A federal judge in New York has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from detaining or deporting Imran Ahmed, the chief executive of the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), following a decision by the State Department to impose visa bans and deportation orders on Ahmed and four other European nationals. The case centers on the federal government’s authority to sanction and remove foreign nationals accused of coordinating censorship efforts targeting American speech, and on the legal protections afforded to lawful permanent residents.
In a ruling issued on Christmas Day, Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a temporary restraining order preventing Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers, and other federal officials from detaining Ahmed while the court reviews the matter. The order came after Ahmed filed an emergency appeal challenging the legality of his removal from the United States.
Ahmed is a British citizen of Afghan heritage who resides in the United States as a lawful permanent resident. He was identified by the State Department as the only individual among the five sanctioned Europeans who currently lives in the U.S. The sanctions were announced earlier this week and included visa bans and deportation orders tied to what the department described as “organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.”
The Centre for Countering Digital Hate, led by Ahmed, has been involved in campaigns urging technology companies to restrict or remove certain online content. The organization has stated in internal documents that its mission was to “Kill Musk’s Twitter” following changes to content moderation policies after Elon Musk acquired the platform. The CCDH was founded with the involvement of Morgan McSweeney, who is now chief of staff to U.K. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, and its activities have drawn scrutiny from U.S. officials concerned about foreign influence on domestic speech debates.
Announcing the sanctions earlier in the week, Under Secretary of State Sarah B. Rogers said, “if you spend your career fomenting censorship of American speech, you’re unwelcome on American soil.” Federal officials have framed the actions as a response to coordinated efforts by non-U.S. actors to shape or pressure American companies and public discourse, an issue that has increasingly intersected with broader questions about national sovereignty, free expression, and the limits of regulatory authority.
Ahmed’s legal team argued that deporting a green card holder under these circumstances would violate constitutional protections and statutory procedures. Following the court’s decision, his attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said in a statement: “That was fast. Judge Broderick granted our request for a temporary restraining order so quickly because it is so obvious that Marco Rubio and the other defendants’ actions were blatantly unconstitutional. Americans should be grateful for our clients’ courageous work to combat antisemitism, racism, as well as efforts to harm young children on social media.
“The federal government can’t deport a green card holder like Imran Ahmed, with a wife and young child who are American, simply because it doesn’t like what he has to say. We look forward to the hearing before the Court on Monday.”
Ahmed also issued a statement after the ruling, saying: “America is a great nation built on laws, with checks and balances to ensure power can never attain the unfettered primacy that leads to tyranny. The law, clear-eyed in understanding right and wrong, will stand in the way of those who seek to silence the truth and empower the bold who stand up to power. I believe in this system, and I am proud to call this country my home.
“I will not be bullied away from my life’s work of fighting to keep children safe from social media’s harm and stopping antisemitism online. Onward.”
In comments reported by the New York Times, the State Department responded by emphasizing longstanding immigration law principles, stating: “The Supreme Court and Congress have repeatedly made clear: The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country or reside here.” The case now moves toward a hearing where the court will more fully examine the balance between executive authority over immigration and sanctions, and the legal rights of permanent residents living in the United States.
