trump Management Found to Have Unconstitutionally Targeted Palestinian Supporters for Deportation
A federal judge delivered a scathing rebuke of former President Donald Trump’s administration, ruling that it violated the Constitution by targeting non-U.S. citizens for deportation based solely on their support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel. The ruling, issued Tuesday by U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston,directly criticized Trump and his policies as serious threats to free speech,affirming that non-citizens lawfully present in the United States possess the same First Amendment rights as citizens.
The case stemmed from a challenge brought by several university associations who argued the administration engaged in “ideological deportation,” a practice deemed a violation of both the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Young found the policy to be “arbitrary or capricious” due to its reversal of prior policy without adequate justification.He stated the case presented a fundamental question: “whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us,” answering with an unequivocal “yes.”
The Department of Homeland Security has not yet responded to requests for comment regarding the ruling.
Plaintiffs in the case celebrated the decision as a victory for constitutional rights. “The Trump administration’s attempt to deport students for their political views is an assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of American values,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors union.”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.”
The trial revealed evidence of a coordinated effort by the Trump administration to target students and scholars who voiced criticism of Israel or expressed sympathy for Palestinians. According to testimony, this campaign mirrored tactics seen during the McCarthy era, representing a meaningful repression of lawful political speech among immigrant communities.”The policy creates a cloud of fear over university communities, and it is indeed at war with the First amendment,” stated Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute.
While lawyers representing the Trump administration maintained there was no official policy of ideological deportation, witnesses presented evidence to the contrary. Victoria santora, representing the administration, argued that visa revocations were simply the enforcement of existing immigration laws. However,John Armstrong,a senior bureau official in the Bureau of Consular Affairs,acknowledged his role in the visa revocation of prominent activists,including Rumeysa Ozturk and Mahmoud Khalil,and confirmed the existence of memos endorsing their removal.
Investigators reviewed the records of over 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters, ultimately compiling reports on approximately 200 individuals possibly in violation of U.S. law, according to testimony from Peter Hatch of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations Unit. Hatch noted that prior to this year, he could not recall a student protester being flagged for visa revocation. Khalil, a Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate, became a symbol of the administration’s crackdown after spending 104 days in federal immigration detention before his release last month. Ozturk, a student at Tufts University, was released in May after six weeks in detention following her arrest and the publication of an op-ed criticizing her school’s response to the conflict in Gaza.
Judge Young directly accused Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, along with their agents, of misusing their authority to silence pro-Palestinian non-citizens, “intentionally denying such individuals…the freedom of speech that is their right.” He further asserted that the effects of these deportation proceedings continue to “chill freedom of speech” to this day.
In his 161-page ruling, Young also levied criticism against Trump himself, suggesting the former president supported the policy, even if he did not directly authorize its implementation. “the facts prove that the President himself approves truly scandalous and unconstitutional suppression of free speech” through his cabinet secretaries, he wrote. He characterized the targeting of pro-Palestinian activists as part of a broader pattern of attacks on First Amendment values during Trump’s presidency.
