Judge Warns Trump Administration Against Altering Plaintiffs' Immigration Status in First Amendment Case

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston issued an order aimed at a specific fear: that noncitizen academics who joined a First Amendment lawsuit could have their immigration status changed as punishment for doing so. Under his ruling, those academics can come back to the court for relief if that happens.

The case was brought by two groups, the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. They allege that U.S. policy singles out noncitizens for detention or deportation because of pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses. Young heard the trial last year and ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution when it targeted non-U.S. citizens for deportation solely for supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel. He has repeatedly rebuked the administration for violating the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, and on Thursday he described his new order as a remedial sanction meant to protect certain noncitizen members of the plaintiff groups from retribution for exercising those rights.

The order sets conditions. A noncitizen who challenges a change in immigration status must show membership in the AAUP or the Middle East Studies Association at some point between March 25, 2025, and Sept. 30, 2025. They must also show that their status had not expired and that they committed no crime after Sept. 30, 2025. With that proof in hand, Young wrote, it is presumed that the change in status is retribution for exercising First Amendment rights during the case. The Associated Press said it is not aware of any members of the groups whose status has changed because of their involvement in 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, producing a chilling effect through attempts to "pick off certain people." He said the cabinet secretaries and the president were not honoring the First Amendment, adding that the government seemed not to understand what it is. Young, an appointee of the late President Ronald Reagan, asked how the government's highest officials could seek to so infringe on the rights of people lawfully in the country. He said the record convinced him these officials, including the president, have a fearful view of freedom.

The trial record gives the scale. Government witnesses acknowledged that the campaign targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters. Witnesses for the plaintiffs described how it stoked fear among academics and led some to give up their activism.

Individual cases have driven the litigation. One is that of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had released him from immigration jail. The panel did not decide whether the effort to expel him over campus activism and criticism of Israel was unconstitutional. In a 2-1 decision, it held that a federal judge in New Jersey lacked jurisdiction at this stage, because federal law requires the case to move through the immigration courts first. The ruling was a major win for the administration's campaign, though it was unclear whether the government would seek to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his challenges continue.

Another is Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University student released in May after six weeks of detention following her arrest on a suburban Boston street. 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, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, which argued for relief in court, said the administration's efforts have spread terror in campus communities. Students and scholars, she said, should not have to fear ICE agents seizing them from their homes for political expression, and she called the judgment a clear statement that the campaign of intimidation must end. What to watch next is the Khalil case as it proceeds through immigration courts, and whether DHS alters the status of any plaintiffs' members, which would test the new order.