🔗 Share this article

After federal agents arrested Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil in his campus housing, Jameel Jaffer knew a significant fight was coming.

Jaffer leads a university-connected center dedicated to defending First Amendment rights. Khalil, a green card holder, had been active in Palestinian solidarity protests on campus. Previously, the institute had organized a conference about constitutional protections for noncitizens.

"We felt a direct link with this situation, because we're at Columbia," Jaffer explained. "And we saw this detention as a major violation of constitutional freedoms."

Major Legal Win Against Administration

Recently, the institute's lawyers at the Knight First Amendment Institute, together with the law firm Sher Tremonte, achieved a landmark victory when a federal judge in Boston ruled that the detention and attempted deportation of Khalil and additional activists was unconstitutional and purposely created to suppress protest.

The Trump administration has said they'll challenge the decision, with administration representative a spokeswoman calling the judgment an "outrageous ruling that undermines the protection of our nation".

Increasing Separation Separating Institute and Institution

This decision raised the profile of the free speech center, catapulting it to the frontlines of the battle with Trump over fundamental American values. However the win also highlighted the widening chasm between the institute and the institution that hosts it.

The case – characterized by the presiding official as "perhaps the significant ever come under the authority of this court" – was the first of multiple challenging Trump's unprecedented assault on universities to reach court proceedings.

Trial Revelations

Throughout the two-week trial, citizen and noncitizen scholars testified about the climate of terror and silencing caused by the arrests, while immigration officials disclosed information about their reliance on reports by conservative, Israel-supporting groups to pick their targets.

Veena Dubal, general counsel of the American Association of University Professors, which filed the lawsuit together with some of its chapters and the academic group, described it "the central civil rights case of the current government this time around".

'Institution and Institute Are On Opposing Positions'

Although the court victory was hailed by advocates and scholars across the country, the director received no communication from university leadership following the ruling – a reflection of the tensions in the stances taken by the institute and the university.

Even before the administration began, Columbia had come to symbolize the shrinking space for pro-Palestinian speech on US campuses after it called police to clear its student encampment, disciplined dozens of students for their activism and severely limited protests on campus.

University Settlement

Recently, the university negotiated an agreement with the federal government to pay millions to resolve antisemitism claims and accept significant limitations on its independence in a action broadly criticized as "surrender" to the president's bullying tactics.

The university's submissive approach was starkly at odds with the organization's principled position.

"We're at a time in which the institution and the institute hold opposing views of these fundamental issues," noted Joel Simon at the Knight Institute.

Institute's Mission

This organization was launched in 2016 and is housed on the university grounds. It has received significant funding from the university as part of an arrangement that had both providing substantial amounts in operating funds and long-term financing to establish the center.

"My hope for the organization in the long-term future is that when there is a time when the administration has overstepped boundaries and constitutional protections are at stake and no one else is prepared to take action and to declare, enough is enough, that's when the this organization who will have taken action," said Lee Bollinger, a constitutional expert who helped create the center.

Public Criticism

Shortly after campus developments, the university and the Knight Institute found themselves on opposing sides, with Knight regularly criticizing the university's handling of campus demonstrations both in private communications and in progressively critical public statements.

In one letter to university leadership, Jaffer condemned the decision to penalize campus organizations, which the university said had violated policies concerning organizing protests.

Escalating Tensions

Later, Jaffer further criticized the university's decision to summon law enforcement onto campus to clear a non-violent, student protest – leading to the arrest of numerous activists.

"The university's decisions are separated from the values that are essential for the academic community and purpose – such as expression, scholarly independence, and fair treatment," he stated this time.

Activist Viewpoint

Khalil, specifically, had appealed to university administrators for protection, and in a published article composed while jailed he wrote that "the reasoning used by the administration to single out myself and my peers is an outgrowth of the university's suppression playbook concerning Palestinian issues".

Columbia settled with the federal government shortly after the case wrapped in court.

Organization's Reaction

Shortly after the deal was revealed, the Knight Institute published a scathing rebuke, stating that the agreement approves "an astonishing transfer of independence and control to the government".

"University administration ought not accepted these terms," the declaration said.

Broader Context

The institute has allies – groups such as the civil liberties union, the Foundation for Individual Rights and additional civil liberties groups have challenged the government over constitutional matters, as have labor organizations and other institutions.

Nor is it exclusively focusing on campus issues – in other challenges to the government, the organization has sued on behalf of farmers and environmental advocates opposing government agencies over climate-related datasets and challenged the suppression of official reports.

Unique Position

But its protection of student speech at a university now synonymous with making concessions on it puts it in a particularly difficult situation.

The director showed understanding for the lack of "favorable choices" for Columbia's leaders even as he characterized their decision to settle as a "serious mistake". But he stressed that despite the organization positioned at the opposite end of its host when it comes to addressing the president, the institution has allowed it to operate free of pressure.

"Particularly currently, I don't take this independence as automatic," he stated. "Should the university attempt to limit our activities, I wouldn't remain at Columbia any more."