In Washington, DC, on March 23, 2025, a group of Georgetown University students and community leaders protest against ICE, MPD, and other law enforcement agencies on the college campus and call for the release of the Georgetown scholar facing deportation by DHS. Photo: Andrew Thomas via Reuters Connect.

Double standards are anathema to civil liberties. Yet the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which claims to protect the latter, instead exemplifies the former. Consider its recent attacks on CAMERA.

The ACLU has been a leading voice advancing the narrative that the Jewish community uses charges of antisemitism to silence criticism of Israel. For example, in a 2023 letter, the ACLU wrote: “the clear objective behind the promotion of the IHRA definition [of antisemitism] is the suppression of non-violent protest, activism, and criticism of Israel and/or Zionism…”

Contrast this with the ACLU of Virginia’s defense strategy for its client Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University academic facing deportation. In short, the ACLU has resorted to accusations of anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian bigotry to suppress activism against and criticism of terrorism.

In court documents and public statements, the ACLU claims that Suri and his Palestinian-American wife, Mapheze Saleh, have been targeted because of their “Muslim religion” and Saleh’s “national origin.”[1] In this regard, the ACLU singles out CAMERA, calling it a “group that spreads misinformation and seeks to discredit American Muslims.” According to the ACLU, CAMERA was a leading player in the “racist and Islamophobic doxxing” and “smear campaigns” that led to Suri being detained by immigration authorities.

What is the ACLU’s evidence of CAMERA’s anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian motivations? None is provided.

Unable to contend with the evidence CAMERA uncovered regarding the histories of both Suri and Saleh, the ACLU resorted to a cynical — and exceedingly hypocritical — smear to misdirect both the court and the public.

To comprehend the level of the ACLU’s dishonesty, it’s worth exploring the other ways in which the once well-respected organization resorted to lies, omissions, and rhetorical sleights of hand to mislead both the court and the public.

In February, CAMERA exposed that Saleh, the daughter of a senior Hamas official, had herself worked with entities directly tied to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. Shortly after, another organization, Middle East Forum, exposed several reprehensible social media posts by her husband, Suri. In March, Suri, an Indian national, was detained by immigration authorities and now faces deportation. Further research by CAMERA uncovered evidence that Suri had participated in a 2010-2011 “convoy” organized by a terrorist organization, IHH[2], for the purpose of aiding Hamas. CAMERA also uncovered years of public statements by Saleh and Suri spreading hate-filled rhetoric and propaganda.

So how does the ACLU mislead?

Start with one of the more egregious sleights of hand. In its court filings, the ACLU almost never uses the word “Hamas,” instead referring to the “Gazan government.” This enables a series of deceptive claims, going beyond the obvious effort to sanitize the terrorist backgrounds of Suri’s family.

Consider, for example, its description of Saleh’s father, Ahmed Yousef: “Mr. Ahmed Yousef is an academic. Between 2006 and until he retired from civil service in 2010, he worked as a political advisor to the Prime Minister of Gaza and as deputy foreign minister in Gaza.” But it’s not Yousef’s affiliation with “civil service” that matters; it’s his affiliation with Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization, of which the “Gazan government” is but one component. Notably avoided through this wording is whether Yousef is still a part of the US-designated terrorist organization.

In another case, the ACLU uses rhetorical sleight of hand to give the court both a lie and the truth in the same document. In a declaration to the court by Saleh, it states: “A website claimed falsely that my husband and I have ‘ties to Hamas.’” But CAMERA’s claim isn’t false, as Saleh’s own declaration proves. In it, she admits that she “was working in the Foreign Ministry of Gaza,” a Hamas entity, in 2011.

Regarding Suri, the ACLU describes his 2010-2011 terror convoy as simply a “humanitarian aid convoy.” Omitted is that the convoy was organized by another terrorist organization that was openly collaborating with Hamas for the express purpose of trying to help the latter “break the siege” (i.e., the blockade lawfully imposed on Gaza to halt the flow of weapons to Hamas, which had already launched over 5,000 rockets at Israel).

The ACLU uses the same misleading tactics to sanitize the extremist rhetoric of both Saleh and Suri.

Saleh, for example, is depicted as simply “express[ing] sorrow for the deaths of Gazan people.” Omitted is that she repeatedly expressed support for Oct. 7. In one case, she approvingly reposted a Hamas propaganda video promising to murder Israeli civilian hostages.

Suri, too, is described simply as “an academic dedicated to ending wars and finding just and peaceful solutions to conflicts” and “expressing support for the Palestinian people.” But these descriptions are contradicted by Suri’s actual history. Recall that he engaged in a celebratory pose with Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas terrorist leader known for such “peaceful” rhetoric as: “we need the blood of women, children, and the elderly of Gaza so it awakens our revolutionary spirit!” and “we will never recognize Israel!” Suri himself has stated: “What Ismail Haniyeh is doing … is no different from what any national leader would do…”

Common sense dictates that people dedicated to peace and justice do not lionize senior terrorists who deliberately target civilians for murder.

But it’s worth highlighting that the ACLU’s focus on Suri and Saleh’s public expressions is itself misleading. CAMERA did not target Suri and Saleh for their speech; we targeted them for their conduct on behalf of and in support of a terrorist organization. It is this simple fact which the ACLU goes to such lengths to obfuscate. Working for and aiding terrorists is not a civil liberty. On the contrary, it is a very real threat to our freedoms.

The ACLU is entitled to zealously represent its client, Badar Khan Suri. But when it so casually resorts to dishonesty, the public is entitled to question the organization’s credibility. More fundamentally, when a “civil liberties” advocacy organization applies separate standards depending on a group’s religious identity or national origin, the public is entitled to question its fidelity to the cause.

David M. Litman is a Senior Higher Education Analyst at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA).