A Republican-appointed federal judge in Boston sharply ruled Tuesday that the Trump administration’s policy targeting foreign students and faculty for pro-Palestinian activism violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections.
By Dan Gooding and Gabe Whisnant
The decision by Judge William Young, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, came in a lawsuit filed by academic groups, including the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, challenging visa revocations and deportations tied to political expression. The judge stated that the policy chilled political speech and constituted ideological retaliation.
“This case—perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court—squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in [the] United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us," Young wrote. "The Court answers this constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence.”
The judge also took a swipe at the media, law firms, and higher education institutions for what he saw as failing to stand up for First Amendment rights.
"Behold President Trump’s successes in limiting free speech—law firms cower, institutional leaders in higher education meekly appease the President, media outlets from huge conglomerates to small niche magazines mind the bottom line rather than the ethics of journalism," he wrote.
Why It Matters
Earlier this year, the Trump administration began revoking the legal status of student visa holders who had been associated in some way with campus protests or debates around Israel's war with Hamas, namely those who were pro-Palestine. This sparked various legal challenges, with individuals such as green card holder Mahmoud Khalil and doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk seeing their cases hit national headlines over efforts to deport them.
What To Know
The lawsuit filed in March alleged that the Trump administration was engaging in "ideological deportations," which plaintiffs viewed as being in violation of the First Amendment and, therefore, unconstitutional. A trial took place over nine days in June, where 15 witnesses outlined the impact of the policies on college campuses across the United States.
Senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were among those to testify, saying that there was a so-called "Tiger Team" created to investigate reports of students and staff who were seen as pro-Palestine, and by extension, pro-Hamas.
Some agents said they had felt pressure to locate and detain student protesters, something they had previously not been instructed to do, but other officials said they were simply enforcing longstanding immigration laws.
Young ruled that targeting individuals for their beliefs, in this case, being pro-Palestine, for deportation was in violation of their First Amendment rights.
In his 161-page decision, Young referred to other instances in which he had ruled against the current Republican administration, including on plans to cut National Institutes of Health grants. He has also made a dig at the U.S. Supreme Court for its handling of cases relating to Trump since January.
On Tuesday, Young continued his rebuke of Trump, saying that the president liked to ignore everything, including the Constitution.
"This is not to suggest that he is entirely lawless. He is not," Young wrote. "As an experienced litigator he has learned that—at least on the civil side of our courts -— neither our Constitution nor laws enforce themselves, and he can do most anything until an aggrieved person or entity will stand up and say him 'Nay,' i.e. take him to court."
What People Are Saying
DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, in a statement to Newsweek: “Less than a week after a terrorist attack at an ICE facility in Dallas, a craven Judge is smearing and demonizing federal law enforcement. Our federal law enforcement officers face a 1000% increase in assaults against them, unprecedented online doxing of our agents and their families, and they’re being stalked and pummeled by rocks and Molotov cocktails.
"Our ICE law enforcement should be thanked for risking their lives every day to arrest murderers, pedophiles, rapists, gang members, and terrorists instead of vilified by sanctuary politicians. It’s disheartening that even after the terrorist attack and recent arrests of rioters with guns outside of ICE facilities, this judge decides to stoke the embers of hatred.”
State Department principal deputy spokesperson Tommy Pigott, in a statement to Newsweek: "The United States is under no obligation to allow foreign aliens to come to our country, commit acts of anti-American, pro-terrorist, and antisemitic hate, or incite violence. We will continue to revoke the visas of those who put the safety of our citizens at risk."
Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, in a press release: “This is a historic ruling that should have immediate implications for the Trump administration’s policies. If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government can’t imprison people simply because it disagrees with their political views. We welcome the court’s reaffirmation of this basic idea, which is foundational to our democracy.”
Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, in a press release: “The Trump administration’s attempt to deport students for their political views is an assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of American values. This trial exposed their true aim: to intimidate and silence anyone who dares oppose them. If we fail to fight back, Trump’s thought police won’t stop at pro-Palestinian voices—they will come for anyone who speaks out. Defending democracy means standing up now—loudly, visibly, and together.”
Victoria Santora, an administration attorney, told the court: “There is no policy to revoke visas on the basis of protected speech. The evidence presented at this trial will show that plaintiffs are challenging nothing more than government enforcement of immigration laws.”
