BOSTON – On Thursday, a federal judge ruled that academics involved in a lawsuit alleging that U.S. policies unfairly target noncitizens for deportation due to their pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses can seek court intervention if their immigration status is altered as a consequence of their participation in the case.
U.S. District Judge William Young’s decision follows a trial last year where he determined that the Trump administration violated constitutional rights by deporting non-U.S. citizens solely based on their support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel. Young criticized the administration for infringing on the First Amendment rights of these individuals and issued a protective order to prevent retaliation against the plaintiffs’ noncitizen members for exercising their constitutional rights.
Earlier this month, during a hearing, Judge Young accused Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and their associates of engaging in an “unconstitutional conspiracy” aimed at suppressing the plaintiffs’ free speech. He expressed concern over their efforts to selectively target individuals, which created a chilling effect on their rights.
“The primary issue here is that the cabinet secretaries, as well as the President of the United States, are failing to uphold the First Amendment,” remarked Young, who was appointed by the late Republican President Ronald Reagan. “This administration seems to lack a fundamental understanding of the First Amendment.”
In his ruling, Judge Young stated that noncitizens seeking to challenge changes to their immigration status must prove their membership in the American Association of University Professors or the Middle East Studies Association between March 25, 2025, and September 30, 2025. Additionally, they must demonstrate that their immigration status had not expired and that they had not committed any crimes after September 30, 2025. The Associated Press has not identified any members of these organizations who have experienced changes in their status due to their involvement in the lawsuit.
“Upon providing such evidence, it shall be assumed that any changes in immigration status are retaliatory actions against their exercise of First Amendment rights during this case,” Judge Young stated.
A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment
During last year’s trial, witnesses for the government acknowledged that the campaign targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters. Other witnesses for the plaintiffs testified to how the campaign stoked fear among academics and prompted some to stop their activism.
Among the cases that have fueled the lawsuit was that of former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil. Earlier this month, a federal appeals panel reversed a lower court decision that released Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.
The three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the U.S. over his campus activism and criticism of Israel was unconstitutional.
But in its 2-1 decision, the panel ruled a federal judge in New Jersey didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time. Federal law requires the case to fully move through the immigration courts first, before Khalil can challenge the decision, they wrote.
The decision marked a major win for the Trump administration’s sweeping campaign to detain and deport noncitizens who joined protests against Israel. But it was not immediately clear whether the government would seek to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his legal challenges continue.
Another was the Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who was released in May from six weeks of detention after being arrested on a suburban Boston street. She said she was illegally detained following an op-ed piece she co-wrote last year criticizing her school’s response to Israel’s war in Gaza.
During the latest hearing in the case, Young repeatedly seemed baffled that the country’s top leaders would attempt to implement such a policy.
“How could this happen? How could our government’s highest officials seek to so infringe on the rights of people lawfully here in the United States,” he told the court. “The record in this case convinces me that these high officials, and I include the president of the United States, have a fearful view of freedom.”
Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, which argued for relief in court, said the “administration’s lawless efforts to deport pro-Palestinian advocates has spread terror in our campus communities.”
“Students and scholars shouldn’t have to live in fear that ICE agents could seize them from their homes merely for engaging in political expression,” she said. “Today’s judgment makes emphatically clear that the administration’s campaign of intimidation must end.”
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
