October 8, 2025
On October 3, 2025, a judge in the Eastern District of Virginia (who has been on the bench for decades) GRANTED a restraining order against the Attorney General of Virginia, preventing that office from enforcing demands for documents until after our client finishes the appellate process it has the right to pursue under the law.
That order never should have been necessary. And the top lawyer for any state, of all positions, should not try an end run around the right to appeal. But that’s where we were – before today.
On behalf of American Muslims for Palestine, our attorneys in the Civil Litigation department have objected since late 2023 to the very overbroad, chilling and intrusive demands made that have nothing to do with the stated purpose of the investigation the AG’s office opened. Our client did not know about one form of many, and promptly filed it upon learning – problem is, our client didn’t learn about any omissions until after the Attorney General had a press conference first. Because a press conference struck the Attorney General as the best starting point.
The First Amendment matters.
This ruling shows that.
The Constitution applies to all.
This ruling, and the words of the judge in court, reaffirm that.
And this was not a biased or one-sided ruling – the judge also ordered our client to make some payments into a bond, precisely because there is no final determination yet on the actual substantive issues. And that’s fair.
The judge made several observations on the record during the hearing:
- “The U.S. Constitution governs all of us, state and federal. And ultimately what I’m concerned about is the core Constitutional issues that are clearly embedded in this dispute.”
- “Let the Court of Appeals in Virginia do its thing.”
- “You don’t have a final judgment here.”
- ” … we’re hitting at core issues in the First Amendment here that have to be addressed.”
- “People who have made contributions … have a right to privacy, they have a right to associate as long as they’re not engaged in illegal activity.”
- “Because, let’s face it, the Palestinian/Hamas issue is very sensitive in American society today. There’s been an unfortunate push to try to make every Palestinian associated with a member of Hamas, and that’s clearly not the case.”
- “So there’s a political overtone to this case, which is problematic.”
- The First Amendment issue “makes this a very, very strong case for a stay.”
- “There’s overwhelming public interest in this case to make sure that the courts protect legitimate Constitutional claims.”
Congratulations to American Muslims for Palestine, as well as our legal team led by Christina Jump and supported by the hard work of Samira Elhosary , Ali Boyd , Rana Hakim and all of our team who worked on this issue and case.
The Constitution won this time. This was a good day for the law.
Court Orders (for reference):
