Judge Frees 80-Day ICE Detainee Salah Sarsour, Citing Substantial First Amendment Claim
Updated
Updated · Fox News · Jun 19
Judge Frees 80-Day ICE Detainee Salah Sarsour, Citing Substantial First Amendment Claim
3 articles · Updated · Fox News · Jun 19
Summary
Hours after a federal judge’s order, Salah Sarsour walked out of an Indiana jail and returned to Milwaukee while his immigration case continues.
Judge James Patrick Hanlon said ICE and DHS failed to rebut Sarsour’s claim that he was detained for pro-Palestinian speech, writing that foreign-relations concerns do not automatically override First Amendment protections.
Sarsour, a legal permanent resident detained since March 30, had lived in the U.S. for more than 30 years; Hanlon said the government never explained why he became a threat only this year.
DHS called him a terrorist and pointed to 1989 and 1995 Israeli military-court convictions that Sarsour denies, but the judge noted U.S. officials had known of those charges for 25 years.
The ruling also weighed his community ties and health—Type 2 diabetes, more than 30 pounds lost in custody—and rejected the government’s argument that lawful permanent residents have lesser free-speech rights.
When does an immigrant's political advocacy cross the line into a deportable national security threat?
How does this ruling redefine free speech rights for millions of legal residents in the United States?
Amidst terror funding lawsuits, how can advocacy groups navigate the line between activism and criminal liability?
Judge Hanlon’s Landmark Ruling: Salah Sarsour’s 80-Day ICE Detention, Free Speech, and the Future of Immigration Enforcement
Overview
Salah Sarsour’s immediate release from ICE detention on June 18, 2026, followed a landmark ruling by Judge Hanlon that is widely seen as a pivotal moment for First Amendment rights. After spending 80 days in detention, Sarsour expressed profound relief and reaffirmed his commitment to advocacy. The judge’s decision underscored the importance of protecting free speech, even for individuals in immigration proceedings, and could set a precedent that individuals should not face detention solely for exercising their right to speak out. This ruling signals a potential shift in how courts scrutinize cases linked to activism and may empower other advocates to continue their work without fear.