DHS arrests another student involved in Columbia university protests
Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — The Department of Homeland Security has arrested a second student who was involved with Columbia University protests, the agency announced.
Leqaa Korda was arrested by agents from Homeland Security Investigations for allegedly overstaying her expired visa — which terminated on Jan. 26, 2022. She was also allegedly arrested in 2024 for her involvement in the protests, according to DHS.
Korda is a Palestinian from the West Bank, according to DHS.
The arrest comes nearly a week after plain-clothed Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder who was also involved in the protests at Columbia University.
The agency said another student involved in the protests — Ranjani Srinivasan, an urban planning student at Columbia and Indian citizen — used the CBP Home app to self-deport.
“It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America,” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said. “When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country. I am glad to see one of the Columbia University terrorist sympathizers use the CBP Home app to self-deport.”
Federal agents with DHS also searched two Columbia University student residences Thursday night but did not arrest or detain anyone.
In a statement, Columbia President Katrina Armstrong said the DHS agents had two search warrants signed by a federal magistrate judge authorizing them to enter non-public areas of the university and conduct searches of two student rooms.
“I am writing heartbroken to inform you that we had federal agents from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in two University residences tonight,” Armstrong said in the statement. “No one was arrested or detained. No items were removed, and no further action was taken.”
The searches were part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on individuals it has described as espousing the views of Hamas and threatening the safety of Jewish students, according to sources.
Khalil was one of the leaders of the university encampment protests last spring, and is being held in Louisiana.
Khalil, a green card holder who has not been charged with a crime, is set to appear before an immigration judge on March 27.
Trump administration officials have said Khalil was detained for his purported support of Hamas. Baher Azmy, one of Khalil’s lawyers, called his client’s alleged alignment with Hamas “false and preposterous.”
Earlier Thursday, at least 98 people were arrested at a protest in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York City calling for Khalil’s release.
Separately, Columbia University announced Thursday that students who occupied the campus’ Hamilton Hall during pro-Palestinian protests last spring have been expelled, suspended for several years or had their degrees temporarily revoked.
(WASHINGTON) — The judge in President-elect Donald Trump’s classified documents case has temporarily blocked Attorney General Merrick Garland, special counsel Jack Smith, or any Department of Justice personnel from releasing the special counsel’s final report on the case.
U.S. District Cannon deferred the matter to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, but temporarily blocked the release of the report “to prevent irreparable harm arising from the circumstances as described in the current record in this emergency posture, and to permit an orderly and deliberative sequence of events.”
The move came a day after Trump’s former co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, asked Cannon — who dismissed the classified documents case in July after deeming Smith’s appointment unconstitutional — to issue an order barring Attorney General Merrick Garland from publicly releasing the report.
Attorneys for Trump, in a court filing Tuesday, asked Canon classified documents case to allow Trump to formally join his former co-defendants’ effort to block the report’s release.
“As a former and soon-to-be President, uniquely familiar with the pernicious consequences of lawfare perpetrated by Smith, his Office, and others at DOJ, President Trump should be permitted to participate in these proceedings,” Trump’s attorneys argued in Tuesday’s filing.
The filing came after the special counsel’s office, responding early Tuesday to Nauta and De Oliveira’s request for Cannon to block the report’s release, confirmed the office is “working to finalize” a report and that Attorney General Garland — who has the final say over what material from the report is made public — has still not determined what to release from the volume that relates to Smith’s classified documents investigation.
“This morning’s Notice is the most recent example of Smith’s glaring lack of respect for this Court and fundamental norms of the criminal justice system,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in their filing, referring to Smith’s stated intention that his office plans to transmit the report to Attorney General Merrick Garland no later than 1 p.m. EST today.
The special counsel’s office assured Judge Cannon in their filing that Smith would not release that specific volume of the report anytime before 10 a.m. Friday and that they would submit a fuller response to Nauta and DeOliveira’s emergency motion no later than 7 p.m. Tuesday evening.
Trump’s attorneys also sent a letter to Garland demanding he remove Smith from his post and defer the decision about the report’s release to Trump’s incoming attorney general, Pam Bondi.
“No report should be prepared or released, and Smith should be removed, including for even suggesting that course of action given his obvious political motivations and desire to lawlessly undermine the transition,” wrote Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, Trump’s defense attorneys who Trump has picked for top Justice Department posts in the incoming administration.
Smith has been winding down his cases against the president-elect due to a longstanding Department of Justice policy prohibiting the prosecution of a sitting president — moving to dismiss Trump’s federal election interference case and dropping his appeal of the classified documents case — and is expected to submit a final report about his investigations to Garland before stepping down.
Airplanes sit parked at gates at Terminal A at Newark Liberty International Airport/Gary Hershorn/Getty Images
(MIAMI) — A New Jersey man was charged with threatening flight passengers, attendants and crew members on a flight from Miami, Florida, to Newark, New Jersey.
According to the complaint, Luis Vaquero made “threats of physical violence against a disabled minor and mocking a group of Jewish passengers.”
It said that he also threatened a flight attendant when they refused to serve him more alcohol. When the plane arrived at Newark Liberty International Airport on Sunday, the captain made an announcement that law enforcement would be removing a passenger, according to the complaint.
It said that Vaquero then left his seat and began banging on the flight deck door and cursing at the captain while the plane was taxiing.
When the plane arrived at the gate, the complaint said the captain emerged from the flight deck and Vaquero approached him, screaming in his face and threatening him until law enforcement officers boarded the plane and escorted Vaquero off.
“The defendant is charged with threatening flight crew members and passengers while traveling to Newark,” Acting United States Attorney Vikas Khanna said in a press release. “We are committed to keeping the skies safe for flying and will prosecute those who criminally interfere with the professionals responsible for ensuring passenger safety.”
“It all culminated in a terrifying attack and attempted breach of the flight deck when witnesses say he banged on the cockpit door and confronted the pilot,” Acting Special Agent in Charge Terence G. Reilly said in the release.
“The harrowing flight and other similar incidents onboard airplanes recently are creating tension and fear for fliers and crew members,” Reilly added. “FBI Newark has a warning for those who think it may not be a big deal—they’re breaking federal law, and they will be brought to justice.”
Wisconsin State Capitol; Jordan McAlister/Getty Images
(MILWAUKEE) — Wisconsin Supreme Court candidates Brad Schimel and Susan Crawford sparred over how the court might impact abortion law in the state, as well as the involvement of Elon Musk in the high-profile race, during a Wisconsin Supreme Court election debate on Wednesday night in Milwaukee, Wisconsin hosted by ABC affiliate WISN.
Wisconsin is holding a Supreme Court election on April 1, as part of its spring elections, with what is technically a nonpartisan race to replace retiring justice Ann Walsh Bradley.
Whoever wins the seat will help determine the ideological bent of the court — which currently leans liberal — and will join the bench as the court grapples with hot-button issues such as abortion access and redistricting.
Outside groups have poured millions into ads and get-out-the-vote efforts. Conservative groups affiliated with Musk have spent millions in the race supporting Schimel, while liberal billionaire George Soros donated to the Wisconsin Democratic Party, and the state party has donated $2 million to Crawford.
Crawford, the Democratic-backed candidate and a Dane County Circuit judge, is a former private attorney.
“I think a lot is at stake. The future of our state, for our kids and our grandkids, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of everyone in Wisconsin,” Crawford said.
Schimel, the candidate backed by Republicans, is a former state attorney general who is currently a circuit court judge in Waukesha County.
“I’ve never been involved in anything where the stakes were bigger than this,” he said. “And if you told me five years ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court would be going through a political agenda, I would have said, ‘you’re crazy’ … Justice is no longer blind on the Wisconsin Supreme Court; that’s what’s at stake. We have to restore objectivity.”
It took little time for one of the race’s key issues — abortion access — to come up, given ongoing and pending court cases surrounding whether an 1849 Wisconsin law that bans almost all abortions is valid or constitutional. The law is currently not enforced.
Crawford seized upon Schimel’s remark about objectivity to claim that Schimel was paying “good lip service” to objectivity, but that while campaigning he had opined about pending cases such as those dealing with the 1849 law.
“He has openly said, when he’s in front of audiences of his political allies, that there is nothing wrong with that law and it should be enforced. That is not the kind of open-mindedness that we expect from judges. It is prejudicial to the parties in that case,” Crawford said, referencing audio that had leaked from an event Schimel spoke at where he asked if there were any flaws with the law.
“And Brad Schimel is making those pronouncements not based on the law in that case or the facts or the arguments of the attorneys, but based on political consideration.”
Schimel — interjecting “I can’t let that go” — countered that his remarks had been taken out of context and that he was referring to the validity of the way the law was passed.
“I was asked if the 1849 [law] was a valid law … And the answer is, my answer was, it was passed by two houses of the legislature and signed by the governor. That means it’s a valid law. But what I said next was that there’s a real question as to whether that law reflects the will of the people of Wisconsin now and today,” Schimel said.
Pressed on if he thinks the law is valid today, Schimel added, “I don’t believe that it reflects the will of the people of Wisconsin today.”
Crawford later accused Schimel of trying to “backpedal” his position on the law, while Schimel later said he thinks the current Wisconsin Supreme Court is “playing politics” by not ruling on one of the cases surrounding the 1849 law yet.
The sheer amount of money in the race also became a major flashpoint during the debate.
Asked if he embraced the support of Musk, Schimel framed investments from Musk-related groups as beyond his control.
“I got in this race over 15 months ago. I have campaigned in all 72 counties; I’ve gone to every corner of this state. I’m looking for the endorsement of the Wisconsin voters on April 1. Outside help that comes is not something I control,” Schimel said.
He also criticized Crawford for allegedly getting support from Soros. When asked if she embraces that endorsement, Crawford responded, “I have had generous contributions that have gone to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. The Democratic Party of Wisconsin has endorsed me and supported my candidacy. But let’s talk about Elon Musk. Talk about somebody who’s been dangerous,” she said, mentioning some examples of cuts Musk has overseen in the federal government.
Crawford suggested that Musk is interested in the race because of a lawsuit brought by his company, Tesla, in the state.
Tesla has a lawsuit against the state over not being allowed to open dealerships in the state. Wisconsin law largely prohibits manufacturers from opening dealerships. Some have speculated that Musk’s interest in the race stems from this suit; Musk and Tesla have not confirmed this.
Later, during another back-and-forth about donors in the race, Crawford referenced “Elon Schimel.”
“I have support from all over the country, and it is because Elon Schimel is trying to buy this race. And people are very upset about that, and they are disturbed about that,” Crawford said.
Schimel, asked if the mailers from outside groups that say he would enforce President Donald Trump’s agenda in the state are true, countered again that he cannot control what outside groups say.
“I will enforce the law,” he added. “I will apply the law the way the legislature has written it. If President Trump or anyone defies Wisconsin law, and I end up with a case in front of me, I’ll hold them accountable as I would anybody in my courtroom.”
Later, when asked about the 2020 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision where the court blocked an attempt by the Trump campaign to invalidate around 220,000 absentee ballots, Schimel was similarly blunt over how he would act if Trump brought a case.
“If President Trump violates the law or President Trump brings a lawsuit that he’s wrong on the law — of course I would. I don’t have any personal loyalty to him that supersedes the oath I take as a judge.”
He declined to weigh in on whether a justice who recused himself from that case made the right decision, saying he’d have to review the case.
Crawford sidestepped when asked if she would recuse herself from cases involving the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, while Schimel sidestepped similarly over if he would recuse himself from the Tesla case.
