Federal court shields students' Palestinian-rights speech from deportation; another clears an imam's for deportation.

…(cont) Now here's where I need the walk-through, because I don't do this for a living. That same Friday, the Washington Examiner is covering it too—different outlet, different politics, and when I read it, same judge, Noel Wise, same students, same ruling. Two newsrooms covering one courtroom. Is that two separate times the government got stopped, or is that one time, covered by two papers?

Then a month passes. September 30th, the New York Times: Salah Sarsour, who leads the state's largest Islamic group in Wisconsin, described by the paper as a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights—a federal judge rules Sarsour can be deported. Sarsour says the case is political. Sarsour is appealing. What's the step between the first ruling and this one that I'm not being shown?

I apologize, I know I've circled this already, but here's where I get stuck. In California, a judge looks at speech backing Palestinian rights and calls it the kind the First Amendment protects. Somewhere else—the receipts don't tell me the court, don't tell me the judge—speech backing Palestinian rights doesn't stop a deportation. Same subject matter, as far as what's printed tells me. Different outcome. Is the difference the speaker? Is it the forum? Is it the month?

There's one word in how this got handed to me that I keep snagging on: twice. I'm going to set that down and come back to it before I go.

Let me show you how I tried to work this out myself, because I do it the slow way. I went out to the garage last night to find a socket wrench—the dog wanted out anyway—and with the toolbox open I laid the two rulings side by side the way you'd lay two wrenches side by side to see if they're the same size. One: speech backing Palestinian rights, protected, can't deport over it. Other: speech backing Palestinian rights, not protected enough, can deport over it. From where I was standing in the garage, I lined them up and stood back. Can you get them to match?

Is there something about immigration status in these two cases that the receipts have told me and I just didn't catch it? Is there a different law cited in the Wisconsin matter that the Times didn't print? I don't have that page. Maybe it's out there somewhere. Where would I look?

Oh—before you go. That's the word I set aside earlier and told you I'd come back to. Common Dreams has this ruling from that Friday. The Washington Examiner has this same ruling, same Friday, same judge, same students, from its side. Is that two separate times the government got stopped, or is that the same ruling, reported by two newspapers? I've gone back through what's in front of me looking for the second time this actually happened, separate from this one, before Sarsour's case came along. I haven't found it. Have you found the second one? Because what I've got in front of me, so far, is one ruling—twice.