In a ruling that has sent shockwaves through legal and political circles, U.S. District Judge William Young issued a 161-page opinion on Tuesday, September 30, 2025, delivering a sweeping rebuke of President Donald Trump and his administration’s actions against pro-Palestinian student activists. The decision, which legal experts are already calling historic, finds that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment by targeting non-citizen students for deportation based on their political speech, and it spares no words in its condemnation of the government’s tactics.
The case, brought by a coalition of university professors and academic associations, accused Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Department of Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem, and other Trump officials of intentionally seeking to chill pro-Palestinian campus speech by deporting outspoken student activists. According to NBC News and Democracy Docket, the suit centered on the experiences of students Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk, both of whom were detained and sent to distant immigration detention centers after participating in protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Judge Young, an 85-year-old Reagan appointee who has served on the Massachusetts federal bench for four decades, did not mince words in his assessment. He declared the case “perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court,” underscoring its gravity for constitutional law and civil liberties.
At the heart of Young’s decision lies a fundamental question: Do non-citizens lawfully present in the United States enjoy the same free speech rights as citizens? Young’s answer was unequivocal. “No law means no law,” he wrote, quoting the First Amendment’s prohibition on abridging freedom of speech. “No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.” As reported by Democracy Docket, Young found that the Trump administration’s attempt to draw a distinction between citizens and non-citizens “is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence.”
The judge’s opinion was shaped by a nine-day trial that featured 15 witnesses and hundreds of exhibits. Evidence revealed that the Trump administration relied on information from shadowy websites such as Canary Mission to identify and target activists, a detail highlighted by Mother Jones. The administration’s goal, according to Young, was not merely to enforce immigration law but to “strike fear” into similarly situated students and stifle political activity it disagreed with. “The intent of the Secretaries was more invidious—to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (in ways it had never been used before) to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests,” Young wrote. “The effect of these targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to chill freedom of speech to this day.”
Young’s ruling is notable not just for its legal conclusions but for its tone and style. Before even listing the parties involved, Young reproduced the text of an anonymous handwritten postcard his chambers received on June 19, 2025: “Trump has pardons and tanks, what do you have?” The judge responded in his ruling, “Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States—you and me—have our magnificent Constitution. Here’s how that works out in a specific case—” The rest of the opinion, as NBC News observed, serves as a direct reply to that challenge, framing the judiciary’s role as a bulwark against governmental overreach.
Young’s critique extended beyond the administration’s policies to its methods. He condemned Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials for wearing masks during immigration-related arrests—a practice employed when arresting Khalil and Öztürk. “ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence,” Young wrote, comparing the tactic to those used by the Ku Klux Klan and describing it as “disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable.” He questioned, “Can you imagine a masked marine? It is a matter of honor—and honor still matters.” As reported by Mother Jones, Young noted that the use of masks by armed agents is unprecedented in American history and brings “indelible obloquy to this administration and everyone who works in it.”
The opinion did not shy away from addressing the broader implications for American democracy. Young included a 12-page assessment of President Trump, stating that Trump “routinely ignores the Constitution, laws, regulations and customs while governing but will readily and aggressively deploy the legal system against those who stand in his way.” He lamented the chilling effect on free speech, writing, “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.”
Young also addressed the issue of presidential immunity, referencing the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision that effectively shields Trump from personal liability for his actions. “That Trump is for all practical purposes, totally immune from any consequences for this conduct,” Young wrote, “does not relieve this Court of its duty to find the facts.”
The ruling’s candid tone was further illustrated by Young’s inclusion of a quote from his wife: “He seems to be winning. He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead.” Young commented that her observation “so perfectly captures the public persona of President Trump, especially as it pertains to the issues presented in this case.” In a poignant reflection, the judge drew on Ronald Reagan’s words about freedom being “never more than one generation away from extinction,” adding, “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. Is he correct?”
Despite finding that the government violated the First Amendment, Young held off on ordering immediate changes to administration policies. Instead, he announced that further hearings would be scheduled to determine what remedies—beyond ordering officials to “cease and desist in the future”—might be appropriate. “Given Trump and the rapidly changing nature of the Executive Branch under Article II of our Constitution,” Young warned, “a remedy might not be obtainable.” Still, he expressed hope that the courts remain a place where constitutional rights are defended, inviting the postcard writer to “stop in at the Courthouse and watch your fellow citizens, sitting as jurors, reach out for justice.”
Young’s closing words encapsulated both the gravity and the hope of his decision: “It is here, and in courthouses just like this one, both state and federal, spread throughout our land that our Constitution is most vibrantly alive, for it is well said that ‘Where a jury sits, there burns the lamp of liberty.’”
As the legal battle moves to its next phase, Judge Young’s ruling stands as a remarkable assertion of constitutional principles in the face of executive power—reminding Americans, in vivid and personal terms, of the enduring importance of the First Amendment and the rule of law.
