Judge Dismisses Lawsuit From Lebanese Doctor Linked To Hezbollah

I’ll explain the latest ruling in the case involving Dr. Rasha Alawieh, recap the key legal points from the judge’s opinion, note the factual allegations that framed her removal, outline why the district court said it lacked jurisdiction, and touch on what this means going forward.

This week a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit filed by Dr. Rasha Alawieh after she was returned to Lebanon when trying to reenter the United States. The decision was handed down by Massachusetts District Court Judge Leo Sorokin, who concluded the court could not provide the relief she sought. The case centers on the interplay between expedited removal orders and the limited scope of habeas jurisdiction after recent Supreme Court guidance.

Back in the spring Alawieh, a kidney transplant specialist and Brown University faculty member, attempted to reenter the U.S. following travel to Lebanon and was sent back. She sued, asserting her removal violated a court order and challenged the expedited removal and its bar on reentry. The factual allegations that followed included claims by authorities that her phone contained photos and videos of Hezbollah militants and that she had tried to delete some of that material.

The complaint sought relief beyond release from detention, effectively asking the court to undo an expedited removal order and the five-year reentry bar tied to it. Judge Sorokin noted Alawieh “no longer seeks release from confinement or any other ongoing supervision by immigration authorities which might constitute ‘custody’ in a habeas context.” That shift in requested relief is critical because habeas jurisdiction historically focused on physical custody and immediate release.

The media loves to report these kinds of stories at face value, knowing that going even an inch deep into it will uncover some uncomfortable truths. For example, here’s how the New York Times covered the story of Dr. Alawieh:

A kidney transplant specialist and professor at Brown University’s medical school has been deported from the United States, even though she had a valid visa and a court order temporarily blocking her expulsion, according to her lawyer and court papers.

…

As it turns out, there’s a touch more to the story than the New York Times wanted its readers to know, including the fact that the nice kidney doctor lady, upon trying to reenter the United States after a visit to Lebanon, was found to have a phone full of videos and photos of Hezbollah militants. And she had allegedly tried to delete many of those photos and videos.

In his written judgment Sorokin explained that the relief Alawieh now seeks—permission to reenter the country or an order directing that she be allowed in—falls outside the core habeas realm. He relied on recent Supreme Court precedent that narrows what district courts can do in habeas proceedings challenging immigration removals. The judge observed that the expedited removal itself produced the reentry bar, but undoing that bar is not the kind of immediate custody remedy habeas is meant to provide.

The opinion emphasizes statutory limits too, pointing to the Immigration and Nationality Act and Supreme Court cases that restrict a district court’s authority in these contexts. Sorokin wrote that the court cannot issue the orders Alawieh requested because the relief sits “so far outside the ‘core’ of habeas” that it may not be pursued through that vehicle. He referenced the line of decisions that bar habeas from reaching certain challenges to removal orders imposed through expedited procedures.

Practically speaking, the ruling means that even if a court once issued a temporary block or relief while a case was unfolding, the district court may still be unable to grant the specific remedy of overturning an expedited removal and lifting related reentry bars. Sorokin noted the timeline of events suggested rapidly evolving circumstances and did not support a finding that immigration officials knowingly violated the earlier court order.

The court’s limits do not necessarily resolve the underlying factual questions about alleged ties or materials found on a device; they simply constrain the federal court’s power to remedy the particular harms Alawieh claimed. That distinction matters: jurisdictional constraints can leave substantive disputes unresolved in that forum, even if other processes might address them.

There was no immediate indication in the opinion about whether Alawieh will pursue an appeal, and the judge’s ruling focused strictly on legal jurisdiction rather than on a broad factual determination of guilt or innocence. For now, the dismissal ends this chapter in district court and highlights the narrow lane courts travel when faced with expedited removal challenges and the strictures imposed by recent caselaw.