#326 Xiaofeng Wang; Dean Chemerinsky; F1 Students; TX HB17; NAPABA/AALDEF; Litigations; +

In This Issue #326

·        Urgent: Professor Xiaofeng Wang's Wife to Speak at Town Hall/Sign-On Letter

·        Dean Erwin Chemerinsky Remarks at APA Justice Monthly Meeting

·        Lawsuits Filed for F1 Visa Students

·        Update on Texas Alien Land Bill HB17

·        NAPABA and AADELF Filed Amicus Briefs on Birthright Citizenship

·        Latest on Litigations Against Trump's Executive Actions

·        News and Activities for the Communities

Urgent: Professor Xiaofeng Wang's Wife to Speak at Town Hall/Sign-On Letter

On April 11, 2025, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) announced that Nianli Ma, wife of Professor Xiaofeng Wang 王晓峰, will join the virtual State of Play Town Hall to share the challenges that her family is facing. Register to attend the Town Hall: https://bit.ly/4jaA40N. Indiana University (IU) terminated Professor Wang's tenured position as Associate Dean for Research; James H. Rudy Professor of Computer Science, Engineering and Informatics; Director of Center for Security and Privacy in Informatics, Computing, and Engineering; and Director of Secure Computing on March 28.  His wife's employement as IU Libraries analytst was also terminated on March 24.AASF has prepared a letter to Rahul Shrivastav, Provost of Indiana University: https://bit.ly/4jmKKJI.  Concerned organizations and inidviduals are requested to sign on to the letter by 8 pm ET on Monday, April 14, 2025: https://bit.ly/3EqluTS.The AASF announcement states in part,

"In this letter, we raise our concerns about whether this termination occurred without adherence to the University’s due process policies, including the requirement for notice and a hearing before the Faculty Board of Review, under University Policy ACA-52. We request the reinstatement of Professor Wang and for IU to grant him his due process rights and the opportunity to defend himself."Moreover, we provide this letter to offer additional context from the Asian American and broader scholar, scientific, and research community. Professor Wang’s case has implications for the broader research community. There is a concern that scholars could receive backlash from their universities for activities that are not their own (i.e., getting in trouble for a grant that is not your own or a project you had no awareness of), and a question on whether scholars will be scapegoated and stripped of due process by universities for administrative errors and mistakes on paperwork as opposed to working together to fix any administrative errors. Oftentimes, scholars are not even making any intentional mistakes as those who are considered collaborators may not always be clearly defined. The criminalization of administrative matters and the scapegoating of individual academics will lead to a chilling environment for the research community and deter international collaborations that are so vital to our country’s competitiveness and prosperity."As concerns increase about the potential return of the DOJ’s China Initiative, we must make a stand as a community and ensure that the principles of due process and fairness are upheld."APA Justice is tracking Professor Wang's case at: https://bit.ly/42tbPVR

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky Remarks at APA Justice Monthly Meeting 

Erwin Chemerinsky is Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law at University of California Berkeley Law School.  He is a renowned constitutional scholar and a leading expert on civil rights, free speech, and the judiciary.  In the first months of the Trump administration, he has been a vocal advocate for the rule of law.  Dean Chemerinsky spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on April 7, 2025.

·        2025/04/05 CNN: Law school dean on Trump's executive orders: 'This is just about retribution'

·        2025/04/03 Washington Post Opinion: Trump is targeting law firms and academia. Why don’t they speak up?

·        2025/03/14 AP News: Trump demands unprecedented control at Columbia, alarming scholars and speech groups

·        2025/03/07 New York Times Opinion: The One Question That Really Matters: If Trump Defies the Courts, Then What?

Dean Chemerinsky expressed deep concern about the future of American democracy, stating that if the country were to slide into authoritarianism, this is what it would look like. He emphasizes that his fears are nonpartisan and not about specific policies like tariffs or foreign affairs, but rather about blatant violations of the Constitution and rule of law. He believes the current administration has shown unprecedented lawlessness within its first 75 days, more than any administration before, and signals the urgency of collective action in response. Dean Chemerinsky covered six major topics:

1.      Putting people in prison without any due process.  Dean Chemerinsky describes a troubling case in which the Trump administration transferred over 200 Venezuelans—and mistakenly, a lawful Salvadoran resident named Kilmar Garcia—to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador without due process. Judge Patricia Millett criticized the action as lacking even "a gossamer of due process." The administration argues that no U.S. court has authority to review or intervene when individuals are detained in foreign countries. Although a U.S. District Court ordered Garcia's return, the Justice Department contends that only a writ of habeas corpus applies—something U.S. courts cannot issue for those held abroad. Dean Chemerinsky warns this stance could allow the government to detain anyone, even critics, outside the U.S. with no legal recourse, raising serious constitutional concerns. The Supreme Court was going to rule on an emergency motion to return Garcia to the U.S.

2.      Elimination of Federal agencies and cutoff of Federal funds.  Dean Chemerinsky criticizes the Trump administration for unilaterally abolishing federal agencies like USAID, the Department of Education, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without Congressional approval, which he says is illegal since only Congress can do so via statute. He also highlights that the administration is unlawfully refusing to spend funds appropriated by Congress, despite having no authority to do so. Dean Chemerinsky points out that courts during the Nixon era ruled such actions violated the separation of powers, and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act explicitly forbids presidents from withholding congressionally approved spending.

3.      Firings of agency heads and civil service workers.  Dean Chemerinsky highlights the firing of agency heads and civil service workers without just cause, despite federal laws protecting them. He notes that since 1935, the Supreme Court has upheld Congress's authority to limit the removal of officials in multi-member agencies. Despite this, Trump dismissed leaders from bodies like the Merit Systems Protection Board and the National Labor Relations Board. Just recently, the D.C. Circuit ruled in Harris v. Bessent (7–4) that these firings were unauthorized.

4.      Effort to strip birthright citizenship.  Dean Chemerinsky identifies a fourth legal violation: the Trump administration’s attempt to eliminate birthright citizenship. The first sentence of Section One of the 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The phrase “within the jurisdiction” excludes only limited cases, such as children born to foreign soldiers during an invasion. The Supreme Court affirmed this broad guarantee in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), holding that all individuals born on U.S. soil are citizens, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Dean Chemerinsky emphasizes that no prior president had challenged this interpretation—until Trump issued an executive order declaring that only children born to U.S. citizens or green card holders would be considered citizens, directly contradicting over a century of settled constitutional law.

5.      Targeting universities.  The fifth legal violation identified by Dean Chemerinsky is the Trump administration’s targeting of universities by cutting federal funds—$400 million from Columbia and $150 million from the University of Pennsylvania—without following legal procedures. Federal law requires prior notice, a hearing, findings of fact, and a 30-day notice to Congress before cutting university funding, none of which occurred. Moreover, funds may only be cut if a university is deliberately indifferent to a hostile environment, and only the specific discriminatory program may be defunded—not the institution as a whole. Chemerinsky argues this effort is an unlawful attempt to intimidate universities.

6.      Retribution against law firms.  The Trump administration's targeting of law firms through punitive executive orders aimed at retribution. Firms like Covington & Burling and Perkins Coie were singled out due to their past associations—one had a lawyer who worked with Jack Smith, the other represented Hillary Clinton. The executive orders barred these firms and their lawyers from obtaining security clearances, entering federal buildings (including courts), or representing businesses contracting with the federal government—effectively crippling them. Three federal judges have ruled such orders illegal, affirming that lawyers should not be punished for their clients or lawful, zealous advocacy. Nonetheless, a number of law firms have capitulated and settled, trying to avoid being named in executive orders.

Taken together, it is a pattern of violations of the Constitution and laws. Dean Chemerinsky outlines three key actions we all need to take:

·        Stay Informed – We must continue to follow the news and understand the actions of the Trump administration, despite it being upsetting.

·        Get Involved – Support organizations challenging lawlessness by volunteering and providing financial assistance. Everyone should find ways to contribute to upholding the rule of law.

·        Speak Out – Take action by contacting Congress, signing petitions, writing public op-ads, or simply discussing these issues with others to raise awareness and advocate for change.

Dean Chemerinsky closed his remarks by quoting Reverend Martin Niemuller (1892-1984), who upon release from a concentration camp, wrote.“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.“Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist.“Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.“Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”Following Dean Chemerinsky’s remarks, a discussion including Drs. Les Wong and Jeremy Wu explored the implications of his warnings. Dr. Wong reflected on historical patterns of scapegoating and the importance of civic education, while Dr. Wu linked Dean Chemerinsky’s points to current threats targeting Asian American communities, such as the revival of the China Initiative and the use of wartime powers against immigrants. The discussion emphasized the need for vigilance, coalition-building, and active civic engagement to defend constitutional protection and uphold the rule of law.A video of Dean Chemerinsky's remarks is posted at https://bit.ly/42tYv2n (17:10)A summary of the April 2025 APA Justice monthly meeting is being prepared at this time.

Update on the Case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

According to AP News, New York Times, Washington Post, and multiple media reports, on April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling rejected the Trump administration's appeal and instructed it to take steps to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant it had wrongly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador.The Trump administration refused to meet District Court Judge Paula Xinis’ deadline of April 10 to share steps officials are taking to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, saying in a court hearing that the government needs more time to comply with a Supreme Court order.  The government’s attorney, Drew C. Ensign, said he could not answer the judge’s questions about Kilmar Abrego García’s whereabouts, including where the man is being held, what the government has done so far to secure his return and what it plans to do next.In a written order after the hearing on April 11, Judge Xinis said the Trump administration had “failed to comply” with the court’s instructions and would not answer “straightforward questions.” She ordered the Trump administration to file daily status updates with the court about the government’s progress getting Abrego García back to the United States by 5 p.m. each day and set a follow-up hearing for the afternoon of April 15.The Justice Department suspended Erez Reuveni, a veteran lawyer who acknowledged that Kilmar Abrego García was mistakenly deported and said he did not know the legal basis for the decision.

Lawsuits Filed for F1 Visa Students

On April 11, 2025, DeHeng Law Offices PC announced that it has filed a civil lawsuit with the District Court of the Northern District of California: Chen et al v. Noem et al (3:25-cv-03292).  According to the announcement 为留学生F1签证身份起诉美国政府的通知与捐款倡议书, the US government is terminating hundreds if not thousands of international students' SEVIS registration without legitimate reasons. This has wreaked havoc on the students' study and life in the US. With the termination, the international students are supposed to leave the country right away. The only solution is to get a court order to restore their SEVIS status immediately.  A website has been created to track the continuing development of the case: www.caseforf1students.com.  A GoFundMe campaign has started at https://bit.ly/4js7lEB.  Please share informaion with your colleagues, friends, and families in your network.On April 10, 2025, ACLU of Michigan announced that it had filed a federal lawsuit, Deore v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of (2:25-cv-11038), on behalf of four international students attending Michigan schools whose student visa status was revoked.  The lawsuit includes a request for an emergency injunction; and asks the court to reinstate the legal status of the students so they can complete their studies in the United States. 

Update on Texas Alien Land Bill HB17

According to AsAmNews on April 10, 2025, the House Committee on Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans' Affairs (Homeland Security Committee) in the Texas House of Representative has delayed a vote on one of the most stringent Alien Land Bills in the country as a coalition grows to oppose it.  House Bill 17 (HB 17) would not only restrict the purchase of property by foreign nationals from China, North Korea, Russia and Iran, it would also put limits on where they could rent.Organizations like United Chinese Americans (UCA), APA Justice, the Association of American University Professors (AAUP), and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) are actively opposing the bill. Professor Steven Pei of APA Justice views the vote delay as a positive sign, indicating internal discussions and hesitations among lawmakers. HB 17 was removed from the Homeland Security Committee's agenda less than 24 hours before the scheduled vote on April 9. A substitute bill is anticipated, but details remain unclear. The Senate counterpart, SB 17, has already passed.Brian Evans, President of Texas AAUP-AFT, highlights that the bill could prevent students, faculty, and professionals from the targeted countries from residing near educational institutions and workplaces, effectively discriminating against these communities.Read the AsAmNews report: https://bit.ly/42rWDXY. 

1. Statement by Rep. Ray Lopez

Texas Representative Ray Lopez serves as Vice Chair of the Homeland Security Committee.  According to his post on X on April 9, Rep. Lopez met with Asian Americans leaders from around the state to have a critical conversation about protecting civil rights in Texas. "We held an important virtual discussion on HB 17 and its dangerous implications. This bill doesn’t just raise national security concerns — it opens the door to racial discrimination, fear, and exclusion. From unchecked executive authority, criminal penalty without due process, and banning people from living in urban areas sets a troubling precedent. HB 17 sends a message that certain individuals are not welcome in Texas — and that’s unacceptable," 

2. AAUP-ATF Calls for Action

On April 8, 2025, Texas AAUP-AFT issued an urgent call to action in opposition to HB 17, which was recently heard by the Texas House Committee on Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans' Affairs. The bill seeks to ban citizens from China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia from purchasing or leasing property within 10 miles of what the state defines as “critical infrastructure.” While supporters claim the bill is about national security, the AAUP-ATF and other critics argue that it is rooted in racial and ethnic profiling, echoing the discriminatory history of alien land laws that previously targeted Asian immigrants. HB 17, they warn, threatens the rights of individuals based solely on their national origin rather than any actual wrongdoing.The AAUP emphasizes that HB 17 poses a direct threat to the educational mission and values of Texas institutions, particularly by creating a hostile environment for international students, faculty, and researchers. These individuals contribute significantly to academic excellence, research innovation, and cultural diversity on campuses across the state. If passed, the bill could deter international talent from coming to Texas, damage collaborative academic relationships, and send a chilling message that people can be excluded from basic rights due to their nationality. The AAUP calls on Texans to contact their state representatives and speak out against HB 17, defending the rights of all members of the academic community and upholding the principles of equity and inclusion. 

3. Local NAACP and LULAC Joined Rally

 During the March 30, 2025, Houston rally against HB 17, NAACP Houston President Bishop James Dixon delivered a powerful speech urging federal and state leaders to uphold America's promise of justice and equality for all Americans - including Chinese, Japanese, African, and Latino Americans. He condemned policies like HB 7 and SB 17 as betrayals of democratic principles, declaring “We’re not asking for pity—we’re asking for justice.”  Bishop Dixon called for unified, sustained actions beyond press conferences to achieve read change. He ended with a rallying cry: “The people united can never be defeated” and led the crowd in singing of "We Shall Overcome."Houston LULAC Council President Dr. Sergio Lira and his wife Maria also joined the rally in solidarity. Speaking with passion and conviction, Dr. Lira declared, “When there is discrimination against one, there is discrimination against all. We must stand together.” He emphasized the importance of unity and collective action, vowing, “We are going to let folks in Austin and across the nation know that we are brothers and sisters, united in the spirit of ‘yes we can.’” 

4. An Emerging Broad and Diverse Coalition

 More than 80 organizations signed an open letter to Texas legislators opposing HB 17.  The effort was led by The Texas Multicultural Aadvocacy Coalition (TMAC) and UCA, which was also posted as ads in Texas media.  They represent a broad, diverse coalition of Texas-based and national groups united against discriminatory legislation targeting immigrants and communities of color.The 49 Texas organizations include cultural, civic, business, legal, and advocacy groups rooted in Asian American, Latino, and African American communities across major cities such as Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio. These groups range from long-established institutions like the NAACP Houston Branch, Greater Houston LULAC Council, and OCA Greater Houston, to professional networks like the Asian American Bar Associations of Houston, Dallas, and Austin, as well as local cultural organizations such as the DFW Chinese Alliance, Shaanxi Folks Group, and Fujian Association of South USA. Together, they reflect a rich diversity of Chinese, Asian, and multicultural constituencies across Texas, voicing collective opposition to HB 17's targeting of foreign land ownership based on national origin.The 32 national and other organizations include leading civil rights, legal, and policy groups such as Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC, APA Justice Task Force, Asian Pacific American Public Affairs, Chinese American Citizens Alliance, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), and OCA–Asian Pacific American Advocates. They are joined by grassroots networks like Pivot to Peace, Stop AAPI Hate, and United Chinese Americans (UCA), as well as academic and professional associations such as the Federation of Asian Professor Associations. These groups bring national visibility, legal expertise, and historical context to the fight against policies like HB 17, drawing parallels to past discriminatory land laws and mobilizing communities across the country in defense of civil rights and equal treatment under the law.The Asian Real Estate Association of America (AREAA) and its San Antonio Chapter were also a key voice in the real estate and property rights sector, advocating against discriminatory barriers that would impact their members and clients at the state and national level.2025/04/10 西雅图中文电台: 德州众议院推迟限制华人租房/购房法案的投票2025/04/08 休斯顿在线: 限制中国人买房/买地/租房的德州HB17法案明日投票！留给我们的时间不多了

NAPABA and AADELF Filed Amicus Briefs on Birthright Citizenship

On April 11, 2025, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF)—with the Korematsu Center for Law and Equality and the Center for Civil Rights and Critical Justice—filed an amicus brief in opposition to the Trump administration’s executive order terminating birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are not citizens or permanent residents. The brief was submitted on behalf of more than 80 Asian American organizations and law centers to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The brief connects the executive order to its historical roots in the Asian exclusion movement of the late 19th century, arguing that this attack on birthright citizenship has no place in a democracy founded on the notion that all people are created equal. The authors center the stories of mixed-status families and additional instances of individuals who had their citizenship taken away to illustrate the harm the executive order will have if allowed to stand. Read the AALDEF announcement: https://bit.ly/42biaVZ.  Read the full amicus brief: https://bit.ly/42FSscd.On April 9, 2025, the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) and 43 of its affiliates and national associates from across the country joined forces to defend the fundamental constitutional guarantee of citizenship.  The coalition filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in State of Washington v. Donald J. Trump.  The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution promises every person equal treatment under the law. It also includes an equal claim of citizenship to all persons born in the United States, regardless of the stature or circumstances of their parents.Executive Order 14160 upends that promise. It refuses to recognize the birthright citizenship of any child born in the United States to a mother who is lawfully present on a temporary basis, like those on work or student visas, and a father who is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident.Read the NAPABA announcement: https://bit.ly/3G6WotN.  Read the full amicus brief: https://bit.ly/4csfFln

Latest on Litigations Against Trump's Executive Actions

As of April 11, 2025, the number of lawsuits against President Donald Trump's executive actions reported by the Just Security Litigation Tracker has grown to 186 (4 closed cases). These are some of the latest developments:

·        J.A.V. v. Trump (1:25-cv-00072) @Southern District of Texas and G.F.F. v. Trump (1:25-cv-02886) @Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs are Venezuelan nationals (proceeding under pseudonym) in immigration custody in Texas and New York respectively. They have filed habeas petitions asking the court to stop the government from removing them from the United States based on the Alien Enemies Act Presidential Proclamation, and to declare the Proclamation unlawful. The case has been brought on behalf of themselves and a class of all other persons similarly situated, to include all noncitizens from Venezuela in immigration custody in the Southern District of Texas and the Southern District of New York, who were, are, or will be subject to the Proclamation. The courts have temporarily blocked the Defendants from removing the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated through April 23, 2025.

·        Samuels v. Trump (1:25-cv-01069) @District of Columbia.  On January 27, 2025, President Donald Trump removed Plaintiff Jocelyn Samuels from her position as Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Samuels brought suit arguing that the EEOC is an independent agency, and President Trump does not have authority to remove her prior to the end of her term in 2026. Samuels asked the court to declare her removal unlawful and for injunctive relief to allow her to perform her duties as Commissioner.

News and Activities for the Communities

1. APA Justice Community Calendar

 2025/04/13 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/04/14 State of Play Virtual Town Hall2025/04/15 China Connections: A Conversation with Emily Feng2025/04/22 Scholars Not Spies: Fighting for International Academic Workers’ Rights in an Era of Rising US-China Conflict2025/04/24 CHINA Town Hall: The First 100 Days: President Trump's China Policy2025/04/24-26 Committee of 100 Annual Conference and Gala2025/04/27 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2025/05/06 Asian American Careers - How to Build Your Personal Network, including Through Strategic Allies2025/05/11 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall MeetingVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details.  

# # # 

APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community.  For more information, please refer to the new APA Justice website under development at www.apajusticetaskforce.org. We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org.