On September 30, 2025, a federal court in Boston delivered a sweeping rebuke to the Trump administration’s campaign against pro-Palestinian student activists, ruling that the government’s actions violated the First Amendment and set a dangerous precedent for civil liberties in the United States. The 161-page decision by U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, unflinchingly called out President Donald Trump and his top officials for what he described as an unconstitutional and ideologically motivated crackdown on free speech.
The ruling comes after months of mounting concern over the administration’s efforts to deport noncitizen students and scholars who voiced criticism of Israel or expressed support for Palestinians. According to Associated Press and Al Jazeera, Judge Young found that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had misused their sweeping powers to target these individuals primarily due to their protected political speech. In his words, “Secretaries Noem and Rubio … acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech.”
The court case, brought by the American Association of University Professors and supported by various civil liberties groups, presented evidence that the Trump administration had coordinated a campaign to punish foreign students for their activism. During the proceedings, federal officials admitted to relying on Canary Mission—a shadowy doxxing website denounced by critics as a hate group—to identify foreign students for removal. According to Al Jazeera, Rubio acknowledged revoking the visas of hundreds of students, including legal permanent residents, over their Palestine activism.
Judge Young’s ruling was unambiguous about the intent and effect of these actions: “They did so in order to strike fear into similarly situated non-citizen pro-Palestinian individuals, pro-actively (and effectively) curbing lawful pro-Palestinian speech and intentionally denying such individuals … the freedom of speech that is their right.” He added, “Moreover, the effect of these targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to chill freedom of speech to this day.”
The court highlighted several high-profile cases emblematic of the administration’s approach. Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and Palestinian activist, was detained for 104 days in an immigration facility, missing the birth of his first son before a judge ordered his release. Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish scholar at Tufts University, was arrested by masked federal agents and spent six weeks in jail after co-authoring an op-ed urging her university to divest from companies complicit in Israeli human rights abuses. Although both were eventually released, their deportation proceedings—and those of others—remain ongoing.
To justify the deportations, the administration invoked a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that the students’ presence had “adverse” effects on American foreign policy. The government further accused the activists of supporting terrorism, promoting anti-Semitism, and spreading Hamas propaganda—charges for which, as Al Jazeera noted, no evidence was provided. Judge Young forcefully rejected the logic of equating criticism of Israel with support for terrorism, writing, “If ‘terrorist’ is interpreted to mean ‘pro-Palestine’ or ‘anti-Israel,’ and ‘support’ encompasses pure political speech, then core free speech rights have been imperiled.”
Throughout his opinion, Judge Young emphasized that constitutional protections do not end at citizenship. “How we treat our guests is a question of constitutional scope, because who we are as a people and as a nation is an important part of how we must interpret the fundamental laws that constrain us,” he wrote. “We are not, and we must not become, a nation that imprisons and deports people because we are afraid of what they have to tell us.”
Judge Young’s decision also directly addressed President Trump’s personal role in the crackdown. While the judge acknowledged it was unclear whether Trump had ordered the campaign, he noted the president “celebrated and wholeheartedly supported it.” He cited the White House’s official X account posting “SHALOM, MAHMOUD” after Khalil’s detention, describing it as evidence of Trump’s approval of the suppression of free speech. “After all, the facts prove that the President himself approves truly scandalous and unconstitutional suppression of free speech on the part of two of his senior cabinet secretaries,” Young wrote, concluding that this amounted to a violation of Trump’s oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
The ruling did not go unnoticed by advocacy groups. The Arab American Institute praised the decision, with executive director Maya Berry stating, “This moment is bigger than one case or one campus. It is about defending the right of all people, regardless of citizenship or status, to speak freely, to protest injustice, and to teach and learn without fear of government retaliation.” Berry added, “It is about rejecting the dangerous precedent of labeling dissent as hate in order to shut down movements for justice. And it’s about Arab Americans leading the fight to protect our First Amendment as we speak with moral clarity about Palestine.”
University associations and civil liberties lawyers echoed these sentiments. Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors union, called the attempt to deport students for their political views “an assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of American values.” Ramya Krishnan of the Knight First Amendment Institute told the court, “Not since the McCarthy era have immigrants been the target of such intense repression for lawful political speech. The policy creates a cloud of fear over university communities, and it is at war with the First Amendment.”
The Trump administration, for its part, has rejected the court’s findings. Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement, “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.”
During the trial, government witnesses insisted there was no official policy of ideological deportation and that visa revocations were based on longstanding immigration law. However, internal memos and testimony revealed a pattern of targeting pro-Palestinian activists, with ICE reviewing more than 5,000 protesters and writing reports on about 200 who allegedly violated U.S. law.
Judge Young’s ruling concluded with a reflection on the enduring power of the Constitution in the face of political threats. Responding to an anonymous threat referencing Trump’s “pardons and tanks,” Young wrote, “Alone I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, we the people of the United States—you and me—have our magnificent Constitution.” He urged Americans to stand up for their rights and resist efforts to silence dissent, warning, “Where a jury sits, there burns the lamp of liberty.”
As the dust settles, the impact of this ruling is likely to reverberate far beyond the individuals involved. For now, it stands as a powerful assertion that constitutional rights—and the courage to defend them—remain alive and well in American courts, even in the face of formidable political pressure.
