The US is not backing down from its fight to deport noncitizen technology researchers who monitor safety risks on the biggest online platforms. In July, a judge blocked as unconstitutional an immigration policy that the US relied on to weigh whether to detain and deport people who flag illegal or harmful online content as national security risks. In his announcement of the policy, Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained that by targeting a list of researchers—which he stood “ready and willing” to expand—the policy supposedly served to prevent foreign nationals from manipulating digital town squares and censoring Americans.
However, in his order siding with the Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) and staying the policy, US District Judge James Boasberg said the US showed no evidence linking any targeted researchers to a foreign power that might be attempting to censor Americans or manipulate US public debate. Deemed too broad, the policy could sweep in seemingly any noncitizen working in content moderation, the judge said. Last week, the US appealed that ruling, a move that CITR expected.
It notably came two days after another court found that it had no jurisdiction to decide a case raised by a hate speech researcher and lawful permanent resident fighting to strike down the policy permanently. In that case, US District Judge Loretta Preska called out Rubio for determining that the founder of a United Kingdom group called the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), Imran Ahmed, was a threat due to his lobbying and advocacy. Ultimately, however, she ruled that Congress had removed courts’ authority to block the US government from initiating removal proceedings, so she could not grant Ahmed’s request for a permanent injunction.
Even though “Ahmed may very well have valid causes of action,” Preska wrote that his lawsuit was “premature.” Alarming technology researchers, that decision seems to suggest that federal courts can never review the legal basis for an immigration policy connected to removal proceedings, even if it’s unconstitutional.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
