Civil Rights & Liberties — Week of Mar 17, 2025

Several government actions this week raised questions about civil rights protections for specific groups of people — including people with disabilities, immigrants, and transgender individuals — through a combination of court battles, regulatory changes, and withdrawn guidance.

In one notable case, Khalil v. Joyce, a Columbia University graduate student with a green card was detained and faces deportation after the Secretary of State determined his presence posed foreign policy risks. The student alleges this was retaliation for his participation in campus protests about the war in Gaza. The federal judge called these "serious allegations" touching on the principle that everyone in the United States is entitled to due process. This might matter because using immigration enforcement powers against a legal resident for alleged protest activity could affect the free speech rights that protect all people in the country, not just citizens — rights that exist to prevent the government from punishing people for their political views. The case has not been decided on the merits, and the government may present a non-retaliatory justification.

Separately, the Department of Education asked a court to pause an order requiring it to restore education grants after the court found the terminations were unlawful and based on factors "Congress had not intended" (AACTE v. McMahon). The Department of Justice withdrew 11 pieces of ADA guidance covering topics like hospital access for people with disabilities and service at gas stations, saying the action would help businesses reduce costs. And a proposed healthcare rule would strip DACA recipients of health insurance marketplace eligibility and block coverage of certain procedures for transgender individuals.

There are reasonable alternative explanations for these actions. Several of the withdrawn ADA documents are COVID-era guidance that is arguably outdated, and the ADA itself remains law regardless of whether guidance documents exist; the Department may also be working to update guidance to reflect current standards. The healthcare rule follows standard notice-and-comment procedures, and administrations routinely revise regulatory interpretations when policy priorities change. The education grant case involves a routine appellate motion to stay an injunction. And the Khalil case has not been decided on its merits.

Still, taken together, the pattern across agencies — withdrawing protections, proposing narrower eligibility rules, and contesting court orders — affects several distinct groups simultaneously in ways that may reduce existing civil rights safeguards.

Limitations: This is AI-generated analysis based on publicly available documents, not a finding of fact. Court cases discussed here are ongoing, and the allegations have not been proven. The proposed healthcare rule is open for public comment and is not yet final.