The Federal District Court of Vermont released Mohsen Mahdawi from detention on April 30, Judge W, Goeffrey Crawford.

Petitioner’s Motion for Release (Doc. 19) is GRANTED. The court orders the release of Mohsen Madawi on his personal recognizance during the pendency of this habeas proceeding. His release is subject to the following conditions: That he reside in Vermont; That he is permitted to travel to New York State for educational purposes or to meet with his lawyers or as otherwise ordered by the court; That he attend all court hearings in this case in person unless excused by order of the court.

Excerpt:

The court also considers the extraordinary setting of this case and others like it. Legal residents-not charged with crimes or misconduct-are being arrested and threatened with deportation for stating their views on the political issues of the day. Our nation has seen times like this before, especially during the Red Scare and Palmer Raids of 1919-1920 that led to the deportation of hundreds of people suspected of anarchist or communist views. In Colyer v. Skeffington, 265 F. 17 (1920), Judge Anderson of the District of Massachusetts granted habeas relief to multiple immigrants detained for their political beliefs. His decision was instrumental in bringing an end to the moral panic that gripped the nation and its officials. Similar themes were sounded during the McCarthy period in the 1950s when thousands of non-citizens were targeted for deportation due to their political views. Ellen Schrecker, Immigration and Internal Security: Political Deportations During the McCarthy Era, Vol. 60 Sci. & Soc’y 393 (1996). Again, the fever passed, but not before Justice Jackson was moved to dissent in US. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537,317 (1950), writing in a habeas case concerning the exclusion of a German war bride:

“Security is like liberty in that many are the crimes committed in its name. The menace to the security of this country, be it great as it may, from this girl’s admission is as nothing compared to the menace to free institutions inherent in procedures of this pattern.”

Justice Minton’s majority decision is not much remembered. The wheel of history has come around again, but as before these times of excess will pass. In the meantime, this case-like Colyer and Knauff-is extraordinary in the sense that it calls upon the ancient remedy of habeas to address a persistent modem wrong.