TRUMP WIN: Federal Judge DENIES TRO In Case Revoking Student Visa of Pro-Terror Agitator at Cornell University

Judge denied TRO in case of student visa revoked holding no jurisdiction. This is how it should have worked in many of TRO cases. They have no jurisdiction.

Margot Cleveland: That is all Boasberg had to do but he ignored first question…do I have jurisdiction, as did Henderson, because Boasberg felt he just had to STOP removal.

The case: The hearing comes just days after one of the plaintiffs, grad student and pro-Hamas terror activist Momodou Taal, was informed that his student visa was revoked.

The lawsuit, filed by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, calls for an injunction on two executive orders they argue “authorize deportation or prosecution based on protected speech.”

 American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee Spreads Apartheid Libel

As noted by news organizations such as CNN, for example, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has been a vocal advocate for worthy causes such as women’s empowerment, dispelling stereotypes, promoting racial equality and encouraging Arab-Americans to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

However, these same outlets have omitted the fact that “the largest Arab American grassroots civil rights organization in the United States” spreads baseless accusations that Israel is maintaining a system of “apartheid” and carrying out “ethnic cleansing.”

This is what apartheid looks like. pic.twitter.com/SyiLNngMSv

— ADC National (@adc) January 29, 2020

https://twitter.com/adc/status/1409684342335365120

More on the ADC’s jihad here.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are two Cornell graduate students, Momodou Taal and Sriram Parasurama, and a professor, Dr. Mũkoma wa Ngũgĩ. Both Parasurama and Ngũgĩ are U.S. citizens.

2/ https://t.co/TnSmDurMXt

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) March 28, 2025

The Cornell Sun: In the hour-long hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs and federal government fielded questions from Coombe.

Ethan Kanter, chief of the national security unit for the DOJ’s Office of Immigration Litigation, emphasized the existing statutes of the Immigration and Nationality Act as the two legal parties contested the jurisdiction of the Northern New York District Court.

Kanter argued that because Taal’s F-1 student visa was revoked on March 14, one day before he filed a lawsuit, the Immigration and Nationality Act would mandate that Taal’s case should be heard not at the district level but during removal proceedings in a federal court of appeals. Removal proceedings are the legal process to determine whether a non-citizen can remain in the country.

Eric Lee, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, admitted that the federal government “gain[ed] points” with the law for revoking Taal’s visa before his lawsuit was filed. However, Lee argued, the actual injury that Taal sustained began before his loss of legal status, which would make the case not subject to the INA.

Coombe also directed both parties to argue whether the lawsuit demonstrated a tangible injury to which redress could be applied.