The US government is continuing its legal fight to detain and deport non-citizen researchers who track online safety risks, despite a federal judge ruling in July that the underlying policy was unconstitutional. US District Judge James Boasberg had blocked the policy after finding no evidence linking targeted researchers to any foreign power attempting to manipulate American public debate, and warned it could sweep in almost any non-citizen working in content moderation. The dispute matters because it tests whether the government can use immigration law to target researchers and journalists whose work criticises major tech platforms, raising concerns about free speech being chilled under the guise of protecting it.

The Coalition for Independent Technology Research (CITR) had its stay upheld, but the government appealed regardless. Days earlier, a separate judge, Loretta Preska, ruled she lacked jurisdiction to permanently block the policy in a case brought by Imran Ahmed, founder of the UK-based Center for Countering Digital Hate and a US lawful permanent resident, whom Secretary of State Marco Rubio had deemed a deportation threat over his advocacy work. Although Preska found Ahmed's case premature, she granted a temporary block on any action against him pending an appeal to the Second Circuit, where he remains optimistic judges will rule that the administration cannot arrest, detain or deport residents without judicial review.