>> After 80 days in federal custody, Salah Sarsour, a green card holder and president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, was released from a facility in Indiana.

Sarsour was arrested in a targeted operation on March 30th when he was surrounded by Ice agents, the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, in a press release called Sarsour a criminal and a terrorist, alleging crimes committed in Israel more than 30 years ago prior to coming to the U.S.

and of which he denies.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is reported to have said that Sarsour, quote, poses an adverse consequence to foreign policy considerations.

Sarsour is outspoken about the mistreatment of Palestinians in Gaza by Israel.

In the order granting the motion for his release, a federal judge stated, quote, Mr.

Sarsour has raised a substantial First Amendment retaliation claim which could render his detention unlawful.

Here to discuss the case is a member of Sarsour's legal team.

Sam Kohl, an attorney with the ACLU of Illinois who is also a former immigration judge.

Sam, thanks for joining us.

>> Thanks for having me.

>> You're familiar with the arguments raised by the Trump administration against Salah Sarsour.

The secretary of state himself said that he posed an adverse consequence to foreign policy considerations.

Were there grounds to arrest and detain him?

>> No.

Absolutely not.

Mr.

Sarsour has been a upstanding person in the United States since he came here over 30 years ago.

He is a grandfather of nine US citizen kids and has had absolutely no trouble in the United States.

The only reason he was arrested was because he's an outspoken advocate for Palestinian human rights, and that's why he's been targeted by this administration.

And that is absolutely not an appropriate and lawful reason to arrest someone.

>> So what were conditions like for Mr.

Sarsour in jail?

>> They're pretty bad.

He lost 30 pounds during the time that he was there.

He's also he also has some medical problems.

He's a type two diabetic, and his doctor required that he have daily glucose, blood glucose monitoring.

And he was getting tested once a month.

So that's that's not great.

And that could really pose some serious risks to his health.

>> Was there a chance he could have been deported?

>> So the case is ongoing.

Right.

So he so he has been released from detention based on our motion in front of a federal district court judge.

So Mr.

Sarsour filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asking the federal judge to release him from from the immigration detention.

And the judge hasn't ruled on that habeas petition quite yet.

But he did grant an interim release of Mr.

Sarsour while the court adjudicates the habeas petition by saying that he's made a strong showing that he might prevail in in the habeas petition.

But that doesn't mean the immigration case is over.

So Mr.

Sarsour is still fighting deportation in immigration court, and that's ongoing.

>> Okay.

You're a former immigration judge yourself.

You've said this case is highly unusual.

You've never seen anything like it.

How much of the case is outside the bounds of what you'd normally see?

>> I was an immigration judge in the Chicago immigration court for nine years, and I handled, actually, a detained docket.

That's a docket of individuals who are in immigration custody.

So very similar to the situation that Mr.

Sarsour was in.

And Mr.

Sarsour's case is, in fact, in the Chicago immigration court.

And I can tell you, for one, I have never seen anything like this at all.

The first of all, the the primary charge against him is, as you noted, that letter from of Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that.

NewsHour.

Suarez really lawful activity in the United States poses a foreign policy risk to the United States.

Now that that is highly unusual and highly legally dubious.

But the other thing that is extraordinary about this case is although the case is is assigned to the Chicago immigration court, the judge that was assigned to hear the case is not a Chicago immigration court judge.

It's actually a very senior level management judge in the in the executive Office for Immigration Review.

It's the an acting regional deputy chief immigration judge.

It's essentially the second in command of all the judges in the entire immigration court system.

So that case was plucked out of the immigration court judges and specifically assigned to this one management judge.

I've never seen that happen.

>> So I gather you feel like you have a strong, strong First Amendment case here that his rights, your client's rights were violated.

Can you explain that?

>> Absolutely.

Mr.

Sarsour, as a longtime permanent resident of the United States, has the same First Amendment rights to speak and to engage in political activity and political activism that that essentially you and I do as citizens of the United States.

And so what's really happening is, is the government is, is targeting him because they don't like his speech.

And that is is highly problematic.

It is it violates the Constitution, the First Amendment.

And, and we're very concerned to see this, this these charges against him by the administration.

>> So you mentioned this, that this case is not over.

You have hearings coming up.

How does this proceed?

What happens next?

>> So there's another hearing coming up.

The at the end of July, July 22nd, in the immigration court, where the government has the burden of proof.

In this case, they have to prove the charges that that they have made against him.

And and aside from the charges, based on the Marco Rubio determination about foreign policy, there are some other charges that relate to things that have been decades and decades ago, things the government has known about for a very long time.

And, you know, we are we will fight these charges.

We we are he has very good defenses, and we are fighting them in immigration court.

And if we lose in immigration court, we will continue our fight all the way up as far as it takes, because everyone knows what's going on here.

It's not about anything that happened decades ago.

It's about what he's doing now, his speech.

And that's why he's being that's why he's being targeted.

>> All right.

We'll be >> All right.

We'll be