• A federal appeals court hears arguments regarding the detentions of Rumeysa Ozturk and Mohsen Mahdawi by ICE.
• Ozturk was detained for six weeks after co-authoring an op-ed criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza.
• The ACLU argues such detentions violate free speech rights and should be subject to judicial review.
• Both students' arrests are seen as part of a crackdown on pro-Palestinian voices on U.S. campuses.
• A ruling on their cases has yet to be issued by the appeals court.

A federal appeals court in New York recently heard cases involving two graduate students, Rumeysa Ozturk and Mohsen Mahdawi, who claim they were unlawfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as part of a government crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activism. Ozturk, a Turkish doctoral candidate, was captured on video during her detention in March, which sparked public outrage and legal challenges against her treatment, according to abcnews.

During the hearing, Esha Bhandari from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) emphasized that Ozturk was held for six weeks simply for writing an op-ed criticizing Israel's actions in Gaza. "Our argument is that of course, the courts have a role to play when individuals' liberty and freedom of speech are at stake," she asserted, highlighting the potentially alarming precedent if the government is allowed to detain individuals for their speech, as reported by trtglobal and aa.

Ozturk's case gained considerable attention due to the manner of her arrest on March 25, when ICE agents surrounded her outside her home. She later described her writing as “one of the most peaceful methods of communication and ways of taking action,” emphasizing that her detention was unwarranted. Mahdawi, a fellow pro-Palestinian activist, was detained during his citizenship interview, further illustrating the government’s alleged targeting of noncitizen activists critical of U.S. policies regarding Israel, according to abcnews, trtglobal, and aa.

As both cases await a ruling, they raise crucial questions about free speech rights and the boundaries of immigration enforcement in the U.S. These incidents are seen as part of a larger pattern of targeting pro-Palestinian voices within academic environments, as noted by the ACLU and other observers. The court's decision could define the limits of governmental power regarding speech and immigration, compounding the significance of these cases, according to abcnews, trtglobal, and aa.