|
« AAUP Homepage
|
Motion for Summary Judgment Filed in Ramadan Case
By Rachel B. Levinson
In February, the AAUP filed a motion for summary judgment in AAR, AAUP, et al. v. Chertoff, a lawsuit against the government on behalf of noted Muslim scholar Tariq Ramadan. The motion was accompanied by an extensive supporting declaration by AAUP president Cary Nelson; both are available in the Newsroom section of the AAUP’s Web site. The AAUP, together with the American Academy of Religion and the PEN American Center, working with the American Civil Liberties Union, filed the lawsuit in January 2006, challenging the government’s use of the “ideological exclusion” provision of the USA Patriot Act to prohibit Ramadan from entering the country in 2004, which prevented him from commencing a tenured position at the University of Notre Dame. (See “Muslim Scholar Denied Visa” in the January–February issue.)
In June 2006, in response to the lawsuit, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered the government to explain the continued exclusion of Ramadan from the country. In September 2006, the government stated in a letter to Ramadan that he was barred from the country for allegedly providing “material support” to a terrorist organization in violation of the Patriot Act. The allegation of “material support” was based on several donations that Ramadan made between 1998 and 2002 to Palestinian relief organizations that were registered in France, donations that Ramadan had previously disclosed to the U.S. government. In 2003, after Ramadan’s final donation, the organizations were deemed terrorist organizations by the United States, and the government is now relying on this designation to justify its continuing exclusion of Ramadan.
The motion for summary judgment therefore requests several kinds of relief from the court: a ruling that the government’s reliance on the material support provision to exclude Ramadan violates the U.S. Constitution and federal law; a declaration that the ideological exclusion provision violates the U.S. Constitution; an injunction against using the material support provision to exclude Ramadan; and an injunction against using the ideological exclusion provision to exclude Ramadan or any other person. The motion was supported by declarations from each plaintiff organization, the ACLU’s lead attorney, Ramadan, and an expert on Muslim charities. Nelson’s declaration outlines the AAUP’s historical and continuing defense of academic freedom and scholars’ freedom to travel, as well as the AAUP’s consistent opposition to restrictions on foreign scholars’ ability to address academic communities in this country.
|