A federal judge ruled on Thursday that academic groups suing the Trump administration to halt the deportations of students and faculty who engaged in anti-Israel protests will be granted a blanket presumption that their activity is protected free speech under the First Amendment.
The ruling from judge William Young, a Reagan appointee to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, shifts the burden to the government to prove that any change in the immigration status of members of the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association is justified.
“It shall be presumed that the alteration in immigration status is in retribution for the exercise during the course of the present case of their First Amendment rights,” Young wrote.
The groups sued the Trump administration in March over its “ideological-deportation policy” after the arrest and attempt to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of the anti-Israel protest movement at Columbia University.
“While President Trump and other administration officials have described pro-Palestinian campus protests as ‘pro-Hamas,’ they have stretched that label beyond the breaking point to encompass any speech supportive of Palestinian human rights or critical of Israel’s military actions in Gaza,” the plaintiffs wrote.
“They have left no doubt that their new policy entails the arrest, detention and deportation of noncitizen students and faculty for constitutionally protected speech and association,” they added in the complaint.
Young ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in September.
At a hearing earlier this month, Young described the actions of the Trump administration as “an unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people” for their protests, Politico reported.
“I find it breathtaking that I have been compelled on the evidence to find the conduct of such high-level officers of our government—cabinet secretaries—conspired to infringe the First Amendment rights of people with such rights here in the United States,” Young said. “These cabinet secretaries have failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.”
Young’s rulings in the case have raised eyebrows over his unusual commentary and suggestions.
In September, Young attached a hand-written postcard from an anonymous sender asking, “Trump has pardons and tanks … what do you have?” to the top of his ruling.
“Alone I have nothing but my sense of duty,” Young wrote in reply, in a space above the listed plaintiffs that is usually left blank. “Together, we the people of the United States—you and me—have our magnificent Constitution.”
Young’s ruling on Thursday includes more unusual remedies and commentary on the case.
“The court recommends that an advisory jury be empaneled to assist the court in deciding factual issues,” Young wrote. “The moral effect of a jury verdict cannot be overstated. The American jury is the most robust and vital expression of direct democracy extent in the world today.”
“The people’s participation in this act of government is long overdue,” he added.
The protections extended to the plaintiffs include only non-citizens, who were members of AAUP or MESA between the time the plaintiffs brought suit and Young’s decision on the case in September. They do not apply to any such members who were convicted of a crime or whose immigration status expired.
In an appendix to Thursday’s ruling, Young mused about potential applications of his decision involving situations not directly related to the case, including the hypothetical revocation of temporary protected immigration status to Venezuelans and comments about the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
“If it’s just speech—it may be repulsive speech or disgusting speech, but if it’s just speech, well, the Department of State can’t do that,” Young wrote. “Again, this is a hypothetical. But let’s say that happened, we’ll assume that happened. And then the person comes in and says, ‘I’m a member of this class. You can’t do that to me.’”
“Well again, the government’s going to have to prove that their reason was not in fact in retribution,” he said, “and in addition, my second, that it’s an appropriate exercise of governmental power.”
The Trump administration can appeal Young’s ruling.
