Judge Bars Retaliatory Immigration Changes Against Plaintiffs in Campus Speech Case

On Thursday in Boston, U.S. District Judge William Young issued an order meant to shield a particular group of noncitizens from payback. Academics who belong to the two organizations suing the Trump administration can now ask the court for relief if their immigration status is changed in retaliation for taking part in the lawsuit.

The case alleges that U.S. policy singles out noncitizens for detention or deportation because of pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses. The plaintiffs are the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. Young, who was appointed by the late Republican President Ronald Reagan, described his order as a "remedial sanction" to protect certain noncitizen members from retribution for exercising their constitutional rights.

The order comes after a trial last year in which Young ruled that the administration violated the Constitution by targeting non-U.S. citizens for deportation solely for supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel. At trial, government witnesses acknowledged that the campaign targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters. Witnesses for the plaintiffs described how it frightened academics, and some stopped their activism.

The order sets conditions. A noncitizen challenging a change in status must show membership in either group between March 25, 2025, and Sept. 30, 2025. They must also show that their immigration status had not expired and that they committed no crime after Sept. 30, 2025. If they do, Young wrote, it will be presumed that the change was retribution for exercising their First Amendment rights during the case. The Associated Press said it was not aware of any members whose status has changed because of the lawsuit. A Department of Homeland Security spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

At a hearing earlier this month, Young said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and their agents had engaged in an "unconstitutional conspiracy" to limit the plaintiffs' speech. He said they chilled those rights by trying to "pick off certain people." He also said the cabinet secretaries and the president were not honoring the First Amendment, and that the government did not seem to understand what it is. "How could this happen?" he asked, saying the record convinced him that these officials, including the president, have a fearful view of freedom.

The lawsuit draws on individual cases. Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student, was released from immigration jail by a lower court. Earlier this month a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, 2-1. It did not decide whether trying to expel Khalil over his campus activism and criticism of Israel was unconstitutional. It held instead that the federal judge in New Jersey lacked jurisdiction for now, because federal law requires the case to go through the immigration courts first. That was a major win for the administration. It was not immediately clear whether the government would try to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his challenges continue.

Another case is that of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University student arrested on a suburban Boston street. She was released in May after six weeks in detention. She said she was illegally detained after co-writing an op-ed last year criticizing her school's response to Israel's war in Gaza.

Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, which argued for relief in court, said the administration's efforts to deport pro-Palestinian advocates have spread terror in campus communities. She said students and scholars should not have to fear ICE agents seizing them from their homes for political expression, and that the judgment makes clear the intimidation campaign must end. Khalil's case, still moving through the immigration courts, is the one to watch next.