A judge just cleared the path for the Trump administration to deport activist behind anti-disinformation group

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit from British anti-disinformation campaigner Imran Ahmed. This opens the door wide open for the Trump administration to detain and deport him.

Per USNews, U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska ruled that she could not hear Ahmed’s constitutional claims. This was due to a recent appellate court decision that stripped her court of jurisdiction over the case. The ruling did not determine that Ahmed’s free speech and due process arguments were without merit.

Ahmed is the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a U.S.-based organization focused on online misinformation and hate speech. He is also a U.S. permanent resident living in Washington with his wife and child, who he says are U.S. citizens.

The ruling gives Ahmed a small window to fight back

Preska’s decision could allow the administration to move forward with Ahmed’s detention. Immediate deportation, however, is not an absolute certainty.

The judge left an existing restraining order in place for five business days, giving Ahmed time to pursue an appeal. That temporary protection is now the key barrier between him and possible detention.

The case stems from the administration’s broader efforts to restrict certain foreign nationals accused of using online regulation or disinformation work to suppress speech. As reported by Reuters, U.S. officials previously imposed visa bans on Ahmed and four other Europeans. Officials accused them of working to censor free speech or unfairly target American technology companies.

The legal fight also comes as other courts have pushed back against parts of the administration’s immigration policy. A federal judge previously blocked enforcement of a policy targeting foreign nationals who study disinformation and hate speech on social media for visa denials and deportation.

For Ahmed, the immediate fight is now an appeal rather than the original constitutional challenge. Preska’s ruling leaves the underlying claims unresolved while removing the district court as the venue for deciding them.