Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Deporting Activist Under Visa Ban

Imran Ahmed argued in his complaint that the sanctions were political retaliation and violated the First Amendment.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaks during an end-of-year press conference in the State Department Press Briefing Room in Washington on Dec. 19, 2025. Photo by Mandel Ngan/AFP

A federal judge granted a temporary injunction on Dec. 25 to block the Trump administration from detaining and deporting Imran Ahmed, an activist among those recently subjected to visa restrictions by the State Department for alleged censorship.

Ahmed, CEO of U.S.-based Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), is a British citizen and a legal permanent resident of the United States.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the visa bans on Dec. 23 while condemning the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), naming several former EU officials, as well as prominent activists who had a part in formulating the DSA.

The announcement followed the EU opening formal proceedings against X under the DSA, alleging “dissemination of illegal content.” U.S. officials decried the move as censorship.

Ahmed sued on Dec. 24 in a bid to stop deportation proceedings, naming Rubio, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Todd Lyons, acting Field Office Director of the New York ICE office Judith Almodovar, and Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy Sarah Rogers in the complaint.

Rogers had accused Ahmed of collaborating “with the Biden Administration’s effort to weaponize the government against U.S. citizens” in a social media post on Dec. 23, writing that his organization published the “infamous ‘disinformation dozen’ report” that spurred a campaign to de-platform those questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

“Leaked documents from CCDH show the organization listed ‘kill Musk’s Twitter,’ and ’trigger EU and UK regulatory action' as priorities,” Rogers wrote.

“The organization supports the UK’s Online Safety Act and EU’s Digital Services Act to expand censorship in Europe and around the world.”

Ahmed argued in his complaint that the sanctions were political retaliation and violated the First Amendment.

“Immigration enforcement—here, immigration detention and threatened deportation—may not be used as a tool to punish noncitizen speakers who express views disfavored by the current administration,” the complaint said.

“Mr. Ahmed’s effort to protect children from social media dangers and harmful hate speech does not present ’serious foreign policy consequences’—any more than do the actions of the United Kingdom and European Union legislators who voted to pass the laws that Secretary Rubio apparently does not like,” the plaintiff argued in a separate court filing.

Ahmed is also arguing a violation of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, a violation of immigration laws by tying his speech and views to a cause for deportation, and that the executive branch has exceeded its jurisdiction. The complaint reaffirmed CCDH’s support for the DSA.

U.S. District Judge Vernon Broderick has set a hearing in the case for Dec. 29.

“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,” a State Department spokesperson said.

Reuters contributed to this report.