The short version
- An immigration judge ruled that Salah Sarsour, president of Wisconsin's largest mosque, is removable from the United States under a controversial Cold War-era law.
- The decision contradicts a previous federal court finding that Sarsour’s detention was likely retaliatory for his advocacy regarding Palestinian rights.
- Sarsour denies allegations of terrorism funding and claims his past Israeli convictions resulted from coerced confessions during his youth.
An immigration judge has determined that Salah Sarsour, the president of the largest mosque in Wisconsin, is subject to deportation under a contentious statute originally enacted during the Cold War. The ruling marks a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s efforts to utilize this specific legal framework against foreign nationals who have publicly advocated for Palestinian rights. Despite a prior federal court decision suggesting that Sarsour’s initial detention was unlawful and retaliatory, the government pursued a separate legal track to secure his removal.
Judge Jayme Salinardi, who was assigned to the case from outside Wisconsin, issued the decision late Tuesday night. Notably, Salinardi announced plans to retire shortly after delivering the ruling. The administration had fast-tracked this immigration proceeding after a federal judge previously ordered Sarsour’s release, citing probable cause that his detention by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in March was motivated by his political advocacy rather than legitimate security concerns.
Sarsour has been a permanent resident of the United States for nearly thirty years. His legal team argues that the government’s actions represent a direct attack on First Amendment protections. Patrick Taurel, one of Sarsour’s attorneys, stated during a press conference that the evidence presented clearly demonstrated Sarsour had committed no deportable offenses. The defense maintains that Sarsour should have his green card restored and receive an apology for the government’s actions.
The Department of Homeland Security has justified its pursuit of deportation by alleging that Sarsour funded terrorist organizations and provided false information on immigration documents. These claims are rooted in convictions from Israeli military courts dating back to 1989, when Sarsour was a teenager. The DHS cited these records as evidence of throwing a Molotov cocktail at Israeli military homes and attempting to illegally possess weapons.
Sarsour and his lawyers strongly dispute the characterization of these historical events. They argue that the convictions were the result of an arrest during the first intifada, where Sarsour was subjected to torture and threats of rape. According to his account, he was forced to sign documents in Hebrew without understanding their content. The defense highlighted that the Israeli military court system has a conviction rate exceeding 96% for Palestinians, casting doubt on the fairness of the original proceedings.
Legal representatives emphasized that US authorities have been aware of Sarsour’s past arrests and convictions in Israel for many years. They argued that the sudden invocation of these decades-old records suggests a pretextual motive tied to his recent activism. Sarsour served two years in an Israeli prison following those 1989 convictions and was detained again for nearly three months during a visit to Palestine in 1995.
Beyond his local religious leadership, Sarsour serves on the board of American Muslims for Palestine, a national advocacy group that administration officials have accused of undermining US foreign policy interests. Luna Droubi, another attorney representing Sarsour, characterized the government’s actions as retaliation for speaking out about human rights issues. She warned that such measures threaten the fundamental principle that citizens should feel free to express their views without fear of retribution.
Sarsour, who has six children and nine grandchildren all holding US citizenship, expressed disappointment with the immigration judge’s decision but vowed to continue his advocacy work. He stated that his mission to protect First Amendment rights and support justice would persist regardless of his physical location. The case remains active as legal teams prepare for further appeals, underscoring ongoing debates over the balance between national security enforcement and civil liberties.
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the latest ruling. However, the agency’s previous statements framed Sarsour’s detention as a necessary measure against suspected terrorism support. The conflicting narratives highlight a broader legal and political struggle over how the government interprets and applies Cold War-era laws in contemporary contexts involving political dissent.
This development adds to growing concerns among civil rights advocates about the use of immigration enforcement tools to target political speech. While the federal judge’s earlier intervention provided temporary relief, the immigration court’s decision reinstates the threat of deportation. The outcome may influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding individuals with historical ties to conflict zones who engage in domestic advocacy.
Sources behind this briefing
Go to the original reporting
- The Guardian World↗US immigration judge allows cold-war era law to deport Wisconsin mosque’s president
