A federal judge in Manhattan temporarily barred the Trump administration from arresting or deporting British-born researcher Imran Ahmed, a lawful permanent resident whose work targets online hate and disinformation, after the State Department moved to sanction him under a foreign policy deportation provision.
In an order issued shortly after midnight on Thursday, December 25, US District Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the Southern District of New York granted Ahmed’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). The court barred federal officials from arresting or detaining Ahmed pending further order and, if he is already in custody, prohibiting his transfer outside the district while the case proceeds. Judge Broderick also waived the bond requirement ordinarily imposed.
The order responds to a lawsuit filed the day before, in which Ahmed challenged efforts by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other senior officials to subject him to visa sanctions and removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provision for deportation on foreign policy grounds. Ahmed alleges the government is weaponizing immigration law to punish him for his research and advocacy around social media content moderation, in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments, the INA, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
Ahmed is the founder and chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a nonprofit that publishes research on online hate, misinformation, antisemitism, and child safety across major digital platforms. The CCDH’s work—including its 2021 Disinformation Dozen report on anti-vaccine influencers, and later reports on antisemitic content and teen self-harm—has made the group an irritant to large technology companies, particularly X, formerly Twitter. X sued CCDH in 2023 over its reporting. That case was dismissed in 2024, and an appeal is pending.
Ahmed, born in Manchester and of Afghan descent, moved to the US in 2021 on an O-1 “extraordinary ability” visa, and became a lawful permanent resident on March 29, 2024. In his complaint, Ahmed alleges that the government is retaliating against him based on his past, current, and expected speech about online hate and platform regulation, and that senior officials’ public statements show his advocacy is the actual target of the sanctions. The lawsuit frames the case as part of a broader pattern of immigration enforcement actions against noncitizen students and researchers whose speech has drawn official scrutiny.
Beyond his First Amendment and viewpoint-discrimination claims, Ahmed argues that the “foreign policy consequences” standard is unconstitutionally vague and invites arbitrary enforcement, that the administration has failed to comply with statutory safeguards limiting speech-based exclusions, and that its actions are arbitrary and capricious under the APA. He also makes a non-delegation argument, asserting that Congress has not given the Executive clear authority in this area.
The TRO does not resolve the merits of Ahmed’s claims but freezes the government’s actions while the court considers whether the foreign policy deportation provision can be used to expel a lawful permanent resident whose work has made him a prominent critic of online platforms and an advocate for stricter digital regulation.
