Newsletter - #138 Oppose US Attorney Nomination; Racist Image; The China Trap; 8/1 Meeting Summary; More #138 Oppose US Attorney Nomination; Racist Image; The China Trap; 8/1 Meeting Summary; More Back View PDF August 22, 2022 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Haizhou Hu Previous Item Next Item

Birthright Citizenship WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME WELCOME Go Go Prev Next Table of Contents What is Birthright Citizenship? Donald Trump Executive Order Why Protect Birthright Citizenship? Timeline Visualization Historical Context Legal Battles Current Status References and Links Summary What is Birthright Citizenship? Birthright citizenship grants automatic citizenship to individuals born within a country's territory, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status. In the United States, it is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution , which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Back to Table of Contents Donald Trump Executive Order On January 20, 2025 Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14160 seeking to end birthright citizenship in the United States. Read the executive order here . Threats to Birthright Citizenship Executive Actions : Attempts to redefine or restrict citizenship via executive orders. Legislative Proposals : Bills challenging the interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Misinformation : Campaigns framing birthright citizenship as a "loophole" or "anchor baby" issue. Court Challenges : Lawsuits aiming to reinterpret the jurisdiction clause of the 14th Amendment. Back to Table of Contents Why Protect Birthright Citizenship? Legal Foundation : It upholds the principles of equality and inclusion. Stability : Ensures clarity in citizenship rights and avoids creating stateless individuals. Economic Contributions : Children born as citizens contribute to the nation’s workforce, innovation, and economy. Human Rights : Aligns with international norms discouraging discrimination based on ancestry or immigration status. How to Protect Birthright Citizenship Advocacy : Support organizations fighting to uphold constitutional rights (e.g., ACLU, JACL, Asian Americans Advancing Justice). Engage in grassroots campaigns to raise awareness. Education : Inform communities about the 14th Amendment and its protections. Share historical examples, such as Wong Kim Ark's case and Japanese American Internment, to highlight the consequences of eroding citizenship rights. Legislation : Advocate for laws that reaffirm birthright citizenship and oppose restrictive measures. Support elected officials who prioritize protecting constitutional rights. Judicial Defense : Monitor legal challenges and support amicus briefs defending birthright citizenship. Fund and back litigation efforts to uphold the 14th Amendment. Community Action : Build coalitions with diverse groups affected by immigration and citizenship issues. Amplify personal stories to humanize the issue and dispel negative stereotypes. Key Talking Points Constitutional Mandate : Birthright citizenship is a core constitutional right, upheld by over a century of legal precedent, including the landmark Wong Kim Ark decision. Historical Lessons : The Wong Kim Ark case and Japanese American Internment remind us of the dangers of prejudice and the importance of protecting citizenship rights. American Values : Birthright citizenship reflects principles of fairness, equality, and the immigrant roots of the U.S. Economic Impact : Policies undermining birthright citizenship harm economic growth and social cohesion. Back to Table of Contents Timeline Visualization Source: https://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/2139841/Birthright-Citizenship/ Back to Table of Contents Historical Context 1790: The Naturalization Act of 1790 The first Act to define parameters for citizenship by naturalization, this Act limited naturalization to white, male property owners who had resided in the U.S. for at least two years, setting an early precedent for exclusive definitions of American citizenship. Resources https://immigrationhistory.org/item/1790-nationality-act/ https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/artifact/h-r-40-naturalization-bill-march-4-1790 1857: Dred Scott v. Sandford Dred Scott, an enslaved man, sued for his freedom, arguing that his past residence in free territories made him a free man. The Supreme Court ruled that, because Scott was of African descent, he could not be considered an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. This landmark case resulted in the denial of citizenship from all individuals of African descent in the United States and entrenched the idea that American citizenship was linked to race. Resources https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/landmark_dred.html 1868: Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States” and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws” in an attempt to address the grievances established in Dred Scott v. Sandford. The Fourteenth Amendment was the second of three amendments adopted during Reconstruction following the Civil War. Resources https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/14th-amendment https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/it-was-today-congress-approved-the-14th-amendment 1868: Burlingame Treaty Signed six years after authorization for construction of the Transcontinental Railroad, this agreement secured U.S. access to Chinese laborers, granting Chinese free immigration and travel within the U.S. and granting China most favored nation status in trade. This treaty was reversed by the Angell Treaty in 1868. Resources https://immigrationhistory.org/item/burlingame-treaty-of-1868/ https://immigrationhistory.org/item/angell-treaty-of-1880/ 1875: Page Act In writing, this Act prohibited the "importation of women for the purposes of prostitution" and the recruitment of laborers from Asia who were not brought to the U.S. of their own volition. In practice, this law prevented Chinese women from migrating to the U.S., essentially requiring Chinese men to leave the U.S. if they wished to get married. The Page Act was repealed in 1974.\ Resources https://www.history.com/articles/chinese-immigration-page-act-women 1882: Chinese Exclusion Act and Chinese Immigration The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years, the first act of its kind to place broad restrictions on immigration. The Act served as a response to growing anti-China sentiment in the U.S., particularly from other workers in the American economy who felt they faced increased job competition. In 1888, Congress passed the Scott Act, forbidding reentry into the U.S. after a visit to China. The Geary Act of 1892 extended Chinese exclusion for another 10 years and incorporated Hawaii and the Philippines. In 1943, Congress repealed the exclusion acts, two years after China joined the Allied Nations during World War II. Only in 2011 did Congress officially condemn the Chinese Exclusion Act with the unanimous passing of Senate Resolution 201 and House Resolution 683. Resources https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/chinese-exclusion-act#:~:text=In%20the%20spring%20of%201882,immigrating%20to%20the%20United%20States https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/chinese-immigration 1886: Yick Wo v. Hopkins In this case, the court determined that Chinese immigrants, though not citizens of the U.S., were still entitled to equal protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. Resources https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/118us356 1898: United States v. Wong Kim Ark Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents, was denied reentry into the U.S. after a trip abroad, as officials argued he was not a citizen due to the Chinese Exclusion Act. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental citizenship. This landmark case cemented the principle of birthright citizenship and set a crucial precedent for defending the rights of children born to immigrants. Resources https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-look-back-at-the-wong-kim-ark-decision https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/united_states_v._wong_kim_ark 1906: The Naturalization Act of 1906 This Act required all immigrants to learn English in order to become naturalized citizens. Resources https://www.nvlchawaii.org/limits-japanese-immigration-us-enters-wwi/ 1922: Ozawa v. United States Takao Ozawa, a Japanese man who moved to the U.S. for college and began a family in Hawaii, applied for citizenship and was rejected due to his race, despite meeting all non-racial qualifications. This landmark decision determined all Issei ineligible for citizenship, reinforcing racial barriers to citizenship and solidifying the exclusion of Asian immigrants from naturalization. Resources https://encyclopedia.densho.org/Ozawa_v._United_States https://www.nvlchawaii.org/limits-japanese-immigration-us-enters-wwi/ 1924: Immigration Act of 1924 This act established a national origins quota in order to severely restrict the number of immigrants entering the U.S. The quota provided immigration visas to two-percent of the total number of people of existing nationalities in the U.S but also included natural-born citizens, so the number of people allowed from the British Isles and Western Europe was higher than elsewhere. The act also prohibited immigration from those countries who were already ineligible for citizenship in the U.S. Since all people of Asian lineage were prohibited from naturalizing, this meant that even those who could immigrate but not naturalize, such as the Japanese, could now not do either. The act also severely restricted the number of European Jews and refugees fleeing fascism and the Holocaust. Although this violated the Gentlemen’s Agreement, the U.S. government remained firm. Resources https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-act https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/1924-us-immigration-act-history 1924: Indian Citizenship Act (Snyder Act) The Indian Citizenship Act granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. The right to vote was still governed by state law, leaving some Native Americans unable to vote until 1957. Resources https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/june-02/ 1925: Chang Chan v. Nagle Under the Immigration Act of 1924, the Supreme Court determined that Chinese women were ineligible for citizenship and thus could not qualify as non-quota immigrants to the U.S., due to their Chinese descent. Thus, Chinese wives of American citizens were not allowed entry into the U.S. Resources https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/268/346/ 1942: Japanese Internment During World War II, over 120,000 Japanese Americans – two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens by birth – were forcibly removed from their homes and incarcerated without due process. This demonstrated how prejudice can undermine constitutional rights. Only in 1988 did Congress and President Reagan sign the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 expressing regret for the injustice of internment and offering $20,000 to each incarcerated individual. Resources https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japanese-relocation https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation 1952: McCarran-Walter Act This act continued the controversial quota system established in the Immigration Act of 1924. While the act finally allowed universal Asian immigration and naturalization, the quota system ensured that eighty-five percent of annually available visas were allotted to people of northern and western European heritage. Resources https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/immigration-act https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/sites/default/files/research/Brief21%20-%20McCarran-Walter.pdf 1982: Plyler v. Doe A Texas education law allowed the state to deny funding for educating children of non-citizens. The Supreme Court struck down this law, ruling that non-citizens and their children were afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections under the Equal Protection Clause. Resources https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/202/ https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/access-education-rule-law Back to Table of Contents Legal Battles On January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration issued an executive order seeking to strip certain babies born in the United States of their U.S. citizenship. The following lawsuits have been filed to stop the implementation of the executive order. 1. New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump (1:25-cv00038) U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire File Date: January 20, 2025 Plaintiffs: New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), and Make the Road New York Legal Team: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with its affiliates in New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts, the Asian Law Caucus, the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and the Legal Defense Fund 2. Doe v. Trump (1:25-cv-10136) U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts File Date: January 20, 2025 Plaintiffs: Jane Doe and others Legal Team: Lawyers for Civil Rights 3. Thien Le v. Donald J. Trump (8:25-cv-00104) U.S. District Court for the Central District of California File Date: January 20, 2025 Plaintiff: Thien Le Legal Team: TFC Legal Services & Associates 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington File Date: January 21, 2025 Plaintiffs: State of Washington, along with Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139) U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts File Date: January 21, 2025 Plaintiffs: the State of New Jersey, along with 17 other states, San Francisco, Washington DC. At least 72 jurisdictions across 24 states have joined the legal challenge 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland File Date: January 21, 2025 Plaintiffs: CASA Inc., the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, and individual plaintiffs Maribel, Juana, Trinidad Garcia, Monica, and Liza Legal Team: Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, 7. Franco Aleman v. Trump (2:25-cv-00163) - merged into 4 on 2025/01/27 U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington File Date: January 24, 2025 Date Terminated: January 27, 2025 Plaintiffs: Class action led by Cherly Norales Castillo, Alicia Chavarria Lopez, and Delmy Franco Aleman Legal Team: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (Seattle) 8. OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio (1:25-cv-00287) U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia File Date: January 30, 2025 Plaintiff: OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates Legal Team: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-AAJC 9. County of Santa Clara v. Trump (5:25-cv-00981) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California File Date: January 30, 2025 Plaintiff: County of Santa Clara New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump et al. (1:25-cv-01309) U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York File Date: February 13, 2025 Plaintiff: J.V. and New York Immigration Coalition Barbara v. Trump (1:25-cv-00244) U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire File Date: June 27, 2025 Plaintiff: Barbara, Immigration Law Reform Institute, Mark, Matthew, Sarah, Susan Legal Team: ACLU, Asian Law Caucus, NAACP Legal and Defense Education Fund, State Democracy Defenders Action Major Developments 2025/07/16 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) Judge Boardman issued a memorandum opinion and an indicative ruling granting a class-wide injunction pending the district court acquiring jurisdiction on remand from the Fourth Circuit where this part of the litigation is still on appeal. 2025/07/10 11. Barbara v. Trump (1:25-cv-00244) Judge Laplante granted a seven-day classwide injunction preventing the administration from enforcing Executive Order 14160. 2025/07/10 1. New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump (1:25-cv00038) Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued an injunction blocking Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship, ruling that the Plaintiffs could proceed as a class. 2025/07/03 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139) The FIrst CIrcuit denied the government’s request for a supplementary briefing on the state of the preliminary injunction granted previously and remanded the case to the lower court to consider whether Trump v. CASA impacts the court’s preliminary injunction. 2025/07/02 10. New York Immigration Coalition v. Trump et al. (1:25-cv-01309) Plaintiffs submitted a letter indicating that they would amend their complaint following the Supreme Court ruling on June 27, 2025. 2025/07/01 8. OCA - Asian Pacific American Advocates v. Rubio (1:25-cv-00287) OCA filed an amended complaint which included several co-complaintant prospective mothers proceeding anonymously and which updated the complaint with statements and actions taken by the Trump administration since the initial complaint was filed. On July 2, the OCA moved for partial summary judgement to declare the EO unconstitutional and to enjoin the administration from carrying it out. 2025/06/27 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint , which included additional plaintiffs and removed President Donald Trump as a defendant while adding the Director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) as a defendant. 2025/06/27 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to partially stay a lower court injunction against Executive Order 14160. The ruling limits the injunction’s scope to only the litigants in the case, but left open whether broader relief might be permitted in class actions. 2025/04/11 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) 208 House Democrats filed amicus brief against Trump birthright citizenship executive order with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case Number 25-807 2025/04/11 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) AALDEF and coalition filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Number 25-807 2025/04/09 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) NAPABA and coalition filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case Number 25-807 2025/04/04 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139) The Plaintiffs filed an amicus brief with Supreme Court Case Number 24A886 2025/04/04 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) The Plaintiffs filed an amicus brief with Supreme Court Case Number 24A885 2025/04/04 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) The plaintiffs filed an amicus brief with Supreme Court Case Number 24A884. 2025/03/13 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) The government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a partial stay after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied its request for a partial stay of the district court's injunction. 2025/03/13 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) The government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a partial stay after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied its request for a partial stay of the district court's injunction. 2025/03/11 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139) The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion for a stay. The government appealed to the Supreme Court. 2025/02/19 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) The Ninth Circuit issued an order denying the government’s emergency motion to stay the district court’s injunction and leaving the existing briefing schedule unchanged. 2025/02/13 5. State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139) Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an opinion granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order No. 14,160. 2025/02/13 2. Doe v. Trump (1:25-cv-10136) Judge Leo T. Sorokin issued an opinion granting a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from implementing and enforcing Executive Order No. 14,160. 2025/02/10 1. New Hampshire Indonesian Community Support v. Trump (1:25-cv00038) U.S. District Judge Joseph N. Laplante issued a preliminary injunction . 2025/02/05 6. CASA Inc. et al v. Trump et al (8:25-cv-00201) U.S. District Court Judge Deborah L. Boardman issued a preliminary nationwide injunction until the case is resolved or a higher court overturns it. 2025/01/27 7. Franco Aleman v. Trump (2:25-cv-00163) This case was terminated and consolidated into 3. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) 2025/01/23 4. State of Washington et al v. Trump et al (2:25-cv00127) U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour granted a temporary restraining order, halting the enforcement of the executive order for 14 days. He described the order as "blatantly unconstitutional," emphasizing its immediate and irreparable harm to individuals affected. Back to Table of Contents Current Status Oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump v. Barbara, No. 25-365 is scheduled for April 1, 2026. Back to Table of Contents References and Links 2026/02/25 NAPABA: NAPABA Leads Broad Coalition to Defend Birthright Citizenship in the U.S. Supreme Court 2025/05/09 San Francisco Bay Times: Standing Up for Birthright Citizenship: A Personal Reflection 2025/04/11 AALDEF: With 80+ Asian American organizations and race and law centers, AALDEF submits brief in support of birthright citizenship 2025/04/09 NAPABA: NAPABA Leads Broad Coalition to Defend Birthright Citizenship in Court 2025/03/28 Edgar Chen and Chris M. Kwok in Just Security (translation by Juan Zhang) - 特朗普政府重塑《第十四修正案》 ——《黄金德案》并未限制出生公民权 2025/03/28 Edgar Chen and Chris M. Kwok in Just Security - The Trump Administration’s 14th Amendment Retcon: ‘Wong Kim Ark’ Does Not Limit Birthright Citizenship 2025/03/28 CAPAC press release: CAPAC Chair Meng Statement on the Anniversary of United States v. Wong Kim Ark Decision 2025/01/24 PBS: What to know about the legal battle over Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship 2025/01/23 New York Times: “Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump’s Executive Order to End Birthright Citizenship” 2025/01/23 ABC News: “What to Make of Trump’s Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship” 2025/03/31 Senator Tim Kaine Letter 2018/11/01 Pew Research Center. “Number of U.S.-Born Babies with Unauthorized Immigrant Parents Has Fallen Since 2007” 2018/01/11 Congressional Research Service: The Citizenship Clause and “Birthright Citizenship”: A Brief Legal Overview 1898/03/28 Justia: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 1868/07/09 National Archives: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) Japanese American Citizens League: The Japanese American Experience Chinese Historical Society of New England. Exclusion Acts and Legal Resistance Global Birthright Citizenship Laws Law Library of Congress. “Birthright Citizenship Conditions.” More info here . Global Birthright Citizenship Laws Back to Table of Contents Summary The legal victory of Wong Kim Ark and the struggles of Japanese Americans during internment illustrate the enduring importance of protecting birthright citizenship. Defending this right ensures the United States remains a nation of equality and justice. Let’s learn from history, honor constitutional principles, and secure a future where all are treated with dignity and fairness. Back to Table of Contents Timeline Contents Birthright Citizenship Select Title

Newsletter - #88 Rep. Raskin Remarks; Cooley Steps Up; House Hearing; White Paper; UTK; Week of Action #88 Rep. Raskin Remarks; Cooley Steps Up; House Hearing; White Paper; UTK; Week of Action Back View PDF October 11, 2021 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Mingqing Xiao Previous Item Next Item

Newsletter - #35 Sign On To Letter To President-Elect To End DOJ's "China Initiative" #35 Sign On To Letter To President-Elect To End DOJ's "China Initiative" Back View PDF December 16, 2020 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #323 4/7 Meeting; Texas Rallies; US Science; Profiling Scholars/Students; Litigations; More #323 4/7 Meeting; Texas Rallies; US Science; Profiling Scholars/Students; Litigations; More In This Issue #323 · 2025/04/07 APA Justice Monthly Meeting · First Report on Texas Tri-City Rallies Against Alien Land Bills · The Decline of Science in the U.S. under Trump 2.0 · Chinese Scholars/Students Face Heightened Scrutiny and Profiling · Latest on Litigations Against Trump's Executive Actions · News and Activities for the Communities 2025/04/07 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held via Zoom on Monday, April 7, 2025, starting at 1:55 pm ET.In addition to updates by Judith Teruya , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), Joanna YangQing Derman , Program Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC, and Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), invited and confirmed speakers are: · Mark Takano , First Vice Chair, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC); Member, U.S. House of Representatives · Erwin Chemerinsky , Dean, Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Berkeley · Cindy Tsai , Interim President, Committee of 100 · X. Edward Guo 郭向东 , President, Asian American Academy of Science and Engineering (AAASE) The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the co-organizers of APA Justice - Steven Pei 白先慎 , Vincent Wang 王文奎 , and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . Congressman Mark Takano will make his remarks via recorded video on unprecedented challenges to our communities.In a recent opinion published by the New York Times , Dean Erwin Chemerinsky raised an alarming question: if Trump defies the Courts, then what? He also commented on President Trump's unprecedented demands on Columbia University. He will share his thoughts on these recent developments and more.The Committee of 100 (C100) is a nonprofit leadership organization of prominent Chinese Americans dedicated to advancing U.S.-China relations and promoting the full participation of Chinese Americans in American society. On April 25-26, 2025, it will host its annual conference and gala in Los Angeles to share insights on the state of Chinese Americans and the current and future condition of the U.S.-China relationship. Interim President Cindy Tsai returns to update us on recent developments with C100 and the annual event. Professor X. Edward Guo, Stanley Dicker Professor of Biomedical Engineering and Professor of Medical Sciences at Columbia University, is current President of Asian American Academy of Science and Engineering (AAASE). Professor Guo will introduce AAASE and comment on recent developments in higher education and research communities. First Report on Texas Tri-City Rallies Against Alien Land Bills On March 28, 2025, United Chinese Americans (UCA) issued a press release announcing protest rallies to be held in Austin, Dallas, and Houston, Texas. Asian Pacific American communities, alongside other ethnic groups, are mobilizing against Texas Senate Bill 17 (SB 17) and House Bill 17 (HB 17)—legislations that seeks to ban or restrict real estate ownership by certain foreign nationals under the guise of national security. A letter co-signed by Texas and national AAPI organizations reminds state legislators that the 59th Texas Legislature abolished the previous version of alien land laws in 1965 in a bipartisan effort. The letter states. "These bills are unconstitutional and discriminatory, as they target individuals based on their nation of origin. In other words, individuals are being denied their rights not for anything they have done, but simply because of where they come from." The letter urges lawmakers not to repeat past mistakes that echo historical injustices. Representative Gene Wu 吴元之 , chair of Texas House Democratic Caucus, points out that "The Texas Senate listened to our community's repeated pleas for fairness and respect, and instead they gave us more discrimination by passing SB 17 that puts us even closer to repeating the forced internment of Asian Americans 80 years ago. Our community must respond and mobilize, otherwise we will be welcoming this hate and suffer no less." Meanwhile, organizers of the Houston rally—Texas Multicultural Advocacy Coalition (TMAC) and United Chinese Americans (UCA)—are placing ads in the Houston Chronicle to amplify this call to action. UCA Action is also running print and digital ads in the Austin American-Statesman, San Antonio Express-News and Dallas Morning News to highlight the protest letter and mobilize public support. The tri-city rallies started in Austin at the Texas Capitol Grounds East Steps on March 29, 2025. According to CBS-19 , elected officials, including Congressman Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin), State Rep. Vikki Goodwin (D-Austin) and Austin City Council Member Mike Siegel of District 7, spoke against HB 17 and SB 17 at the rally.“Ultimately this fight, in my eyes, is about who gets to be American,” said Daniel Wang . “I think America is great and has been great and was made great by its promise that, you know, we welcome everyone who wants to come here and contribute.”SB 17 passed the Texas Senate on March 19. A public hearing for HB 17 will be held on April 3 in the Texas House Homeland Security, Public Safety & Veterans Affairs Committee. The meeting starts at 10:30 a.m. APA Justice will report on March 30 rallies in Dallas and Houston and continuing developments in the next newsletter. The Decline of Science in the U.S. under Trump 2.0 According to multiple media reports, the United States has experienced a notable decline in scientific research and development under Trump 2.0, marked by significant policy shifts and funding reductions. One of the administration's early actions was a freeze on federal grants, leading to widespread uncertainty within the scientific community. This freeze has disrupted ongoing research projects and hindered the initiation of new studies. The Trump administration has imposed substantial funding cuts to prominent universities, which are heavily reliant on federal research grants. These cuts have compelled institutions to make difficult decisions, including reducing graduate student admissions and implementing hiring freezes, thereby affecting the future landscape of American research and innovation.Environmental and climate science programs have faced particularly severe setbacks . The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has undergone significant budget reductions and staff layoffs, undermining its capacity to enforce environmental regulations and conduct critical research. Climate science initiatives at agencies like NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have experienced funding cuts, impeding efforts to monitor and address climate change. The administration has also appointed conspiracy theorists skeptical of established scientific consensus to key positions, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appointment to head the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which has announced plans to cut 10,000 full-time employees across health agencies on top of 10,000 employees who have left voluntarily, shrinking the workforce from about 82,000 full-time employees to 62,000. On March 28, 2025, the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration pushed out Peter Marks , the nation’s top vaccine regulator and an architect of the U.S. program to rapidly develop coronavirus vaccines amid a worsening U.S. outbreak of measles. “It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the Secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies,” Marks wrote in his resignation. He was offered the choice to resign or be fired. He opted to resign, with an effective departure date of April 5.These collective actions have prompted widespread concern among scientists and researchers, leading to organized protests such as the " Stand Up for Science 2025 " rallies. These demonstrations reflect the scientific community's alarm over policies as undermining scientific integrity and progress. These policies have prompted many scientists to consider relocating abroad. According to Nature on March 27, 2025, more than 1,200 scientists who responded to an online poll — three-quarters of the total respondents — are considering leaving the United States following the disruptions prompted by Trump. Europe and Canada were among the top choices for relocation. The trend was particularly pronounced among early-career researchers. Of the 690 postgraduate researchers who responded, 548 were considering leaving; 255 of 340 PhD students said the same. According to Science on March 17, 2025, Emma , an early-career chemist, withdrew from a faculty position at the University of Mississippi due to concerns over the Trump administration’s impact on higher education, including threats to federal funding and diversity initiatives. Her decision reflects a broader trend of U.S.-based researchers seeking opportunities abroad as uncertainty grows over academic stability. Countries like France and China are actively recruiting displaced scientists, with initiatives such as Aix Marseilles University’s “Safe Place for Science” and direct outreach from researchers like Yi Rao at Peking University.However, while some nations welcome this talent shift, financial constraints in countries like Canada, the UK, and the Netherlands may limit their ability to absorb U.S. researchers. Experts warn that Trump’s policies could trigger a broader exodus from global science, as universities face funding cuts and instability. Although legal challenges may delay the full impact, the trend suggests a potential loss of scientific talent, with no clear destination for displaced researchers. Chinese Scholars/Students Face Heightened Scrutiny and Profiling Under Trump 2.0, Chinese and Asian scholars and students have faced heightened scrutiny and profiling. Visa Restrictions and Deportations Republican members of Congress and the Trump administration have intensified visa restrictions, notably through the Stop CCP VISAs Act, introduced by Representative Riley Moore (R-WV). This proposed legislation aims to halt the issuance of student visas to Chinese nationals, citing concerns over espionage and intellectual property theft. International students have also become targets of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), leading to detentions and deportations from college campuses. Notable cases include students from Columbia and Cornell universities, sparking protests and legal actions by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Scrutiny of Chinese Students and Scholars Republican members of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), chaired by Representative John Moolenaar (R-MI), has targeted Chinese students in U.S. universities under the pretense of national security. In March 2025, the committee sent letters to presidents of six universities, requesting detailed information about their Chinese student populations and research activities. Without substantive facts and evidence, the committee alleges that the CCP has established a systematic pipeline to embed researchers in leading U.S. institutions, providing them direct exposure to sensitive technologies with dual-use military applications. Impact on Higher Education Institutions Universities with significant Asian and Asian American populations have faced increased scrutiny over international collaborations, especially those involving Chinese researchers. For example, Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh has highlighted potential impacts due to proposed federal funding cuts and restrictions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. These measures threaten the region's economy and its identity as an innovation hub. Challenges to Diversity Initiatives By diverting resources to investigate and potentially sue universities implementing diversity programs, the Trump administration threatens to reverse progress toward educational equity. This move has been criticized as an attempt to exploit divisions among communities of color and disrupt policies that help marginalized groups gain access to higher education. Rise in Anti-Asian Sentiment Following President Trump's 2024 election, there has been a marked increase in anti-Asian hate, particularly in online spaces. Between November 2024 and January 2025, anti-Asian slurs and threats of violence surged, with South Asian communities being disproportionately targeted. This rise in xenophobic rhetoric has created a hostile environment for Asian American students and scholars, affecting their sense of safety and belonging within academic institutions. Latest on Litigations Against Trump's Executive Actions As of March 30, 2025, the number of lawsuits against President Donald Trump 's executive actions reported by the Just Security Litigation Tracker has grown to 152 (3 closed cases). These are some of the latest developments: · Block on Alien Enemies Act Deportations Extended . On March 27, 2025, the legal team led by ACLU, Democracy Forward, and the ACLU of the District of Columbia filed a motion to extend the Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs) set to expire on March 29 for 14 days, claiming that good cause exists to extend the TROs. On March 28, the Court ordered the extension of the TROs until April 12, 2025. · Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility . In the case of State of California v. U.S Department of Education (1:25-cv-10548) , eight states challenge the Department of Education’s decision to terminate approximately $250 million in federal grants under the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development programs. On March 24, Judge Myong J. Joun granted Plaintiffs’ request to extend the TRO until April 7. On March 26, the government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the order by the district court and issue an administrative stay. In the case of Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump (1:25-cv-02005) , U.S. Judge Matthew Kennelly for the Northern District of Illinois granted a Temporary Restraining Order to block the implementation of two of Trump's DEI Executive Orders. · Actions Against Law Firms Blocked. On March 28, 2025, the law firm WilmerHale sued the Executive Office of the President and several government agencies over Trump’s March 27 executive order (EO) terminating government contracts, denying members of the firm access to federal employees, and suspending employees’ security clearances. U.S. Judge Richard Leon of the District of Columbia granted the law firm’s request to temporarily block several sections of the EO. In a separate lawsuit Jenner & Block LLP v. U.S. Department of Justice (1:25-cv-00916) , U.S. Judge John Bates of the District of Columbia also granted the Temporary Restraining Order to temporarily block several sections of the EO. News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar 2025/04/07 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2025/04/13 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/04/15 China Connections: A Conversation with Emily Feng2025/04/24-26 Committee of 100 Annual Conference and Gala2025/04/27 Rep. Gene Wu's Town Hall Meeting2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting2025/05/12-14 APAICS Annual Summit and GalaVisit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. 2. Temporary Injunction on Florida State Law (SB846) On March 28, 2025, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction against a Florida law known as SB846 that essentially bans international students from China and six other countries. This is a milestone victory for racial equity and academic freedom as other red states and the Congress are considering similar discriminatory laws. The lawsuit Yin v. Diaz (1:24-cv-21129) is led by Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance 华美维权同盟 (CALDA), ACLU Florida, and Perkins Coie. Clay Zhu 朱可亮 , Co-Founder of CALDA, gave an update at the APA Justice monthly meeting on March 3, 2025: https://bit.ly/4iOexLD 3. CAPAC Chair Meng Statement on the Anniversary of United States v. Wong Kim Ark Decision On March 28, 2025, Rep. Grace Meng 孟昭文 , Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, released a statement marking the 127th anniversary of the United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision upholding birthright citizenship as a constitutionally protected right:“Today marks 127 years since the landmark United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision that affirmed birthright citizenship to anyone born in our country, including those born to immigrant parents. This was established by the Supreme Court, even as the Chinese Exclusion Act and anti-Asian sentiment was in full force in the 1800s, because the Constitution made clear that ‘all persons’ born in the United States means ‘all persons.’“Despite this century-old legal precedent, President Trump issued an unlawful executive order to revoke birthright citizenship and eliminate the core principle that has allowed millions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders to become U.S. citizens. It is a flagrant violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the President’s oath to protect and defend the Constitution. “This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to sow division and stoke xenophobic sentiment for political gain. We will not allow this administration to trample over the Constitution and redefine who is American. I vow to fight tooth and nail against this unlawful action and to protect the principles that have made our country into what it is today.” # # # 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 . Back View PDF March 31, 2025 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #149 Events/Conferences; Update on Arrowood; Hateful Trump Name-Calling; New from the Fed #149 Events/Conferences; Update on Arrowood; Hateful Trump Name-Calling; New from the Fed Back View PDF October 7, 2022 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Newsletter - #384 3/24 Webinar; Mayor Kaohly Her; WP: America Needs Immigrants; Ohio Bill; Equity Pulse+ #384 3/24 Webinar; Mayor Kaohly Her; WP: America Needs Immigrants; Ohio Bill; Equity Pulse+ In This Issue #384 · 03/24 Webinar: Mass Surveillance and the ICE Crackdown: What the AAPI Community Needs to Know · Remarks by St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her · George Will: America Needs Immigrants · Ohio Alien Land Bill (HB1) Faces Strong Community Opposition · Equity Pulse: Is Your Citizenship at Stake? · News and Activities for the Communities 03/24 Webinar: Mass Surveillance and the ICE Crackdown: What the AAPI Community Needs to Know On March 24, 2026, starting at 7:00 pm ET/4:00 pm PT, APA Justice, Asian American Advancing Justice | AAJC, Asian American Scholar Forum, and Committee of 100 will co-host a webinar on “ Mass Surveillance and the ICE Crackdown: What the AAPI Community Needs to Know. ” Moderator: Michael German is a Retired Fellow in the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty and National Security Program. His work focuses on ensuring that the U.S. government respects human rights and fundamental freedoms in its pursuit of national security — including reforming the surveillance and intelligence systems that have too often been turned against the very communities they were meant to protect. He is a former FBI Special Agent and one of the nation's leading voices on law enforcement and intelligence oversight. Before joining the Brennan Center in 2014, he served as Policy Counsel for National Security and Privacy at the ACLU's Washington legislative office. Speakers: · Kaohly Her , Mayor, St. Paul, Minnesota. She was elected St. Paul's first woman and first Asian American mayor in 2025. Mayor Her was born in the mountains of Laos and came to the United States as a refugee at age three. A strong work ethic, her family's tenacity, and support from her community propelled Mayor Her to the highest levels of the Minnesota state government and now to City Hall. She served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2019 to 2025. · Saira Hussain , Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation. Saira litigates at the intersection of racial and immigrant justice, government surveillance, and technology, with cases challenging border searches of electronic devices, police surveillance of protesters, and law enforcement sharing of license plate reader data with ICE. Previously a Staff Attorney at the Asian Law Caucus, she focused on separating federal immigration enforcement from local law enforcement through litigation, advocacy, and coalition-building. She holds undergraduate and law degrees from UC Berkeley. · Xiaoxing Xi , Laura H. Carnell Professor of Physics, Temple University. A leading expert in superconductor technologies, Professor Xi was arrested in May 2015 by armed FBI agents in front of his family on false charges of sharing sensitive technology with China — dropped just four months later. His case, involving warrantless surveillance under Section 702 of FISA and Executive Order 12333, became a landmark in the fight against racial profiling of Chinese American scientists. He filed suit challenging the prosecution and discriminatory targeting, and in 2020 received the Andrei Sakharov Prize from the American Physical Society for his advocacy for open scientific exchange. · John Yang , President and Executive Director, Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC. At Advancing Justice | AAJC, John leads the organization’s efforts to fight for civil rights and empower Asian Americans to create a more just America for all through public policy advocacy, education, and litigation. John is an experienced attorney with over two decades of policy, litigation, and corporate expertise. He graduated with honors from George Washington University Law School. REGISTRATION: https://bit.ly/3N5BbEy RESOURCES: · APA Justice: Timeline Visualization of U.S. Mass Surveillance · APA Justice: Warrantless Surveillance Remarks by St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her During the APA Justice monthly meeting on March 2, 2026, Mayor Kaohly Her reported a troubling escalation of immigration enforcement in Minnesota, particularly targeting AAPI communities—including many law-abiding residents and citizens who are not criminals or national security threats. She cautioned that conditions are “far worse than what you see on the news,” describing individuals with valid documentation, long-time lawful status, and deep community roots being detained or swept into enforcement actions. Many were transferred to out-of-state detention facilities and later released once their lawful status was verified—only to be left to make their own way home. These were residents who had complied with federal check-ins for years, maintained steady employment, paid taxes, and raised families, yet were suddenly portrayed as public safety threats. Mayor Her emphasized that some had decades-old convictions or had been wrongfully convicted as minors tried as adults, or accepted plea deals years ago without fully understanding immigration consequences. Many had since rebuilt their lives, contributing meaningfully to their communities, and were not violent offenders or national security risks. Mayor Her also expressed concern that ICE enforcement actions are sometimes carried out by agents insufficiently trained to properly assess complex immigration documentation. She described situations in which individuals presented valid paperwork, yet agents either could not interpret it correctly or proceeded with detention pending later review. She underscored that lawful residents—including U.S. citizens—were often detained first and sorted out later. She described the systematic nature of targeting, noting that Hmong, Southeast Asian, and Korean communities were disproportionately affected. Agents went “door-to-door asking who the Asian neighbors were and where they lived,” and enforcement ramped up months before it drew broader attention. The community’s hyper-invisibility meant early incidents received little public notice, and protective measures had to be organized at the grassroots level, including accompaniment to federal check-ins, coordination with local churches, and establishing networks to support residents detained out-of-state. Mayor Her also linked the escalation to the shooting death in Minneapolis shortly after she took office, noting that broader visibility of these threats only came after incidents affecting other communities. In response, the City of St. Paul enacted ordinances limiting ICE activity on city property, requiring agents to display identification, and prohibiting face coverings to reduce confusion with local law enforcement. The city provided support to small businesses impacted by enforcement actions—some of which saw revenues drop 60–70%—backed legal challenges, coordinated community safety efforts, and organized strategies for protests and large gatherings to ensure constitutional rights were observed. At the state level, collaboration with the governor and attorney general expanded clemency hearings—from one per year to four per year, with eight reviews of paperwork annually—resulting in hundreds of pardons for immigrants whose past or unjust convictions had placed them at risk despite years of lawful conduct. Mayor Her highlighted that these measures “meant the world” to affected families and reinforced her central message: the individuals being detained are community members—not criminals or national security threats—and deserve fairness, competence, and due process. Watch a video of her remarks at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q-kw22N_Yg (11:29) George Will: America Needs Immigrants In a compelling Washington Post opinion, conservative columnist George Will makes an empirically grounded and deeply human case against the Trump administration's mass deportation policy — arguing that America needs immigrants as much as they need the blessings of American liberty. Will opens with a simple but powerful image: a regular at a neighborhood diner shows up one Sunday to find Jose , his waiter of 20 years, gone — deported. "Suddenly, the immigration issue has a face, and complexity." It is a reminder that behind every immigration statistic is a person woven into the fabric of American life. The data Will reports is striking. As of 2023, only 27 percent of the foreign-born population were undocumented, while more than half of all immigrants had become U.S. citizens. Prior to the Biden-era surge, 43 percent of undocumented immigrants had been in the country for at least 20 years, about a third were homeowners, and their 5 million U.S.-born children were citizens. As Will puts it plainly: "Talk of sending them 'home' is nonsensical. They are home." The economic case is equally compelling. A Cato Institute report covering 1994 to 2023 found that immigrants generated more in taxes than they received in government benefits at all levels, creating a cumulative fiscal surplus of $14.5 trillion in real 2024 dollars — equivalent to 33 percent of total inflation-adjusted deficits over that period. Immigrants make up nearly 24 percent of STEM workers, almost 16 percent of nurses, and over 28 percent of health aides — a workforce indispensable to an aging America whose birth rate has fallen below the replacement level. Between 2022 and 2023, for the first time since census data began being collected in 1850, immigration accounted for the entire U.S. population growth. Will closes where he began — at the diner. "That fellow having brunch at the diner will still get his waffles. But he will miss Jose, and millions like him, in more ways than he can easily imagine." For the AAPI community, Will's column resonates deeply. Asian Americans are among the immigrants who have built this country's scientific, medical, and economic foundations — and are among those most vulnerable to the surveillance, profiling, and enforcement policies that Will rightly calls "stomach-turning." His voice, from the right of the political spectrum, is a reminder that the case for immigrant dignity and the case for American prosperity are one and the same. Read George Will’s Washington Post opinion: https://wapo.st/4uv76yT Read Cato Institute’s report on Immigrants’ Recent Effects on Government Budgets 1994-2023: https://bit.ly/4cGL3yW Ohio Alien Land Bill (HB1) Faces Strong Community Opposition The Ohio House Public Safety Committee will hold its fourth hearing on House Bill 1 (HB1) on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, 9:30 am in Room 114 of the Ohio State House , focusing on the substitute bill (sub-bill) they passed on November 19, 2025. This bill shares the same title as its senate companion bill, Senate Bill 88 (SB88): “Ohio Property Protection Act,” and is one of the alien land bill or laws tracked by the Committee of 100 that are aimed at restricting land or property ownership based on national origin, raising serious concerns about violations of federal and state laws, especially the U.S. Constitution and the Fair Housing Act. What is extraordinary in the Ohio HB1 and SB88 is they impose restrictions on property ownership within a 10-mile (HB1) or 25-mile (SB88) radius around an overly broad list of items categorized as “critical infrastructure”, which includes daily utilities like telecommunications lines, power grids, water and sewer systems, television and radio facilities, and fiber-optic networks. Below is a map illustrating the restricted areas within a 10-mile radius around these “critical infrastructure” items, essentially “blanket the entirety of the State of Ohio,” as the sponsor of SB88, State Senator Terry Johnson said . To date, the Ohio HB1 and SB88 combined have received 14 proponent testimonies, and 296 opponent testimonies - reflecting strong opposition among Ohioans. Community members and organizations pointed out that even though the Ohio HB1 and SB88 were framed as security measures, they would not meaningfully enhance public safety. Instead, they would penalize individuals who are legally present in the United States, harm Ohio’s reputation as a fair and business‑friendly state, and undermine the constitutional and economic principles that have long supported our state’s growth. Justice for Ohio , a civil rights and advocacy organization, encouraged concerned individuals, businesses and organizations to submit opponent testimonies and send letters to legislators and ask them to reject Ohio House Bill 1. Equity Pulse: Is Your Citizenship at Stake? On April 1, 2026, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that could redefine what it means to be a U.S. citizen. It is a battle Chinese Americans have fought before. In 1898, Wong Kim Ark 黄金德 sued for his right to reenter the United States after being denied because of his Chinese ancestry. His Supreme Court victory established birthright citizenship as we know it. Now, that precedent is under attack in Trump v. Barbara . Join attorneys Wendy Feng , Arjun Shenoy , Tony Wang , Jennifer Wu on Tuesday, March 17, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. ET / 12:00 p.m. PT, as they break down the legal arguments and discuss what this case could mean for AAPIs and civil rights. They were directly involved in the drafting of the two amicus briefs filed by the AAPI community in this case. Even if you are a U.S. citizen today, this case could affect generations to come. Hear from top legal experts, ask questions, and engage on a constitutional right that now hangs in the balance. The “Equity Pulse” series hosted by the Committee of 100 highlights real-world policy impacts on AAPI communities and what we can do to challenge inequities. Registration link: https://committee100-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/9617732618234/WN_R6dq-FEaQVilfADvTmqmIg News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2026/03/17 Equity Pulse: Is Your Citizenship at Stake? 2026/03/19 AAUC Town Hall: In Challenging Times, Our Voices Matter 2026/03/24 Mass Surveillance and the ICE Crackdown: What the AAPI Community Needs to Know 2026/03/25 The Perpetual Foreigner Stereotype: New Data on Asian American Experiences 2026/04/06 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2026/04/08 Perspectives on Careers in Arts and Entertainment 2026/04/14 Recollections, Pioneers and Heroes - Anla ChengVisit 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 . Back View PDF March 16, 2026 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

U.S. Rep. Grace Meng has introduced legislation to ensure that students across the U.S. learn about the contributions of Asian and Pacific Americans. October 5, 2020 U.S. Rep. Grace Meng announced the Teaching Asian Pacific American History Act on October 5, 2020 to ensure that students across the U.S. learn about the influence and contributions of Asian and Pacific Americans. Read more 2020/10/05 Rep. Grace Meng: Meng Introduced Legislation to Promote The Teaching of Asian Pacific American History in Schools 2020/10/06 Queens Daily Eagle: Meng introduces bill to ensure students learn about Asian American history U.S. Rep. Grace Meng has introduced legislation to ensure that students across the U.S. learn about the contributions of Asian and Pacific Americans. Previous Next Teaching Asian Pacific American History Act Introduced

Newsletter - #14 September 14 Meeting Agenda And Link To Join #14 September 14 Meeting Agenda And Link To Join Back View PDF September 9, 2020 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

Anming Hu 胡安明 Docket ID: 3:20-cr-00021 District Court, E.D. Tennessee Date filed: Feb 25, 2020 Date ended: September 9, 2021 Table of Contents Overview 2021/06/14 First Trial Ends in Mistrial: FBI Revelations 2021/07/30 Outage at DOJ Motion for Retrial 2021/09/09 Acquitted of All Charges 2021/09/13 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2021/12/18 AASF Webinar Wendy Chandler - Juror of First Trial on “Ridiculous Case” Mary McAlpin - UTK Chapter of AAUP Spoke Out The Role of UTK Nomination of Casey Arrowood Defeated Photo Album & Links and References Overview On February 27, 2020, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the indictment of Professor Anming Hu, an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK). Professor Hu was the second China Initiative case involving a U.S. university professor of Asian ancestry. He was charged with three counts each of wire fraud and making false statements, but not espionage. The charges stemmed from his purported failure to disclose affiliations with a Chinese university while receiving funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Professor Hu was the first to go to trial. A mistrial was declared on June 16, 2021, after the jury deadlocked. The jury includes 4 women and 8 men - all white. This was an embarrassing outcome for DOJ to fail on the very first trial under the China Initiative. What was even more embarrassing was the overzealous tactics and misconduct of the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) revealed during the trial. On the part of UTK administrators, they concealed the federal investigation from Professor Hu, provided his records to the authorities without a warrant or informing him, suspended him without pay, and fired him shortly after. Without any attempt to protect its faculty, UTK was broadly criticized for throwing Professor Hu “under the bus.” Despite the absence of evidence and misconduct, DOJ opted to pursue a retrial on July 30, 2021, prompting outrage by members of Congress, national and local organizations, the Asian American community, and the general public. On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Hu of all charges in his indictment. “The government has failed to provide sufficient evidence from which any rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had specific intent to defraud NASA by hiding his affiliation with BJUT [Beijing University of Technology] from UTK," he wrote. Professor Hu was born in China and is a naturalized Canadian citizen. He joined the UTK faculty in 2013. At the time of his arrest, he was a tenured professor. After his arrest, UTK suspended him without pay. His son had to withdraw from UTK due to financial difficulties. UTK terminated Professor Hu’s employment on October 8, 2020, citing the termination was not for cause but for “not eligible to work due to policy or regulations.” On October 14, 2021, UTK offered to reinstate Professor Hu. On February 1, 2022, Professor Hu returned to his laboratory. After a long delay, Professor Hu’s application for U.S. permanent residency was approved in March 2024. Back to Table of Contents 2021/06/14 First Trial Ends in Mistrial: FBI Revelations The jury trial of Professor Hu started on June 7, 2021. On June 16, 2021, a mistrial in Professor Anming Hu’s case was declared after the jury deadlocked. Knox News reporter Jamie Satterfield provided end-to-end coverage of the trial. Although it was not her original assignment, Satterfield was on site to observe witness testimony, read records related to the case, and conducted a thorough, independent investigation. According to the Knox News reports, FBI agent Kujtim Sadiku admitted in court testimonies that federal agents: Falsely accused Professor Hu of being a spy for China, Falsely implicated him as an operative for the Chinese military in meetings with Professor Hu’s superiors, Used false information to put Professor Hu on the federal no-fly list, Spurred U.S. customs agents to seize Professor Hu’s computer and phone and spread word throughout the international research community that Professor Hu was poison, Used false information to justify putting a team of agents to spy on Professor Hu and his son, a freshman at UTK, for nearly two years, Used false information to press Professor Hu to become a spy for the U.S. government. During cross-examination, defense attorney Phil Lomonaco said to Sadiku, “You wanted to find a Chinese spy in Knoxville,” making note of the tactics he used to secure a fraud indictment against Professor Hu. “My job is to find spies, yes,” the FBI agent responded. During the trial, Sadiku admitted to not knowing the last time Professor Hu was in China. “You’ve been carrying around his passport … haven’t you?” Lomonaco asked Sadiku. “You know you’re under oath, right?” “I don’t remember the dates on it. … I wouldn’t rely on that document,” Sadiku responded. Lomonaco asked if Sadiku could return Professor Hu’s passport. During the trial, Sadiku was unable to recall who tipped him off that Professor Hu might be a spy. Sadiku claimed that his investigation had nothing to do with the China Initiative when the Trump administration was pushing federal prosecutors to round up Chinese spies under the China Initiative. He also claimed that his investigation began with an “open source” search for information on Professor Hu, which turned out to be a Google search on the professor. “If you can find it by Google search, how can it be that Professor Hu was hiding it as a secret,” Satterfield raised the rhetorical question after the mistrial. Sadiku admitted to telling university officials that Professor Hu was a Chinese military operative, despite having no evidence to back up that claim. He never followed up with the officials to clarify that his statements were false. Federal prosecutors then shifted their focus away from unsupported spy allegations. Instead, they pursued a case of fraud, citing a law known as the NASA restriction. This law prohibits NASA from funding research involving collaboration with China or Chinese-owned companies. Professor Hu was accused of intentionally omitting his part-time teaching job at the Beijing University of Technology (BJUT) from disclosure forms, allegedly violating the NASA restriction. However, the law does not bar NASA from funding research that involves collaboration with Chinese universities. NASA itself added Chinese universities to its restrictions list and the DOJ under the Trump administration used it as an excuse in 2018 to search American universities for China-born researchers as potential spies. Professor Hu was not the only professor born in China targeted as part of the China Initiative, but his trial is the first legal test of that NASA policy. Assistant U.S. Attorney Casey Arrowood argued that Professor Hu began plotting to violate the NASA restriction in 2013 — two years after it was enacted — by leaving his part-time teaching job at BJUT off his UTK “outside interests” form. However, testimony showed that UTK officials told Professor Hu and all its research personnel the NASA restriction did not apply to its “faculty, staff and students” because they are not “entities of China.” A letter, dubbed the China Assurance and sent to NASA with each UTK grant proposal, repeated the same language. Professor Hu’s affiliation with BJUT was clearly listed in other UTK documents and in dozens of research papers posted on the Internet. Lomonaco also noted it was not Professor Hu who sought a NASA grant. It was NASA who sought Professor Hu’s technology. “They wanted him to work on this project,” Lomonaco said. “(A NASA contractor) sought him out because he was so qualified. (Hu) wasn’t trying to trick NASA.” 2021/07/30 Outrage at DOJ Motion for Retrial On July 30, 2021, the Department of Justice announced that it intends to retry the case against Professor Anming Hu after FBI agents admitted under oath to knowingly building a case on falsified evidence to find a non-existent spy, resulting in a mistrial. In statement issued by Rep. Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, she said, “Instead of the normal process of beginning with a crime and searching for a suspect, the FBI has, through its China Initiative, started with racially profiled suspects and searched for a crime. Many of the FBI’s cases have been flawed from the start, evident in the number of cases that have been dropped without any explanation, and despite the incredible harm done to those whose lives have been turned upside down by these investigations. The case of Dr. Anming Hu is the most glaring example of how investigations rooted in racial profiling lead to flimsy cases that cannot stand up in court. Worse, in order to justify this investigation, we know that FBI agents have falsified evidence. Yet instead of accepting that Dr. Hu does not in any way present a threat to our national security, the DOJ is disappointingly doubling down, pressing for a retrial to justify their fruitless investigation. We must take national security threats seriously, but the China Initiative does not work, and has threatened a return to prejudice as a cornerstone of policy. Unless the DOJ has new evidence against Dr. Hu, this case must be dropped and the China Initiative halted.” After the government made its announcement, defense attorney Philip Lomonaco filed a renewed motion for judgment of acquittal , which was originally filed on June 11, 2021 . The motion for acquittal was made because "the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction. There is no evidence that Professor Hu willfully intended to deceive NASA... Without the intent to deceive there can be no wire fraud conviction. Without the convictions for wire fraud, the remaining counts would fail as well... In the alternative, Defendant would rely on previous briefings to the Court regarding the lack of intent to harm NASA as being a defense to wire fraud as well." On August 20, 2021, APA Justice and a coalition of nine national and local organizations sent a letter to Judge Thomas A. Varlan urging him to dismiss the case and acquit Professor Hu in the best interest of justice and fairness. The letter provides the Asian American historical perspective on racial profiling, including the government's continuing use of xenophobic labels on Asian Americans such as "Non-traditional Collectors" and "Thousand Grains of Sand," as well as a continuing pattern with the cases of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, Professor Xiaoxing Xi, and Ms. Sherry Chen prior to the China Initiative. The first trial shows that Professor Hu’s case has nothing to do with theft of American trade secrets. It started as an economic espionage investigation based on a false premise and failed with misinformation to implicate Professor Hu as a spy for China and attempt to press him to spy for the U.S. government. Congress made inquiries into the alleged FBI misconduct. It is with this historical perspective and the prevailing facts in his case that we find the intent by the DOJ to retry Professor Hu to be deeply concerning and invidious. Massive amounts of taxpayers’ dollars and federal resources have already been spent without accountability to inflict enormous harm to Professor Hu and his family in the government’s zeal to hunt for a non-existent spy. Overzealous investigations such as Professor Hu’s undermines the U.S. Constitution as the government should have at least a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing before launching an investigation, and race, ethnicity or national origin should not be used to profile people. The co-signers of the letter were: Asian Americans Advancing Justice | AAJC Asian-American Community Service Council Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF) Defending Rights & Dissent Greater Nashville Chinese Association (GNCA) New England Chinese American Coalition (NECAC) Ohio Chinese American Association (OCAA) San Francisco Community Alliance for Unity, Safety & Education (SFCause) University of Tennessee Chapter of the American Association of University Professors The following organizations co-signed the letter at a later date: Asian American Unity Coalition (AAUC) Calvin J Li Memorial Foundation Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) OCA – Asian Pacific American Advocates Carl Patton, Professor Emeritus at Colorado State University, and The Committee of Concerned Scientists also sent their letters to Judge Varlan urging the dismissal of Professor Hu's case on August 2 and 4, 2021 respectively. 2021/09/09 Acquitted of All Charges The first trial of Professor Hu revealed the zeal of the misguided China Initiative to criminalize Professor Hu with reckless and deplorable tactics of spreading false information to cast him as a spy for China and press him to become a spy for the U.S. government. When these efforts failed, DOJ brought charges against Professor Hu for intentionally hiding his ties to a Chinese university, which also fell apart upon cross examination during the trial. A former juror said after the first trial, “It was the most ridiculous case.” About the FBI, she added: “If this is who is protecting America, we’ve got problems.” Despite the egregious abuses of authority and lack of evidence, DOJ motioned for a retrial of Professor Hu on July 30, 2021. The blatant disregard of fairness and justice outraged members of Congress, national and local organizations, the Asian American community, and the general public. On September 9, 2021, Judge Thomas Varlan issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order and acquitted Professor Hu of all charges in his indictment. Judge Varlan wrote on page 42 of the 52-page ruling acquitting Hu that " the government has failed to provide sufficient evidence from which any rational jury could find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant had specific intent to defraud NASA by hiding his affiliation with BJUT [Beijing University of Technology] from UTK. " According to two legal experts, the judge's ruling has particular significance and relevance in similar cases against an academic under the China Initiative. On page 38 of the ruling, the judge wrote: The Sixth Circuit’s Frost decision is squarely aligned with Takhalov’s conclusion that the federal wire fraud statute requires the intent to cause a tangible harm to the victim regarding the benefit of the bargain between the parties. Frost’s ultimate conclusion that the lack of tangible harm meant there was insufficient evidence on the element of intent to Case 3:20-cr-00021-TAV-DCP Document 141 Filed 09/09/21 Page 38 of 52 PageID #: 2333 39 defraud, 125 F.3d at 361–62, further confirms that Takhalov’s definition of the term “defraud” in the federal wire fraud statute is correct and applies equally in this Circuit. The two legal experts opined that the judge required a high standard of “a specific intent to defraud” so as to receive some financial benefits. Professor Hu’s alleged hiding of his relationship with BJUT was not to defraud NASA for money. Accordingly, the wire fraud charges should be dropped. This means that this will make DOJ's wire fraud charge against other professors considerably harder. In addition, the judge carefully described how UTK failed to provide clear guidance and training to the professors on the restrictions of the collaboration with Chinese institutions, which explains why Professor Hu did not fully disclose his affiliation with the Chinese university. This problem is common in nearly all universities in the U.S. and can be used as a reason to fight the charges against other professors. 2021/09/13 APA Justice Monthly Meeting Professor Anming Hu, his wife Ivy Yang, and defense attorney Phil Lomonaco spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on September 13, 2021, only days after Professor Hu’s acquittal. Phil led off the meeting with the good news about the acquittal of Professor Hu on September 9, 2021. He expressed appreciation for the interest, support, and help from many to Professor Hu and his family through the trying times. There were many twists and turns in the case. As the first academic to go to trial under the China Initiative, it was very important to have a good outcome for Professor Hu’s case, and Phill could not ask for anything better. Judge Thomas Varlan right from the beginning was open. He looked at the pre-trial motions where Phil set off the facts and arguments. The judge was open to waiting to see the evidence at trial - whether what Phil said in his papers really came true through the witnesses’ testimonies. The judge paid attention and was very much on point with everything in his memorandum opinion, granting the rule 29 motion by tracking the trial. Basically, Judge Varlan found there was no preponderance of the evidence to convince a jury that Professor Hu was guilty even given in a light most favorable to the government. The government did not provide sufficient evidence of guilt. The judge found two reasons why Professor Hu was innocent of wire fraud. The first being that there was insufficient evidence to show that he intended to deceive NASA, or fraudulently represent a material fact to NASA, that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove that. The second theory Phil had propounded was that there was no damage or Professor Hu did not intend to injure NASA. Phil found a case law supporting the theory that if NASA is not damaged, or if Professor Hu was not taking property or money from NASA, or intended to take property and money from NASA, he could not be convicted of wire fraud. Phil cited a case out of the 11-th Circuit that held if there is no harm there is no foul, so to speak. It was a district court judge who is sitting on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. So it would have been Judge Varlan’s boss if he disagreed with that theory. That was another blessing that God provided, Phil said. Without the proof that Professor Hu knowingly and intentionally tried to deceive NASA, the last three counts of false statements were also not supported by evidence. If he did not intend to deceive NASA, then he did not intend to make false statements. Under Rule 29, the judge granted an acquittal on all six counts of the indictment. The last email Phil received from the government said that they were still trying to figure out their appeal options, which Phil did not think they had any, but he would see what they would say. They had a few days to absorb what had happened to make a statement officially in court if they were going to. Phil was very happy with Professor Hu for being a trooper all the way through this process. Professor Hu did not waver to prove his innocence. And that is the kind of client Phil likes – those who are innocent although it is the most stressful type of representation. Phil wishes all his clients had two PhDs, which would be a lot more helpful. Ivy Yang, wife of Professor Hu, followed Phil and expressed gratitude on behalf of their family including three children. The broad support they have received gave them comfort and inspiration to fight against injustice with determination and faith. History is made by people who are the true patriots of this country. Ivy thanked Phil as their beloved attorney and a wise and humble man. History was made by Phil, the jury, Jamie Satterfield, Judge Varlan, CAPAC, APA Justice, AAJC, United Chinese Americans, Asian American Scholar Forum, Committee of Concerned Scientists, American Association of University Professors, Tennessee Chinese American Alliance, and many, many more persons and organizations. For everyone who made donations, provided encouragement, and watched the case closely, Ivy thanked them for providing the strength for her family to continue the fight. She said Anming is an ordinary passionate scientist who only wanted to perform his research and to contribute his talents to the academic world. What has happened in the past years has damaged his career and reputation that was built over many years of tremendous unbelievable hard work. Although their lives have been forever changed and they are not sure of what the future holds, they will be forever thankful for the selfless actions of individuals who believed and supported them throughout the entire journey despite the backlash, oppression, and fear of injustice. Professor Hu concluded with his brief comments. It was still too challenging for him to find the proper words and no words would be adequate to express his deep appreciation for what so many have done for him. The scars and the painful memories are still there in his heart. For now, he preferred to remain silent and let Phil speak on the case and Ivy to speak for the family. Mary McAlpin, President, UTK Chapter of the American Association of University (AAUP), also spoke at the meeting. 2021/12/18 AASF Webinar On December 18, 2021, the Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) hosted a webinar titled “The China Initiative and Professor Anming Hu’s Case.” Margaret K. Lewis, Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law, served as moderator. Featured speakers were: Dr. Anming Hu, Associate Professor, University of Tennessee at Knoxville Mara Hvistendahl, Investigative reporter with The Intercept and the author of the book The Scientist and the Spy: A True Story of China, the FBI, and Industrial Espionage, on a case that foreshadowed the China Initiative Jamie Satterfield, Investigative journalist with more than 33 years of experience, specializing in legal affairs, policing, public corruption, environmental crime and civil rights violations Additional speakers included: Steven Pei, Asian American Scholar Forum Phil Lomonaco, defense attorney Wendy Chandler, former juror of the first trial Mary McAlpin, President, UTK Chapter of the American Association of University Professors Mara Hvistendahl led off with historical context of targeting Chinese Americans dating back to the Second Red Scare and Dr. Qian Xuesen to the recent cases of Sherry Chen and Professor Xiaoxing Xi prior to the launch of the China Initiative. For the first time since his acquittal, Professor Hu talked in detail about his experience and thoughts of his ordeal. Jamie Satterfield, despite not being originally assigned to the case, described her investigative reporting. Her invaluable reports significantly impacted public understanding and perception of Professor Hu’s case in Tennessee and nationwide. Wendy Chandler - Juror of First Trial on “Ridiculous Case” A week after the first trial was declared to be a mistrial, on June 23, 2021, the Intercept published an interview with Wendy Chandler, a juror who served on the hung jury. When Chandler was called to serve on a federal jury in Tennessee, she trusted the prosecutors and the FBI. She was known only as Juror 44 in the case. She knew she had to keep an open mind. But surely there would be some merit to what the FBI had found, she thought. The government wouldn’t waste everyone’s time. “I walked in assuming the government had some reason to be there, assuming that they were coming at it with honesty and integrity,” she told Mara Hvistendahl in the first interview given by a juror in the case. “I assumed the best for them.” Chandler understood the complexity and importance of the case and committed to paying close attention, even adjusting her sleep schedule. But as the trial progressed, she grew increasingly skeptical. After six days of hearing witnesses and arguments, she came to a conclusion. “It was the most ridiculous case,” she said. About the FBI, she added: “If this is who is protecting America, we’ve got problems.” The trial ended in a hung jury. Chandler, one of four women on the all-white jury, was one of the holdouts. She came away believing that the lead FBI agent in the case had pursued the investigation out of ambition rather than an interest in justice. She also believed that when faced with questions from federal agents, the administrators who had advised Hu on his grant applications caved and hastily sacrificed their faculty. “This poor man just got sold down the river by his university and everyone else,” Chandler said. Professor Hu’s case follows a long history of FBI surveillance of ethnic Chinese scientists in the U.S., some of it with disastrous results. In the 1960s, the bureau compiled lists of researchers with ties to China. In the 1980s, agents tailed renowned physicist Chang-Lin Tien, who later became the chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley. In the 1990s, an FBI and Department of Energy investigation into Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee imploded in a series of missteps. “There has been very clear messaging from the Justice Department to the field offices that this is a massive priority and they should take it very seriously,” said Margaret Lewis, a law professor at Seton Hall University. “You combine that with calling it the China Initiative and issues with implicit bias, and you’re creating a recipe for unconscious decision-making to occur in a way that can pull you towards certain people as potential suspects.” In February, civil rights groups, researchers, and others jointly wrote House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Chair Jamie Raskin to request a hearing on investigations of ethnic Asian scientists. Maryland state Sen. Susan C. Lee, who signed the letter, told The Intercept, “We just want some accountability, because you’re talking about people’s lives.” Prosecutors tried to paint Professor Hu as duplicitous. In closing arguments, assistant U.S. attorney Casey Arrowood asserted, “He intentionally hid his ties to China to further his career. This case, ladies and gentlemen, is just that simple.” Professor Hu’s attorney had a different view. “This case is really embarrassing,” Lomonaco countered. “It makes me want to vomit.” The jury began deliberating that afternoon, June 14. It was clear to Chandler from the outset that the jurors didn’t agree. By the end of the day, after three hours of deliberations, they had not reached a verdict. Driving home that night, she burst into tears. “I was so scared for this man,” she recalled. The trial had left her with the feeling that the government was charging Professor Hu to justify its lengthy investigation. “They spent all this time and money on this big giant nothing burger, and they were not going to leave without a pound of flesh.” The jury resumed deliberations on June 16 and discussed the case for the entire day. At 4:45 p.m., the foreperson reported to the court that they were deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. After she was dismissed from jury duty, Chandler found Professor Hu’s GoFundMe page, which his wife started to cover his legal fees, and donated $20. She believes the government now owes Professor Hu an apology and that the University of Tennessee should offer him his job back. As Chandler put it, “He deserves so much, this man, with what was done to him.” Mary McAlpin - UTK Chapter of AAUP Spoke Out Soon after the acquittal of Professor Hu, Professor Mary McAlpin, President of the UTK Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and Distinguished Professor of the Humanities and Professor of French at UTK, spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on September 13, 2021. AAUP is a nonprofit membership association of faculty and other academic professionals. Headquartered in Washington, DC, AAUP members and chapters based at colleges and universities across the country. Founded in 1915, AAUP has helped to shape American higher education by developing the standards and procedures that maintain quality in education and academic freedom in this country's colleges and universities. AAUP defines fundamental professional values and standards for higher education, advance the rights of academics, particularly as those rights pertain to academic freedom and shared governance, and promote the interests of higher education teaching and research. AAUP looks into not only questions of tenured professors but also the protection of non-tenure track faculty and graduate teaching assistants. Mary first heard of Professor Hu’s case from Jamie Satterfield’s report in the local newspaper, Knox News. People started posting many messages and questions in the AAUP listserv – What is going on? What happened? Is AAUP looking into this? What is the administration doing? People were upset and confused. Although the case comes down to simple injustice, trying to figure out what happened through reading was a challenge. Professor McAlpin provided a summary of three primary concerns. First was the FBI investigation and how it seemed to be a travesty of justice, which was also what the judge concluded. Second was UTK’s role in this investigation, which was also covered by Jamie Satterfield. One of her articles went into details about how the UTK administration responded to this case. The university is a giant bureaucratic entity, and it protects itself. When an FBI agent comes calling, the university is not there to help or protect the employee. This has happened several times over the course of Professor McAlpin’s career, but it was never in such an egregious and shocking fashion as in Professor Hu’s case. Third was the government's targeting of international faculty. They are particularly vulnerable to losing their employment at UTK which was what happened with Professor Hu. There are many international faculty members working at UTK. Many of Professor McAlpin’s colleagues in the Department of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures at UTK are on green cards or H1 visas. The international faculty members were probably following this situation very closely, but not speaking out the way that Mary believed she could as a U.S. citizen born in the U.S. and possessing tenure. Mary also said that she was closer to the end than the beginning of her career. As President of AAUP/UTK, she was also speaking for those who might be afraid to speak up, particularly employees who were not citizens at UTK. When the acquittal of Professor Hu came through, Mary and her colleagues were thrilled to hear the news. AAUP/UTK sent an email to UTK Provost John Zomchick, hoping that Professor Hu would be reinstated with back pay and perhaps for emotional and other damages. That was not what happened. Apparently, the university is expecting Professor Hu to demonstrate proof that he was able to work in the U.S. before they would rehire him. The UTK Faculty Senate was leading on this case and trying to figure out what exactly was going on with the reinstatement and the legal issues involved. While Professor McAlpin could not speak to the legality of what happened, the Provost has said that in every case and every situation surrounding this case, the UTK administration followed both the letter and the spirit of the faculty handbook. Even if the letter was followed, Professor McAlpin was not sure the spirit of the faculty handbook was followed in this case. From what Professor McAlpin could piece together, Professor Hu was indicted by the federal government. At that point the UTK administration put Professor Hu first on paid and then on unpaid suspension. According to the faculty handbook, the UT administration did not have to put Profdssor. Hu on unpaid suspension. For example, he could have been reassigned to another job unrelated to the indictment that was in play. It was a choice made to put Professor Hu on unpaid leave. Then, because Professor Hu was on unpaid leave, he no longer qualified for the H1B visa, with which he was working and at which point they fired Professor Hu not for cause, but because he did not have an H1B visa, which he did not have because they suspended him without pay, which they did not have to do. Mary observed that UTK basically triggered their own ability to fire Professor Hu because they probably did not want to deal with the legal fallout of the indictment. From what Mary understood at that time, Provost Zomchick was saying that UTK would rehire Professor Hu but he had to prove that he was eligible to work in the U.S., which would mean having a visa, which was lost precisely because the UTK administration suspended him. This is a catch-22 Kafka situation. The faculty members at UTK and perhaps the Faculty Senate were not going to stop pushing on this issue. This is a clear travesty of justice, and it had been continued unfortunately at the level of the university even after the acquittal of Professor Hu. The Role of UTK APA Justice constructed a timeline on the chronological events at UTK. [subject to review and confirmation by Professor Hu.] In March 2018, about nine months before the launch of the China Initiative, the FBI opened an economic espionage investigation on Professor Hu. FBI and Department of Energy (DOE) made at least four presentations to UTK officials prior to the indictment of Professor Hu. After a mistrial was declared, Knox News published How the FBI manipulated the University of Tennessee to find a Chinese spy who didn't exist on July 29, 2021, raising a detailed list of questions about the university’s treatment of Professor Hu. "The trial also revealed that UT administrators handed over documents from Hu’s university files without a warrant, concealed the federal investigation from him, misled NASA at the behest of a federal agent, set Hu up for his eventual arrest and fired him as soon as he was in handcuffs... It’s still not clear who at UT authorized meetings in 2018 between Hu’s bosses and federal agents or why. Chancellor Beverly Davenport was fired in July 2018 after a tumultuous tenure of less than 19 months, and System President Joe DiPietro announced his resignation two months later... The agents, testimony has revealed, didn’t have any proof of wrongdoing by Hu when they first walked onto UT’s campus and, therefore, no legal authority to take records from his personnel files," Knox News reported. On August 4, 2021, UTK Provost John Zomchick issued a message to the UTK faculty, responding to UTK Faculty Senate President Lou Gross' questions regarding the faculty rights of Professor Hu. President Gross posted his questions and notes under "Faculty Member Suspension Issue" on his web page at https://bit.ly/3Cr67F1 . Citing that the university administration followed the letter and spirit of the Faculty Handbook at every stage, Provost Zomchick provided a timeline of administrative actions taken regarding Professor Hu’s tenured faculty appointment from suspension on February 25, 2020, to termination on October 8, 2020. There were three versions of the Faculty Handbook online: 2016, 2019, and 2021. The handbook says the Faculty Senate President should be consulted when the administration is considering suspending a tenured faculty member. "That did not really happen," said Dr. Gross. "The then-faculty senate president was simply informed." "I have made it clear, and our current provost has agreed, what consultation means," Dr. Gross told Knox News. "Consultation means that there will be time to actually look at the details of a particular situation and provide meaningful input from the faculty senate president." One day after Professor Hu was acquitted of all charges, on September 10, 2021, UTK Chancellor Dr. Donde Plowman informed Dr. Gross and Dr. Beauvais Lyons, Faculty Representative on the UTK Advisory Board, that if Professor Hu "is able to verify authorization to work in the United States in the next year, the administrative termination will be reversed, and his faculty appointment will be reinstated with expectations in place around disclosures and outside interests." In response , Dr. Gross expressed concern that Dr. Plowman's letter was inconsistent with the UTK Faculty Handbook, which states that "full restitution of salary, academic position and tenure lost during the suspension without pay will be made." Dr. Gross also described an apparent catch-22 situation "because Professor Hu lost his work authorization due to UTK action so it is not clear that he can possibly re-attain work authorization without first having his position and employment here restored." In his separate response, Dr. Lyons urged UTK to take steps to reinstate Professor Hu to his faculty position. "This is not only about doing what is right, but damage control for our institutional reputation," he wrote. On September 13, 2021, Dr. Lyons and the Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee which he chaired sent a memorandum including a set of 10 questions for UTK Provost Dr. John Zomchick to address at an upcoming Faculty Senate meeting. The UTK Senate Faculty held a public meeting on September 20, 2021. UTK faculty were also concerned with the lack of notice that Professor Hu received about the investigation. UTK administrators gave the U.S. Attorney’s Office documents from Professor Hu’s university files without a warrant, and they were not obligated to notify Hu. “In a world of data privacy, this is a great concern to everyone," Dr. Gross said. UTK faculty members were also upset with the lack of public support the university showed Professor Hu. According to the memo from the faculty affairs committee to the provost, the university did not make a statement specifically in support of Chinese and Chinese American communities. On October 14, 2021, Dr. Zomchick offered to reinstate Professor Hu. On February 1, 2022, Professor Hu returned to his laboratory. Nomination of Casey Arrowood Defeated On July 29, 2022, the White House announced the nomination of Casey T. Arrowood to serve as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Arrowood led the prosecution of Professor Hu. “This is ridiculous,” Professor Hu said of the Arrowood nomination In an interview in August 2022. “This is the worst presidential nomination ever. I am shocked at this news.” Professor Hu said President Joe Biden should rescind the nomination and, if not, the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary should reject Arrowood as a candidate for the post. “My case was a case of wrongful prosecution, and I believe (if Arrowood is confirmed) similar things will happen again and will damage long term the U.S. (government’s) reputation,” Professor Hu said. “If you do something wrong, you should have consequences. Instead, (Arrowood) is getting rewarded. It is very unfair. I do not think this is a reasonable nomination.” After the story was published, a slew of advocacy groups, including APA Justice, Asian American Scholar Forum, Tennessee Chinese American Alliance, and United Chinese Americans, teamed up with Professor Hu to defeat Arrowood’s nomination. “The nomination of Mr. Arrowood is an affront to the Asian American, immigrant and scientific communities,” the groups stated in a letter-writing campaign notice . “It opens a new wound when we still need to heal from the targeting and fallout before and during the ‘China Initiative.’” “Mr. Arrowood’s wrongful prosecution of Professor Hu betrayed the public trust and confidence we all place in our judicial system,” the letter stated. Mr. Arrowood demonstrated his poor judgment, wasted valuable taxpayers’ dollars, failed to uphold justice and fairness, and eroded public trust. “His unjust prosecution of Professor Hu, not once but twice, is deplorable and an embarrassment to our nation,” the letter continued. “In summary, Mr. Arrowood’s track record does not meet the high requirements and expectations for a U.S. Attorney. We strongly support Professor Hu’s request for the withdrawal of the nomination of Mr. Casey Arrowood to be the next U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee.” The Senate Judiciary Committee did not vote on the Arrowood nomination when the Senate session ended in January 2023. The White House did not renominate Arrowood. Continuing Education and Advocacy Previous Item Next Item