Diala Shamas's guest appearances

Diala Shamas

TrumpWatch with Jesse Lent

The Activist Files Podcast

Donald Trump

David Smith

Sarah McBride

Kurt Andersen

Jay Michaelson

John Kelly

Jeff Sessions

Mike Pompeo

Mark Walsh

Mike Pence

Lenny Bruce

David Cay Johnston

Harry Edwards

James Comey

David Corn

OwlTail

Ziad Alwan

On the 16th episode of “The Activist Files,” Advocacy Director Nadia Ben-Youssef speaks to Staff Attorney Diala Shamas and client Ziad Alwan about our intervention into a case filed by Israeli settlers against Airbnb. In late 2018, following grassroots efforts by Palestinian rights activists, Airbnb announced its decision to remove rental listings in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Just a few months later, following a lawsuit filed by Israeli settlers alleging that Airbnb’s de-listing of properties in illegally occupied territory amounted to racial discrimination, Airbnb caved to the settlers’ demands and re-listed the settlements, seeking to end the litigation. Soon after, Ziad and other Palestinian landowners, represented by Diala and other Center for Constitutional Rights attorneys, sought to intervene in the case and keep the lawsuit alive. Diala discusses the responsibility of corporations like Airbnb to respect human rights principles and international law, as well as the status of the case, now that Airbnb has decided to re-list properties in settlements. Ziad recounts his family’s history on and personal connection to the land and explains why he decided to intervene on behalf of other Palestinian landowners in the West Bank. Together, the two reflect on Nadia’s hopes that we are in the “swan song” of empire and are approaching a breakthrough in the movement for Palestinian rights. Listen to this month’s episode and learn more about our work to make Palestinian voices heard. 

<p>On the 16th episode of “The Activist Files,” Advocacy Director <a href="https://ccrjustice.org/home/who-we-are/staff/ben-youssef-nadia" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Nadia Ben-Youssef</a> speaks to Staff Attorney <a href="https://ccrjustice.org/home/who-we-are/staff/shamas-diala" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Diala Shamas</a> and client <a href="https://ccrjustice.org/ziad-alwan-anata-municipality-village-council-jalud-and-randa-wahbe" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ziad Alwan</a> about <a href="https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/silber-et-al-v-airbnb" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">our intervention</a> into a case filed by Israeli settlers against Airbnb. In late 2018, following grassroots efforts by Palestinian rights activists, Airbnb <a href="https://press.airbnb.com/listings-in-disputed-regions/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">announced</a> its decision to remove rental listings in Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Just a few months later, following a lawsuit filed by Israeli settlers alleging that Airbnb’s de-listing of properties in illegally occupied territory amounted to racial discrimination, Airbnb caved to the settlers’ demands and re-listed the settlements, seeking to end the litigation. Soon after, Ziad and other Palestinian landowners, represented by Diala and other Center for Constitutional Rights attorneys, sought to intervene in the case and keep the lawsuit alive. Diala discusses the responsibility of corporations like Airbnb to respect human rights principles and international law, as well as the status of the case, now that Airbnb has decided to re-list properties in settlements. Ziad recounts his family’s history on and personal connection to the land and explains why he decided to intervene on behalf of other Palestinian landowners in the West Bank. Together, the two reflect on Nadia’s hopes that we are in the “swan song” of empire and are approaching a breakthrough in the movement for Palestinian rights. Listen to this month’s episode and <a href="https://ccrjustice.org/home/what-we-do/our-cases/silber-et-al-v-airbnb" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">learn more</a> about our work to make Palestinian voices heard. </p>

Episode 16: Occupation vacation: Diala Shamas and Ziad Alwan on Palestine, settlements, and Airbnb

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari, agreeing to hear arguments when the nine Justices reconvene in the fall on whether President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769, entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, , or what the President himself has called a "travel ban" is constitutional. Yet, they also lifted a stay on certain aspects of Trump's travel ban, overriding several federal appeals court decisions blocking the order. The ruling means anyone coming to the U.S. from the six countries on the travel ban (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) will be forced to prove they have "bone-fide ties" to a local organization or citizen in order to gain entry until the final Supreme Court decision is handed down. According to Diala Shamas, a lecturer in law and a supervising attorney at Stanford Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic who works with Muslim communities in the United States, as well as refugees stranded abroad, the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's travel ban is proof that the judicial branch cannot be the kind of check on the President's agenda that many on the left were hoping for. Her op-ed “Lawyers alone can’t save us from Trump. The Supreme Court just proved it.” appeared in Tuesday's edition of the Washington Post. In this episode of "TrumpWatch," host Jesse Lent talks to Professor Shamas about what the Supreme Court decision will mean in the immediate term for people coming to America from the six countries included in the travel ban, why it signifies the problems with expecting lawyers to be able to provide cover from the President and what citizens can do to effectively resist the change in national immigration policy if the answer isn't in the courts.

Ep 31 (6/28/17) Does the SCOTUS travel ban decision show the limits of lawyers? Guest: Diala Shamas

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments when the nine Justices reconvene in the fall on whether  President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769, entitled Protecting the  Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, (what the President himself has called a travel ban) is constitutional. Yet, they also lifted a stay on certain aspects of Trump's travel ban, overriding several federal appeals court decisions blocking the order.  The ruling means anyone coming to the US from the six banned countries, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, will be  forced to prove they have "bone-fide ties" to a local organization or citizen in order to gain entry until the final Supreme Court decision is handed down. According to Diala Shamas, a lecturer in law and a supervising attorney at Stanford Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic who works with Muslim communities in the United States, the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's travel ban is proof that the judicial branch cannot be the check on the President's agenda that many on the left were hoping it would be. Her op-ed  “Lawyers alone can’t save us from Trump. The Supreme Court just proved it,” appeared in Tuesday's edition of the Washington Post. In this episode of TrumpWatch, Jesse talks to Professor Shamas about what the Supreme Court decision will mean in the immediate term, why it signifies the problems with expecting lawyers to be a bulwark against the President's agenda and what citizens can do to e resist the change in national immigration policy if the answer isn't in the courts.

<p>On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments when the nine Justices reconvene in the fall on whether  President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769, entitled Protecting the  Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, (what the President himself has called a travel ban) is constitutional. Yet, they also lifted a stay on certain aspects of Trump's travel ban, overriding several federal appeals court decisions blocking the order.  The ruling means anyone coming to the US from the six banned countries, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, will be  forced to prove they have "bone-fide ties" to a local organization or citizen in order to gain entry until the final Supreme Court decision is handed down. According to Diala Shamas, a lecturer in law and a supervising attorney at Stanford Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic who works with Muslim communities in the United States, the SCOTUS ruling on Trump's travel ban is proof that the judicial branch cannot be the check on the President's agenda that many on the left were hoping it would be. Her op-ed  “Lawyers alone can’t save us from Trump. The Supreme Court just proved it,” appeared in Tuesday's edition of the Washington Post. In this episode of TrumpWatch, Jesse talks to Professor Shamas about what the Supreme Court decision will mean in the immediate term, why it signifies the problems with expecting lawyers to be a bulwark against the President's agenda and what citizens can do to e resist the change in national immigration policy if the answer isn't in the courts.</p>

What does the SCOTUS travel ban decision tell us about the limitations of lawyers? Guest: Diala Shamas