🔗 Share this article

After federal agents detained Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil in his campus housing, the institute director understood a significant fight was coming.

Jaffer heads a university-connected institute dedicated to protecting free speech protections. Khalil, a green card holder, had been involved in pro-Palestinian protests on campus. Previously, the institute had organized a symposium about constitutional protections for noncitizens.

"We recognized a direct link with this situation, because we're at Columbia," Jaffer explained. "And we saw this arrest as a serious infringement of First Amendment rights."

Major Legal Win Against Administration

Last week, Jaffer's team at the Knight First Amendment Institute, along with the law firm Sher Tremonte, achieved a significant legal win when a district court judge in Massachusetts ruled that the arrest and planned removal of Khalil and other pro-Palestinian students was illegal and intentionally designed to suppress protest.

Government officials has said it will appeal the verdict, with administration representative Liz Huston calling the judgment an "outrageous ruling that undermines the protection of the country".

Increasing Separation Separating Institute and University

This decision raised the profile of the Knight Institute, propelling it to the frontlines of the battle with the administration over core constitutional principles. However the win also underscored the widening chasm between the institute and the institution that hosts it.

This legal challenge – characterized by the presiding official as "possibly the most important to ever come under the authority of this court" – was the initial of multiple opposing the administration's unprecedented assault on higher education to reach court proceedings.

Trial Revelations

Throughout the court proceedings, academic experts testified about the atmosphere of fear and silencing ushered in by the detentions, while government agents revealed information about their dependence on dossiers by conservative, Israel-supporting organizations to pick their targets.

Veena Dubal, chief lawyer of the academic organization, which brought the case along with local branches and the academic group, called it "the primary constitutional lawsuit of the current government this time around".

'Institution and Organization Are On Opposing Positions'

Although the legal success was hailed by supporters and academics nationwide, the director heard nothing from Columbia after the ruling – a reflection of the disagreements in the stances staked out by the organization and the university.

Prior to Trump took office, Columbia had represented the declining tolerance for Palestinian advocacy on American universities after it called police to remove its student encampment, disciplined dozens of students for their protests and severely limited demonstrations on campus.

Institutional Agreement

Recently, the institution reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay millions to resolve antisemitism claims and submit to significant limitations on its autonomy in a action widely condemned as "surrender" to the president's pressure strategies.

Columbia's compliant stance was sharply contrasted with the Knight Institute's defiant one.

"We're at a time in which the university and the organization are on different sides of these fundamental issues," observed Joel Simon at the Knight Institute.

Institute's Mission

This organization was established in 2016 and is located on the university grounds. It has received significant funding from the university as part of an agreement that had each contributing millions in operating funds and endowment funds to launch it.

"Our vision for the institute in the years ahead is that when there is that moment when the government has overstepped boundaries and constitutional protections are at stake and few others are willing to step forward and to say, this must stop, that's when the Knight Institute that will taken action," said the former president, a constitutional expert who established the institute.

Open Disagreement

Shortly after recent events, the university and the the organization were positioned on opposing sides, with Knight frequently objecting to the university's handling of pro-Palestinian protests both privately and in increasingly unforgiving public statements.

In correspondence to campus administration, the director condemned the action to suspend campus organizations, which the university said had violated policies related to organizing protests.

Growing Conflict

Later, Jaffer further criticized the university's decision to call law enforcement onto campus to remove a non-violent, student protest – leading to the detention of numerous activists.

"Institutional policies have become disconnected from the values that are central to the university's life and mission – including expression, academic freedom, and equality," he wrote this time.

Activist Viewpoint

Khalil, specifically, had pleaded with campus officials for protection, and in a published article composed while jailed he stated that "the logic employed by the administration to target myself and fellow students is an outgrowth of Columbia's repression playbook concerning Palestinian issues".

Columbia settled with the federal government just days after the trial concluded in court.

Organization's Reaction

Following the deal was announced, the Knight Institute published a scathing rebuke, concluding that the agreement sanctions "a remarkable shift of independence and authority to the administration".

"University administration ought not agreed to these terms," the statement stated.

Wider Impact

The institute has allies – groups such as the ACLU, the free speech organization and additional rights organizations have opposed the Trump administration over constitutional matters, as have labor organizations and Harvard University.

The institute isn't exclusively focusing on campus issues – in additional lawsuits to the Trump administration, the institute has filed cases on behalf of agricultural workers and climate activists challenging government agencies over environmental datasets and challenged the suppression of official reports.

Special Situation

But its defense of campus expression at a institution now associated with making concessions on it puts it in a particularly difficult position.

Jaffer showed understanding for the absence of "favorable choices" for Columbia's leaders while he characterized their decision to settle as a "major error". But he stressed that although the organization positioned at the other side of its host when it comes to dealing with the president, the university has allowed it to operate free of pressure.

"Particularly currently, I appreciate this independence for granted," he stated. "If Columbia tried to restrict our work, I wouldn't remain at the university any longer."