Here’s today’s action – no, not technically sanctions, but undoubtedly related to the Iran sanctions program and the ongoing hostilities:
Secretary Rubio Terminates Green Cards of Foreign Nationals Tied to Infamous Iranian Regime Propagandist
MEDIA NOTE
APRIL 11, 2026
This week, three Iranian nationals with ties to the Iranian regime were arrested by federal agents following Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s termination of their lawful permanent resident (LPR) statuses.
Seyed Eissa Hashemi, Maryam Tahmasebi, and their son are now in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement pending their removal from the United States.
Eissa Hashemi is the son of Masoumeh Ebtekar, also known as “Screaming Mary,” the infamous spokeswoman for the Islamist militants who stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.
Ebtekar was notorious for her role as the leading propagandist for the violent Islamists who perpetrated the Iran hostage crisis. As the lead spokesperson and media intermediary for the hostage-takers, Ebtekar, often referred to in the Western media as “Screaming Mary,” “Sister Mary,” “Tehran Mary,” or simply “Mary,” crafted propaganda falsely showing the humane treatment of the hostages, arranging staged interviews in which the American hostages were pressured to describe their treatment in positive terms – even as they were being held in solitary confinement, blindfolded and starved, and subjected to physical and psychological terror, including beatings and mock executions.
Ebtekar married one of her fellow hostage-takers and went on to rise to senior roles in the highest levels of Iran’s revolutionary regime, serving as a vice president as recently as 2017-2021.
Hashemi, Tahmasebi, and their son entered the United States in 2014 on visas issued by the Obama Administration. In June 2016 – just months after the IRGC seized two U.S. Navy vessels and captured 10 American sailors – the Obama Administration granted all three Iranian nationals lawful permanent resident (LPR) status via the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program. The issuance of new diversity visas has been suspended by the Trump administration.
Last week, Secretary Rubio terminated the legal status of the niece and grandniece of deceased Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Major General Qasem Soleimani. Hamideh Afshar Soleimani and her daughter are now in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Secretary Rubio also terminated the legal status of Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani, daughter of former Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran Ali Larijani, and her husband Seyed Kalantar Motamedi. Both Ardeshir-Larijani and Motamedi are no longer in the United States and are barred from future entry.
The U.S. Department of State extends its appreciation to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for their continued partnership and collaboration in keeping Americans safe.
The Trump administration will never allow America to become a home for foreign nationals tied to anti-American terrorist regimes.
My prompt to Claude:
Read https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2026/04/secretary-rubio-terminates-green-cards-of-foreign-nationals-tied-to-infamous-iranian-regime-propagandist/ – what rights applicable to US citizens do and do not apply to green card holders? Did Secretary Rubio’s actions violate these persons rights, and under what authority was he able to do what he did?
And the response:
This is a genuinely interesting legal and constitutional question. Let me walk through it carefully.
What the Press Release Says
Three Iranian nationals — Seyed Eissa Hashemi, Maryam Tahmasebi, and their son — were arrested by federal agents after Secretary Rubio terminated their lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and are now in ICE custody pending removal. Hashemi is the son of Masoumeh Ebtekar (“Screaming Mary”), the lead propagandist for the militants who seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979. The three entered the U.S. in 2014 and were granted LPR status in 2016 through the Diversity Visa Program.
Rights of Green Card Holders vs. Citizens
Rights That DO Apply to LPRs
The Constitution generally extends rights to all “persons” within U.S. jurisdiction, not just citizens. LPRs enjoy:
- Due Process (5th & 14th Amendments) — The most legally significant right here. The Supreme Court has long held that LPRs have a protected property/liberty interest in their status and cannot be stripped of it without due process. The landmark case Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) and Landon v. Plasencia (1982) established that long-term LPRs have strong due process claims.
- 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
- 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.
- 6th Amendment right to counsel in criminal proceedings (though not in immigration proceedings, where it’s a statutory right).
- Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment (though national-origin distinctions in immigration get more deference).
- 1st Amendment free speech and association protections — critically relevant here, as the stated basis for termination appears to be who the individuals are related to, which raises association concerns.
Rights That Do NOT Apply to LPRs
- The right to vote — reserved for citizens.
- The right to hold most federal offices.
- The right not to be deported. Citizenship is the only status that cannot be involuntarily revoked by the executive. An LPR, no matter how long resident, can be removed. As the Supreme Court put it in Shaughnessy v. U.S. ex rel. Mezei (1953): the power to expel aliens is a fundamental sovereign act.
- Full consular and passport protections abroad.
- Jury service in federal courts.
- Certain federal employment and benefits.
Did Rubio’s Actions Violate Their Rights?
This is genuinely contested — and likely heading for litigation. Several serious legal concerns arise:
1. Due Process — The Strongest Argument Against the Action
LPRs of long standing (these individuals had status since 2016) have a well-established due process interest in their status. Landon v. Plasencia held that an LPR returning from abroad is entitled to due process in removal. Terminating their status administratively rather than through formal removal proceedings before an immigration judge likely bypasses procedural protections courts have recognized. Normally, revoking LPR status goes through removal proceedings before an immigration judge with the right to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal courts.
2. First Amendment / Guilt by Association
The individuals were not accused of any crime themselves. The stated basis is their family connection to a person (Ebtekar) who was a propagandist for the 1979 hostage-takers — a woman who is not even their direct relative (she is Hashemi’s mother). The Supreme Court has been historically skeptical of punishing people for association rather than personal conduct (NAACP v. Alabama, Scales v. U.S.), though these protections are applied differently in immigration contexts.
3. Bill of Attainder Concerns
A bill of attainder is a legislative (or arguably executive) act that punishes specific named individuals without a judicial trial. While this doctrine’s application to executive immigration action is debated, the targeting of specific named individuals for punishment based on family ties has some hallmarks of this concern.
4. The Government’s Strongest Counterargument
The executive branch has extremely broad plenary power over immigration. The plenary power doctrine, rooted in cases like Chae Chan Ping v. U.S. (1889), holds that Congress (and by delegation the executive) has nearly unreviewable authority over who may enter and remain in the country, and courts have historically been very deferential. The Trump administration would argue that national security determinations about who poses a risk are committed to executive discretion.
Under What Legal Authority Did Rubio Act?
The press release does not cite a specific statute, but the likely authorities include:
- INA § 237 (8 U.S.C. § 1227) — The Immigration and Nationality Act lists grounds for deportability, including national security grounds and association with terrorist organizations. The IRGC connection of Ebtekar (a senior Iranian official) could provide a statutory hook.
- INA § 237(a)(4)(B) — Specifically covers aliens who have engaged in or are likely to engage in terrorist activity or whose presence is deemed adverse to national security.
- Secretary of State’s authority under INA § 221(i) — Allows revocation of visas; the extent to which this covers LPR status is legally disputed and is likely the core question in any litigation.
- Presidential Proclamations / Executive Orders — The Trump administration has relied heavily on broad executive authority for immigration enforcement actions.
Bottom Line
The legal situation is genuinely unsettled. These individuals have stronger due process claims than a new visa applicant would — courts have repeatedly held that the longer and more established one’s residence, the more procedural protection attaches. The core tension is between the plenary power doctrine (which gives the executive enormous latitude on immigration) and the due process rights courts have recognized for long-term residents. The most significant legal vulnerability in Rubio’s action is likely the method — administrative termination by the Secretary rather than formal removal proceedings before an immigration judge — rather than the ultimate power to remove them, which almost certainly exists if proper grounds and procedures are followed.
My take is simple: doing this to Iranian green card holders with ties to people of some infany during a war seems to be low-hanging fruit. I just wonder how far this could go – I think of the pro-Palestinian student at Columbia who got swept up by ICE, in particular.
Leave a Reply