A legal proceeding concerning Ayman Soliman means he will continue to stay in the Butler County Jail. During the proceedings that took place Tuesday, it was questioned by U.S attorneys whether the judge overseeing immigration cases had the authority to grant him a bond. Soliman’s continuing detention, initiated by an ICE hold, has been the cause of multiple demonstrations and marches in the Greater Cincinnati region. One such demonstration even escalated to a confrontation with the Covington law enforcement on Roebling Suspension Bridge the previous week, culminating in 15 people being taken into police custody.
Soliman’s lawyers later revealed that updates had been made to the charges against him by U.S attorneys following the hearing. A lower court hearing ahead of time saw U.S. attorneys maintain a comprehensive argument which established two significant changes. Firstly, they withdrew their initial claim stating Soliman’s deportation was due to supporting terrorist activities. However, the said claim still played a role in their argument as to why the immigration judge was not in a position to grant Soliman a bond.
The legal counsel representing Soliman also included Franchel Daniel, who is affiliated with the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA). The said attorney stated that attempts have been made by the government to draw connections between Soliman’s past work with a charitable organization based in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood. His words pointed out an ongoing effort from the government’s side to associate Soliman with the often controversial, political organization.
Another MLFA-affiliated attorney, Kathryn Brady, also contributed to Soliman’s defense by offering a comparison of the Egyptian charity to numerous Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) chapters in the United States. She emphasized that like these chapters, the Egyptian charity is independently run, with no recognition as a terrorist entity by Egypt’s government. She summed up the government’s tactics as akin to asserting arbitrary connections to potentially problematic groups in the Middle East, described as ‘throwing something to see if it will stick’.
Brady directly refuted the tactics used in the government’s legal filings against Soliman. She argued that the strategy of associating individuals with questionable organizations and then using these associations as grounds for expulsion could potentially be employed arbitrarily against any individual. This argument came in strong opposition to the plaintiff’s tactics of claiming precedential affiliations with questionable entities as a premise for removal.
Ratliff, another lawyer on Soliman’s team, also echoed similar sentiments towards the tactics used by the U.S attorneys. He expressed concerns about this tactic potentially being utilized to justify the expulsion of any individual simply by citing previous affiliations with possibly harmful organizations. This, he suggested, could be utilized as a rationale to deport them.
The Cleveland Immigration Court judge chose to delay any decision on the bond release, in favor of having both parties present their arguments on jurisdiction. This resolution had to be reached by the end of the same week. A detailed revelation from the court was that the decision on jurisdiction would likely be announced the following week.
The developments were such that a verdict on jurisdiction was not immediately decided, and the court allowed both parties to present their arguments on the subject. The set deadline for these submissions was the coming Friday. Until the issue on jurisdiction gets settled, the bond decision will be held in abeyance, and the final say on the matter is expected to happen the subsequent week.
In the coming days, Soliman is also scheduled to face a hearing in front of a Federal Court. The purpose of this hearing is to decide whether an order preventing him from being transported out of the current jurisdiction should be maintained. The delay in concluding on the bond’s issuance could potentially also postpone the decision of this case.
While the decision on the bond hangs in balance, it is highly plausible that it may also cause the Federal Court decision to be delayed. This upcoming court date is to decide whether the existing injunction, which is preventing his extradition out of the present jurisdiction, will hold. The outcome of the bond decision is incredibly crucial and could potentially affect various aspects of Soliman’s ongoing legal struggles.
One of Soliman’s friends, Ahmed Elkhady, also spoke on the Imam’s reaction to the violent clash which took place on the Roebling Bridge during one of the protests. He shared that the Imam was deeply upset about the incident. The volatile clash became a significant talking point in the case, with several layers to it adding more complexity.
Elkhady elaborated on the emotional state of Soliman, stating that Soliman was highly disturbed by the unexpected outburst on the Roebling Bridge. Following this incident, Soliman expressed his feelings publicly, stating that he was deeply troubled by the news of the violent protest.
Soliman, understanding the volatile environment and the potential risks it carries for his supporters, conveyed a message through social media. He addressed all those who were planning to take part in an demonstration slated for the coming Wednesday. In his message, he stressed his wish that no one should get arrested due to protests supporting him.
In light of anticipated protests in support of his case, Soliman took steps to prevent a potential escalation. Through a social media post, he expressed his concerns to the organizers of the upcoming Wednesday protest. He communicated his wish that no one involved should face arrest as a result of their participation in the demonstration.