State Action Needed: Oppose Using Immigration Against Protected Speech

I am writing as a constituent to urge you to take immediate public action regarding the federal government’s retaliatory use of immigration enforcement against protected political speech, as exemplified by the case of Mahmoud Khalil. While federal courts recently vacated a district court’s intervention on jurisdictional grounds, the appeals court explicitly did not rule on the merits of the First Amendment claims involved. Instead, it held that constitutional challenges must wait until immigration proceedings conclude. This procedural deferral is not neutral. It allows punishment to proceed while constitutional review is delayed, transforming “process” itself into a tool of suppression. This is unacceptable. The government’s position — that immigration authority may be used to detain or remove individuals based on speech deemed adverse to U.S. foreign policy interests — creates a dangerous precedent. It signals that constitutional protections become conditional when speech is politically inconvenient. As the dissenting judge in the Third Circuit warned, this framework risks denying meaningful judicial review altogether, particularly where immigration courts are not equipped to develop a factual record on constitutional retaliation. State and local officials cannot treat this as a distant federal matter. When constitutional rights are eroded through jurisdictional maneuvering, silence at the state level becomes complicity. I am asking you to do the following: 1. Issue a public statement affirming that the First Amendment protects political speech regardless of immigration status, and condemning the use of immigration enforcement as retaliation for lawful expression. 2. Formally communicate with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, urging them to refrain from detention or removal where credible constitutional claims remain unresolved. 3. Support or initiate a state-level resolution or joint letter asserting that immigration enforcement must not be used to chill political speech or association, and that procedural barriers must not be weaponized to avoid constitutional accountability. 4. Encourage your colleagues in the legislature and statewide offices to do the same, creating a unified state-level record of opposition. State officials have an essential role in shaping the political boundaries of what is considered acceptable governance. When federal agencies test authoritarian tools, they rely on silence from below. Your voice matters precisely because it is closer to the people and less insulated from consequence. This is not a symbolic issue. It is a live test of whether constitutional rights are real in practice, or merely theoretical once the government invokes national security or foreign policy as a pretext. I urge you to act publicly and decisively.