In a case that’s drawing both praise and sharp criticism, U.S. District Judge Patricia Giles recently ordered the release of Badar Khan Suri, an Indian national and a postdoctoral fellow at Georgetown University. Suri had been detained in March 2025 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents after his student visa was suddenly revoked. The Trump administration alleged that Suri’s pro-Palestinian activism and family ties—specifically to a former Hamas adviser—posed a threat to national security and U.S. foreign policy. No formal charges were brought against Suri, but he was held in immigration detention for weeks. The judge ruled his detention unlawful, citing lack of concrete evidence and violations of his First Amendment rights.

The Case for Upholding Constitutional Protections

Judge Patricia Giles’ decision to order the release of Badar Khan Suri rests not on ideology or sympathy, but on the bedrock principles of American law—principles that define who we are as a nation. At the center of this legal drama is the First Amendment, a shield for the voiceless and a check on governmental overreach. While many people think of constitutional rights as belonging strictly to citizens, the truth is more nuanced and far more powerful. The Constitution extends its protections to all “persons” within the United States, not just citizens. That includes lawful residents, visa holders, and even those in immigration detention.

Suri, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University, was exercising those rights through peaceful academic work and political expression—criticism of Israel’s military actions, solidarity with Palestinian civilians, and participation in public dialogue. These are not crimes. They’re not even unusual for a university setting. And yet, his speech was apparently used as a justification for ICE to detain him. That’s dangerous. Freedom of speech doesn’t come with a popularity clause. Once we start punishing people for expressing unpopular political views, we’re no longer protecting liberty—we’re enforcing conformity.

Then there’s the paper-thin basis of the government’s accusations. Suri was not accused of funding terrorism, engaging in espionage, or plotting violence. Instead, the justification for his arrest boiled down to the fact that a distant relative had once served as an adviser to Hamas. That’s it. That’s the smoking gun. But guilt by association is a moral and legal slippery slope. If we apply that standard broadly, who among us is safe? Plenty of Americans have family members with shady pasts, criminal records, or extreme beliefs. Are we to judge each man not by his character but by his cousin’s résumé? That’s not American justice. That’s tyranny by bloodline, and it violates every principle of fairness we hold dear—not to mention Christian teaching on individual accountability. Ezekiel 18:20 reminds us, “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.” We ought not punish one man for the sins of another.

Most concerning of all is the issue of due process. Our Constitution does not allow the government to throw someone in a cell, hold them indefinitely, and offer no clear evidence or pathway to legal recourse. That’s what they do in authoritarian regimes, not the United States. The Fifth Amendment states plainly that “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” And yet, in this case, Suri was detained without charges, without a trial, and without any real opportunity to contest the allegations against him in a fair and open court.

For conservatives who claim to champion the Constitution, this should be a moment of reckoning. The rule of law is not just a slogan; it’s a sacred principle. If we allow the government to detain someone without due process today, we set a precedent that can be used against anyone tomorrow, including American citizens. Government power must always be restrained by law, not expanded by fear.

In short, Judge Giles’ decision wasn’t a liberal act of defiance or a political statement. It was a constitutional correction—a reminder that in America, even in the face of perceived danger, we do not abandon our principles. We honor them.

Why Some Believe the Judge Was Wrong

While the defense of liberty is a noble cause, it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The security of a nation—its ability to protect the lives of its citizens—must also be considered. Judge Giles’ decision, however well-intentioned from a constitutional angle, raises real concerns in the context of modern security threats. We no longer live in a world where threats are limited to bombs and battlefields. Today’s weapons often come in the form of ideologies, online radicalization, and subversive influence campaigns. Terrorism doesn’t need a passport—it can be broadcast, streamed, and spread from smartphones to suburban homes. That’s the reality authorities face.

From this viewpoint, the Trump administration’s aggressive posture makes sense. President Trump has made it clear that his top priority is the safety and sovereignty of the American people. That includes taking a hard line against individuals whose affiliations, even indirect, may suggest alignment with hostile entities. The fact that Suri had familial ties to a former Hamas adviser is not a trivial detail when you’re dealing with groups that are known to exploit kinship and academic platforms to gain footholds in the West. Even if Suri himself posed no direct threat, the government’s responsibility is to preempt potential dangers before they materialize—not to wait until after damage is done.

There’s also a strong legal foundation for this kind of action. Immigration law, as it stands, grants broad discretion to the executive branch. The president has the legal authority to revoke a visa if he determines that a non-citizen’s presence is detrimental to U.S. interests. That’s not a loophole, that’s the law, and it exists for a reason. The executive must have the ability to act swiftly when national security is on the line. In this light, the revocation of Suri’s visa and his subsequent detention were not unconstitutional power grabs, but examples of the system functioning as designed.

And let’s be honest: the American public has grown increasingly wary of the costs of leniency. After years of open-border chaos, drug trafficking, and terrorist infiltration, many Americans feel that the government has a moral obligation to err on the side of caution. Is it ideal? No. But is it necessary? Many would say yes. When it comes to protecting children in our schools, families in our neighborhoods, and servicemen and women abroad, most Americans would prefer a government that overreacts rather than underreacts. Being too trusting in a dangerous world is not a virtue—it’s a vulnerability.

There is also the question of alliances. Israel is one of our closest strategic partners, and when a foreign national in the U.S. publicly associates with anti-Israel movements or promotes narratives that align with terrorist organizations, it can complicate those relationships. Whether we agree with Suri’s views or not, the broader impact of his activism, especially if it could be interpreted as undermining our foreign policy, cannot be ignored.

So, while critics of the government’s action see it as an infringement on rights, others see it as a prudent step in a dangerous time. There’s wisdom in caution. After all, if the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, then sometimes vigilance means acting before the worst can happen—even if the evidence isn’t ironclad. That’s not paranoia. That’s protecting the house God gave us stewardship over.

Justice with Vigilance: Balancing Liberty and Security in a Time of Trial

We must walk a careful line between the twin imperatives of national security and individual liberty. I believe wholeheartedly in law and order, in the need for strong borders, and in the right of a sovereign nation to decide who may enter its gates. But I also believe, just as firmly, in the sacredness of truth, justice, and the God-given dignity of every human soul. Scripture teaches us in Isaiah 1:17, “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” That’s not a suggestion—it’s a command to uphold righteousness in every corner of public life, including immigration and national security.

In the case of Badar Khan Suri, the Trump administration acted out of an abundance of caution—and for good reason. The threats facing our nation today are real, and President Trump has rightly prioritized American safety above political correctness. His commitment to putting American citizens first is part of why so many of us supported his leadership in the first place. However, a strong executive must also respect the rule of law. That is the foundation of conservative governance—not unchecked power, but restrained power, guided by principle.

When we examine the facts of this case, it becomes clear that the government failed to provide the necessary evidence to justify Suri’s detention. No violent acts. No terroristic plots. No funding of extremism. Just political speech—speech that, while controversial to some, remains well within the boundaries of the Constitution. If we start jailing people simply because we dislike their opinions or fear what they might do based on tenuous family ties, then we’ve left the path of justice and entered into the thorns of tyranny.

That’s why the courts exist. Not to obstruct good governance, but to ensure that even the best intentions don’t trample the rights of individuals. It’s a check on human error, a safeguard against the misuse of authority, something every honest conservative should support. Judge Giles, in this case, upheld that sacred duty. Her ruling wasn’t a blow to national security; it was a reaffirmation of the American promise—that liberty is not the privilege of the few, but the protection of all who walk under the shadow of our flag.

Upholding due process and defending free speech—even for those we may disagree with—does not make us soft. It makes us strong. Strong in principle. Strong in faith. Strong in our conviction that righteousness exalts a nation. As Proverbs 14:34 so powerfully declares, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.” And righteousness, in this context, means applying the law equally, demanding evidence before accusation, and resisting the temptation to let fear override justice.

In the final tally, Judge Giles made the correct decision. It’s a ruling rooted not in politics, but in principle—one that affirms our deepest American and Christian values. President Trump’s instincts to protect this country are commendable and often necessary in these perilous times. But even the strongest instincts must be tempered with law, truth, and the humility to admit when there’s just not enough to go on.

In a free society, security and liberty must walk hand in hand. And in this instance, it was liberty’s turn to lead.