In The News: Do Green Card Holders Have First Amendment Rights in the Context of Free Speech and Political Activism? Should They?
In recent weeks, the United States has witnessed significant legal and political debates concerning the free speech rights of green card holders, particularly in the context of pro-Palestinian activism. These events have sparked discussions about the extent to which lawful permanent residents are protected under the First Amendment.
A prominent case is that of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and former Columbia University graduate student. On March 8, 2025, Khalil was detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at his residence in New York City. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asserted that Khalil's involvement in activities aligned with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, justified his detention. However, Khalil's legal team contended that his actions were protected under the First Amendment, emphasizing that he had not been charged with any crimes. His detention has been widely criticized by civil rights organizations and legal experts, who argue that punishing an individual for their political speech violates the First Amendment .
Similarly, Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia University student and green card holder, became the subject of deportation efforts following her participation in a pro-Palestinian sit-in on campus. Immigration officials sought her arrest, citing a law against harboring noncitizens. Chung filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, asserting that the threats against her were an attempt to suppress free speech and political activism. A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order, preventing her deportation while the case proceeds.
These incidents are part of a broader pattern under the Trump administration, which has initiated measures targeting noncitizens involved in political activism. The "Catch and Revoke" initiative, for example, employs artificial intelligence to identify international students deemed "pro-Hamas" based on their social media activity, leading to visa revocations. Additionally, the administration has proposed requiring green card applicants already legally in the U.S. to disclose their social media profiles, a move critics argue could have a chilling effect on free speech.
Legal experts emphasize that the First Amendment's protections extend to noncitizens, including green card holders. David Cole, a professor at Georgetown Law, notes that the First Amendment does not distinguish between citizens and non-citizens, asserting that since a citizen cannot be punished for their speech, a foreign national cannot be deported for theirs.
Conversely, some legal scholars point to historical precedents where the U.S. government has exercised broad discretion over immigration matters, sometimes leading to the deportation of individuals based on their affiliations or speech. Notably, this precedent hasn’t been exercised since the 1950s when the courts upheld the government's authority to deport non-citizens for past membership in the Communist Party.
These developments have ignited a national conversation about the balance between national security measures and the constitutional rights of noncitizens. While the First Amendment provides robust protections for free speech, its application to non-citizens, especially in the context of political activism, remains a contentious legal and ethical issue. As these cases progress through the judicial system, they are poised to set significant precedents for the rights of green card holders and other non-citizens in the United States.