Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Brown University Doctor Deportation

(BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS) A federal judge has dismissed a closely watched lawsuit challenging the deportation of Dr. Rasha Alawieh, a kidney transplant specialist and Assistant Professor of Medicine at Brown University, who was removed from the United States through Boston’s Logan Airport in March 2025 despite holding a valid H-1B visa. The ruling, issued on October 31, 2025, closes one of the few avenues her lawyers had pursued to overturn the expedited removal order that triggered a five-year bar on her return.

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin wrote:

“This Court simply cannot issue in this habeas action the orders Alawieh hopes to obtain,”
concluding that federal district courts lack authority to set aside the consequences of expedited removal in cases like hers. He cited a 2020 Supreme Court decision that limits judges’ ability to intervene in fast-track deportation cases, underscoring how difficult it is for noncitizens to challenge those orders once issued by frontline immigration officers.

Dr. Alawieh was detained for at least 36 hours at Logan Airport after she arrived from Lebanon with her family. During her travel abroad, she had attended the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah, the former leader of Hezbollah. Homeland Security officials examined her phone and, according to court filings, found photos of “Hezbollah fighters and martyrs.” Dr. Alawieh told officials she was interested in Nasrallah’s spiritual beliefs and confirmed that some of her family members supported his politics, her attorneys said in the filings.

Her deportation went forward even after Judge Sorokin issued a court order on March 14 requiring notice before she could be removed from the country. By then, though, the Department of Homeland Security had already enforced an expedited removal order against her, which automatically carries a five-year bar on reentry. In dismissing the case, Judge Sorokin explained he lacked the authority to remove the five-year bar because it flowed from the removal order itself, not from her detention.

The ruling is a setback for Dr. Alawieh’s legal team, who had asked the court to halt the deportation’s consequences and allow her to return to her post at Brown University and resume treating kidney transplant patients in Rhode Island. Her lawyers, including those from Muslim Advocates and Marzouk Law, argued in court papers that she had “due process rights that render the application of expedited removal to her unlawful,” and that her case shows the danger of allowing “non-appointed employees to make life-altering decisions, insulated from any review.” They said the fast-track process placed extraordinary power in the hands of individual officers at the airport, with no opportunity for meaningful judicial oversight.

Golnaz Fakhimi, Dr. Alawieh’s attorney and legal director of Muslim Advocates, called the outcome a blow to patients who relied on her.

“Unchecked abuse of the administration’s power means that vulnerable people will continue to go without highly specialized, life-saving care from Dr. Alawieh, who’d been one of only three transplant nephrologists in Rhode Island. The administration’s actions against her reflect its broader goal of trying to eliminate the diversity that defines American society,”
she said. Her attorneys said they are assessing the decision and considering further options.

The human impact of her deportation has been immediate in Rhode Island, where colleagues at Brown University Health described her absence as “detrimental” to their transplant program. Before her removal, Dr. Alawieh was one of only three transplant nephrologists in the state, a niche specialty that manages complex cases before and after kidney transplants. With her gone, Rhode Island is left with two transplant nephrologists, increasing strain on a field where patient demand often outpaces available specialists. Her team members said the void affects scheduling, continuity of care, and the ability to manage complications that arise after transplant surgeries.

Dr. Alawieh had spent more than six years studying and practicing medicine in the United States, advancing through the U.S. medical system to become a specialist in transplant nephrology. She held an H-1B visa, a temporary work visa used by U.S. employers to hire workers in specialty occupations. The use of expedited removal at Logan Airport in her case meant immigration officers determined she was inadmissible upon arrival and ordered her removed without a hearing before an immigration judge. Under federal law, that order triggered the five-year bar on returning to the United States, even though her employer and medical teams were prepared to bring her back to work.

The events at Logan Airport, particularly the phone search and the reference to “Hezbollah fighters and martyrs,” became central to the government’s handling of her case. Officials questioned her about her attendance at Nasrallah’s funeral and her family’s political views, according to her legal filings. Because expedited removal is designed for swift decisions at ports of entry, disputes about intent, context, or credibility are resolved on the spot by the officers involved, leaving little room for a later challenge in court.

Judge Sorokin’s dismissal underscores how narrow the path is for contesting such outcomes. He wrote that his court could not erase the five-year bar or unwind the expedited removal order through a habeas petition. Instead, the structure of immigration law directs those challenges away from federal district courts, and the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling further restricts judicial review. While the case raised alarms among civil rights groups, the legal barrier proved decisive in shutting down the lawsuit.

For patients and staff in Rhode Island, the focus is on the practical fallout. Transplant nephrology requires intensive, long-term follow-up, and losing a highly trained specialist can translate into longer wait times and more pressure on the remaining doctors. Dr. Alawieh’s colleagues had told the court that her removal harmed their ability to maintain the transplant program’s patient load, and they warned about the ripple effects on vulnerable patients who rely on steady access to post-transplant care.

Advocates point to the case as an example of expedited removal’s reach since it applies even to people with valid employment visas who are stopped at the border or airport. Federal agencies say the process is vital for border security and quick resolution of inadmissibility cases, but lawyers argue it can ensnare individuals with deep community ties and critical jobs with little chance for independent review. The Department of Homeland Security outlines the expedited removal process, including the five-year reentry bar that typically follows, in its public materials for arriving travelers; more information is available in the CBP overview of expedited removal.

The controversy also highlights the tension between immigration enforcement and workforce needs in specialized medical fields. Hospitals have long recruited internationally to fill roles such as transplant nephrology, where U.S. training pipelines produce small numbers of experts each year. In Rhode Island, her employer described the loss of Dr. Alawieh as immediate and measurable, not a matter of convenience but one of maintaining a program that depends on a slim roster of specialists.

The case drew national attention because of its unusual sequence: the detention at Logan Airport, the court’s notice order on March 14, and the fact that the deportation had already been enforced. That timeline left her legal team arguing from behind events that could not be reversed, and pushed their strategy toward asking the court to mitigate the collateral consequences, including the five-year bar. Judge Sorokin concluded he was barred from doing so. In his order, he stressed that the relief they sought was beyond the scope of habeas review in an expedited removal case.

Attorneys from Muslim Advocates and Marzouk Law said the outcome sends a warning about the breadth of authority given to officers at ports of entry. They argued that her “due process rights that render the application of expedited removal to her unlawful” were ignored, and that allowing “non-appointed employees to make life-altering decisions, insulated from any review” runs counter to basic fairness. For civil rights groups, those phrases capture what they see as a broader pattern: once a deportation like this is executed, the doors to federal court largely close, regardless of the person’s professional role or the harm to a community.

For Dr. Alawieh, the decision cements her removal to Lebanon and the five-year ban on returning to the United States. Her lawyers say they are evaluating what comes next, including any limited administrative steps or potential appeals, though the court’s order makes clear the district court cannot grant the remedies they sought. Brown University Health has not announced a replacement, and colleagues continue to describe the gap in care as “detrimental” to their program.

The ruling leaves intact the government’s decisions at Logan Airport and signals to employers and visa holders that expedited removal can override even longstanding work arrangements when officers conclude a traveler is inadmissible on arrival. For patients in Rhode Island, it means one fewer specialist handling delicate transplant care. For the broader immigration system, it reaffirms the limited role of judges in reviewing fast-track deportation orders, even in high-profile cases involving critical workers like Dr. Rasha Alawieh.