U.S. Judge Temporarily Blocks Deportation of British Campaigner Imran Ahmed
Federal court halts Trump administration’s detention and removal plans amid legal challenge over free speech and immigration rights
A federal judge in the United States has issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Trump administration from detaining or deporting British anti-disinformation campaigner Imran Ahmed, after the outspoken activist challenged visa bans and removal threats in court.
Ahmed, a British national who is a U.S. lawful permanent resident and lives in Washington with his American wife and daughter, filed a lawsuit against senior U.S. officials, including the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security, arguing that actions to remove him from the United States would violate his constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
The Trump administration had imposed visa restrictions on Ahmed and four other European nationals, accusing them of seeking to coerce U.S. technology companies into suppressing American viewpoints—a charge Ahmed and his supporters strongly dispute.
Responding to the legal challenge, U.S. District Judge Vernon Broderick granted the restraining order on Thursday, enjoining federal authorities from arresting, detaining or transferring Ahmed while his case proceeds and scheduling a hearing for December twenty-nine.
The decision reflects broader tensions between U.S. immigration enforcement and judicial oversight, and highlights international concern over digital policy disputes that intersect with free expression and regulatory debates.
Ahmed said he was proud to remain in the United States and would continue his work combating online harm, misinformation and antisemitism, praising the legal system’s protection of his rights.
A State Department spokesperson reiterated that the United States is under no obligation to permit entry or residence by foreign nationals, while noting that legal processes will unfold in due course.
Critics of the administration’s actions, including European governments and civil society advocates, argue that monitoring and regulating harmful online content is essential for internet safety and should not be conflated with censorship of lawful speech.
The judge’s order ensures Ahmed’s immediate legal reprieve while the federal court considers the merits of his constitutional claims.
Ahmed, a British national who is a U.S. lawful permanent resident and lives in Washington with his American wife and daughter, filed a lawsuit against senior U.S. officials, including the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security, arguing that actions to remove him from the United States would violate his constitutional rights to free speech and due process.
The Trump administration had imposed visa restrictions on Ahmed and four other European nationals, accusing them of seeking to coerce U.S. technology companies into suppressing American viewpoints—a charge Ahmed and his supporters strongly dispute.
Responding to the legal challenge, U.S. District Judge Vernon Broderick granted the restraining order on Thursday, enjoining federal authorities from arresting, detaining or transferring Ahmed while his case proceeds and scheduling a hearing for December twenty-nine.
The decision reflects broader tensions between U.S. immigration enforcement and judicial oversight, and highlights international concern over digital policy disputes that intersect with free expression and regulatory debates.
Ahmed said he was proud to remain in the United States and would continue his work combating online harm, misinformation and antisemitism, praising the legal system’s protection of his rights.
A State Department spokesperson reiterated that the United States is under no obligation to permit entry or residence by foreign nationals, while noting that legal processes will unfold in due course.
Critics of the administration’s actions, including European governments and civil society advocates, argue that monitoring and regulating harmful online content is essential for internet safety and should not be conflated with censorship of lawful speech.
The judge’s order ensures Ahmed’s immediate legal reprieve while the federal court considers the merits of his constitutional claims.
