The judge expresses some frustration with the government for not backing up Rubio's earlier pubic suggestion that there was more to this story than an op-ed:

"To date, the government has neither rebutted the argument that retaliation for Ms. Ozturk’s op-ed was the motivation for her detention nor identified another specific reason for Ms. Ozturk’s detention … “

In short, the government still hasn't "put up" anything to suggest this case is about anything more than Khalil's protected speech.

Instead, it cites cases involving true threats and fighting words, which Khalil isn't alleged to have engaged in.

Maybe the government knows Khalil didn't do anything that would meet the Supreme Court's "Davis" standard for peer-on-peer discriminatory harassment?

No evidence. Nothing. The government just demands we assume its conclusion.

But, even if we assume the government's conclusion, the DOJ doesn't actually cite any legal standard for discriminatory harassment.

Thus far the government hasn't "reported" any unlawful conduct in the case, so I was hopeful there might finally be some concrete evidence introduced.

Alas, I was disappointed.

The government simply alleges Khalil "fostered a hostile environment for Jewish students."

I was asked about this article by Michael Moynihan during a discussion at the Comedy Cellar.

Here was my response:

“Freedom has its risks,” he said. “Suppression of freedom is a prescription for disaster.”

So, are we obligated to defend someone else's rights? No.

Should we? Yes.

As Thomas More famously said in A Man for All Seasons — "I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

Because he knew that minority groups like his own depend on a robust protection of individual rights for all.

Neier believed that “the chances are best for preventing a repetition of the Holocaust in a society where every incursion on freedom is resisted.”

Our rights are inextricably tied to the rights of others.

Nobody understood this better than former ACLU Executive Director Aryeh Neier.

He fled the Holocaust at age two and would later defend the rights of neo-Nazis to rally in Skokie, Illinois, then home to 6,000 Holocaust survivors.

Why?

In researching my forthcoming book on 20th century civil libertarianism, it's amazing how many of the advances for individual rights were led by Jewish men and women: Floyd Abrams, Ira Glasser, Nadine Strossen, David Goldberger, Norman Siegel, Harvey Silverglate, Nat Hentoff, the list goes on ...

There's an old saying, "If you call the ACLU with a free speech problem and a Jewish man with a Brooklyn accent answers the phone, you know you're in good hands."

The court just ordered the government to provide an update at 5 p.m. today as it "continues to review its database and files for any other invocations."

It came up with three examples. And the Khalil rationale is low on evidence and high on vague allusions (incl. to clearly protected speech).

But as Cato's Will Duffield points out, the IEEPA was amended in 1988 and 94 to prohibit regulating "informational materials" under the IEEPA.

So Trump's tariff on foreign films is likely prohibited by the Constitution and federal statute.

President Trump's "national security" claim suggests he's assuming authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which he used to justify his earlier tariffs (even though the IEEPA doesn't explicitly mention a tariff power).