truth-tellers and artists hold up a mirror to our lives, our struggles, and our joys, said LaTeshia Ellerson, co-executive director of national engagement at Theatre Communications Group. On stage, we see ourselves through the eyes of artists who dare to reveal the deepest parts of who we are. The First Amendment protects this essential freedom to create without fear of censorship or discrimination. As we join our co-plaintiffs in filing this motion, we urge the court to affirm what is both constitutionally and morally clear: all artists and storytellers have the right to be heard. The suit was first filed in March after the NEA began requiring applicants to attest that they would not promote gender ideology in order to be eligible for funding and blocked any projects that appeared to promote gender ideology from getting an award. In April, the court held that the NEAs decision to make any project that promotes what the government calls gender ideology ineligible for funds likely violated the First Amendment and exceeded its statutory authority. The First Amendment protects our right to artistic freedom, said Adam Odsess-Rubin, founding artistic director at National Queer Theater. Queer art is American art, and censorship is un-American. We will continue to fight for our constitutionally protected freedom of speech. In response to the litigation, the NEA paused the gender ideology-specific certification requirement. More recently, however, it reinstated the requirement that applicants comply with all executive orders. The NEA has admitted that it is screening art projects for gender ideology, said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 勛圖眻畦s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. This is a clear-cut violation of the First Amendment. By judging projects based on whether they fit the governments worldview, the NEA is abandoning its statutory role to fund works based on excellence and merit, as well as violating the free expression rights of artists across the country. We know that the NEA is not upholding the protections guaranteed by the First Amendment, said Steven Brown, executive director of the 勛圖眻畦 of Rhode Island. If Rhode Island Latino Arts grant application, and all the plaintiffs applications, are denied funding because of ideology, then this would be a major step backward in our collective right to freedom of speech. We are hopeful the court will not accept the NEAs troubling arguments. The 勛圖眻畦, the 勛圖眻畦 of Rhode Island, David Cole, and Lynette Labinger, cooperating counsel for the 勛圖眻畦-RI, filed the motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island on behalf of Rhode Island Latino Arts; National Queer Theater; The Theater Offensive; and the Theatre Communications Group. The motion can be viewed here.Affiliate: Rhode Island