Judge cites free speech claim, orders ICE to release mosque leader after 80 days

For immigration and constitutional law practitioners, the June 18, 2026 ruling offers a sharp rebuttal to the government’s pattern of using national security pretexts to silence speech. Judge Hanlon’s opinion—finding a ‘substantial’ retaliation claim—clarifies that courts will not rubber-stamp immigration detention when protected advocacy is the apparent trigger.

In a significant ruling that tests the intersection of immigration enforcement and constitutional free speech protections, U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon on Thursday ordered the immediate release of Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention after 80 days. Judge Hanlon, a Trump appointee, found that Sarsour had raised a 'substantial' claim that his detention was retaliation for his public advocacy for Palestinian rights, rather than a genuine national security threat as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) asserted. The decision, issued on June 18, 2026, exposed the government’s reliance on vague foreign-policy justifications to curtail speech, and the judge’s written opinion emphasized that 'the mere invocation of foreign relations concerns does not automatically trump First Amendment rights.'

“

District Judge James Patrick Hanlon on Thursday ordered the immediate release of Salah Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention after 80 days.

Sarsour, a Palestinian-born lawful permanent resident who has lived in the United States for over three decades, was taken into custody by ICE agents on March 30, 2026. DHS argued that he is a foreign policy threat, citing a conviction as a teenager in an Israeli military court for throwing Molotov cocktails, and alleging he had lied on immigration forms and funded terror organizations—claims Sarsour denies. His attorneys contended that the true motive was his outspoken criticism of Israel and his leadership role at one of the Midwest’s largest mosques. The judge noted that the government offered no explanation for why, after 30 years of law-abiding residency, Sarsour was suddenly considered a threat, nor did it adequately refute the retaliation claim. The ruling underscored that bare references to foreign relations do not suffice to override First Amendment scrutiny, especially when the detainee’s speech is protected political expression.

The case raises critical legal questions about the scope of executive discretion in immigration detention when fundamental rights are at stake. First Amendment retaliation claims require a showing that protected speech was a motivating factor for adverse government action. Traditionally, courts give significant deference to the executive on national security and foreign affairs, but Hanlon drew a clear line: that deference does not permit the use of detention as a tool to punish protected speech. This decision could serve as precedent for other immigrants detained under similar circumstances, particularly those engaged in pro-Palestinian activism—a politically sensitive area under the Trump administration. The judge’s order allows Sarsour to return to his Milwaukee home while the underlying immigration case proceeds, signaling that the judiciary will closely examine the government’s evidence when constitutional rights are implicated.