A federal judge in Boston ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration’s litigation against noncitizen pro-Palestinian academics is unconstitutional and a bullying tactic.
In his 161-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge William Young shared his frank opinion of President Donald Trump, some of his top-ranking Cabinet members and their immigration policy.
“I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected,” Young said. “Is he correct?”
The case was brought before the court by academic groups, including the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, arguing that threatening deportation or the removal of visas to noncitizens “who participate in pro-Palestinian protests and other related expression and association” violates their rights, per the lawsuit.
It also highlighted executive orders issued by the administration in January, claiming they were used as justification to arrest notable pro-Palestinian campus activists, such as Mahmoud Khalil, who shared pro-Palestinian opinions and was accused of distributing flyers supporting Hamas at Columbia University, where he was a student, after the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.
When Khalil was arrested, Trump posted on Truth Social that he would be the “first arrest of many to come” and added that his administration “will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again. If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here.”
On Tuesday, Young rebuked the notion that the executive branch, and Trump specifically, has the authority to do just that.
“The President’s palpable misunderstanding that the government simply cannot seek retribution for speech he disdains poses a great threat to Americans’ freedom of speech.”
He continued, “Perhaps we’re now afraid to stick our necks out. If the distinguished Homeland Security intelligence agency can be weaponized to squelch the free speech rights of a small, hapless group of non-citizens in our midst, so too can the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and the audit divisions of the IRS and the Social Security Administration be unconstitutionally weaponized against the President’s ever growing list of ‘enemies’ or opponents he ‘hates’ notwithstanding that political persecution is anathema to our constitution and everything for which America stands.”
“This case,” which he said was arguably the most important ever to be had in his court, “squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’”