The decision by Judge Ellen Huvelle, handed down this week in federal court in the Columbia District and upholding a ban on short-term educational trips to Cuba, is a boost for Free Cuba and a breath of fresh air for those who stand by our embargo of Castro’s communist regime. It reminds us, as the grim reaper sharpens his scythe for Fidel Castro, that for the nearly 45 years America has maintained its embargo, the judicial branch has stood by the constitutionality of the policy. And it will shore up the position of any of the partisans of Free Cuba who might come under political attack in the pending presidential election here.

The plaintiffs in the case, united under the title Emergency Coalition to Defend Educational Travel, claimed that the ban on short-term educational trips infringed upon their right to free speech and impeded the ability of educators to tailor their own study-abroad programs. Judge Huvelle had little patience for this gambit. Had the ban been on what material could be taught about Cuba, or restricted one’s ability to question the embargo, or eliminated the possibility of matters regarding Cuba being heard in court, then one can imagine some standing. The ban does none of these, however. It merely prevents students and professors from going on educational trips for fewer than 10 weeks.

It seems the judge was able to figure out that the policy enabled the government to block those who might want to use quickie trips as a dodge to sell tourism — and to spend money in Cuba — under the rubric of learning. Judge Huvelle saw no threat to the liberty of academics. She dismissed the charge that the ban silences First Amendment free speech as “simply incorrect.” The 10 week minimum changes the nature of the education the students receive. Their trip becomes a cultural immersion, a chance to soak up foreign traditions and better understand Cuba and its people. Shorter “educational” trips were often un-academic, and abusers had their licenses to travel to Cuba revoked.

The plaintiffs argued that the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to international travel, a right that cannot be infringed upon without validation by a “convincing” threat to national security. Judge Huvelle referred to this argument as “simply wrong.” The bravado of the plaintiffs — their indifference to the purpose of the embargo — was startling, particularly given that the embargo is designed to support freedom and democracy for the people of Cuba.

We follow this issue with great interest, as readers of the dispatches of Meghan Clyne, during her tenure at the Sun, will recall.

The newspaper whose flag we fly used to hang the standard of Free Cuba from its office on Broadway, while the Cuban patriot and inspiriter of the Free Cuba movement, Jose Marti, made his headquarters in exile in the Sun’s newsroom. More than a century later it will be illuminating to see, as our current election unfolds, what our new generation of politicians makes of Fidel Castro’s criminal decades, whether it holds out for hard line like the Republican administration and Judge Huvelle or crumples at a critical hour.