Ramya Krishnan
Senior Staff Attorney, Knight Institute
Ramya Krishnan is a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School. Her litigation focuses on issues related to protest and dissent, public employee speech, and the digital public sphere.
Krishnan leads the Knight Institute’s litigation in American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, a challenge to the Trump Administration’s policy of deporting noncitizen students and faculty who participate in pro-Palestinian advocacy. She also leads the Institute’s litigation in National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen, a challenge to government policies that gag the nation’s immigration judges, and Zuckerman v. Meta Platforms Inc., a case arguing that Section 230 protects tools that empower people to control what they see on social media. She has authored amicus briefs defending privacy and transparency laws from First Amendment challenge, challenging retaliatory deportations against immigrant activists, and supporting the right of state contractors to engage in BDS boycotts. She has also led the Institute’s advocacy efforts calling on Congress to establish a legal safe harbor for platform research.
Krishnan has been published or quoted in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Guardian, among other publications. She was the Knight Institute’s inaugural legal fellow. Prior to joining the Institute, she litigated constitutional and administrative law cases on behalf of the Australian government. From 2013-2014, she served as law clerk for the Hon. Robert Beech Jones, then a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, now a Justice of the High Court of Australia.
Krishnan holds a B.A. and LL.B. (First Class Honors) from the University of Sydney, where she served as an editor of the Sydney Law Review, and an LL.M. from Columbia Law School, where she was a Raymond J. Baer Scholar.
Contact
Selected Projects
-
American Association of University Professors v. Rubio
A case challenging the Trump administration’s policy of ideological deportation.
-
National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen
A lawsuit challenging a government policy silencing immigration judges
-
Zuckerman v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
A case arguing that Section 230 protects tools that empower people to control what they see on social media.
Selected Work
-
Deep Dive
How the Supreme Court Could Encourage Platform Transparency
-
Essays and Scholarship
A Safe Harbor for Platform Research
-
Deep Dive
The Pitfalls of Platform Analogies in Reconsidering the Shape of the First Amendment
-
There’s a Problem With Banning TikTok. It’s Called the First Amendment.
The New York Times
-
Analysis
We May Never See John Bolton's Book
The New York Times
Contact
Selected Projects
-
American Association of University Professors v. Rubio
A case challenging the Trump administration’s policy of ideological deportation.
-
National Association of Immigration Judges v. Owen
A lawsuit challenging a government policy silencing immigration judges
-
Zuckerman v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
A case arguing that Section 230 protects tools that empower people to control what they see on social media.
Writings & Appearances
-
Quick Take
Why Republican Attorneys General are Wrong About Constitutionality of Proposed SEC Climate Rules
Knight Institute, legal scholars argue First Amendment should be no obstacle to rules
-
Essays and Scholarship
How the Biden Administration and Congress Can Fix Prepublication Review: A Roadmap for Reform
Prepublication review is a sweeping and broken system in need of repair
-
Deep Dive
How Do You Solve a Problem Like Facebook?
Start with Congress enabling more research and journalism focused on social media platforms
-
-
Analysis
Clearview AI’s First Amendment Theory Threatens Privacy—and Free Speech, Too
Drawing the line around what is protected by the First Amendment is more challenging than you might think