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

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge William Young ruled that noncitizen academics who are part of a First Amendment lawsuit can come back to his court for relief if their immigration status is altered as retribution for taking part in the case. He described the order as a "remedial sanction" meant to shield certain noncitizen members of the plaintiff groups from retribution for exercising their constitutional rights.

The lawsuit was brought by two organizations, the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. It alleges that U.S. policy singles out noncitizens for detention or deportation because of pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses. Young heard the case at trial last year and ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution when it targeted non-citizens for deportation solely for supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel. He repeatedly chastised the administration for violating the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights.

The new order sets out what a noncitizen must show. They must prove they were a member of either group between March 25, 2025, and Sept. 30, 2025. They must also show their immigration status had not expired and that they committed no crime after Sept. 30, 2025. With that proof, Young wrote, it will be presumed that the change in status is retribution for exercising their First Amendment rights during the case. The Associated Press said it is not aware of any members of these groups whose status has changed because of their part 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' free speech, producing a chilling effect through attempts to "pick off certain people." He said the cabinet secretaries and, ostensibly, the president were not honoring the First Amendment, adding that the government did not seem to understand what it is. Young was appointed by the late Republican President Ronald Reagan. He also asked how the government's highest officials could so infringe on the rights of people lawfully in the country, and said the record convinced him that those officials, including the president, have a "fearful view of freedom."

The trial record gave the case its weight. Government witnesses acknowledged that the campaign targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters. Witnesses for the plaintiffs testified that it stoked fear among academics and led some to stop their activism.

Individual cases have fueled the suit. 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 an immigration jail, moving the government a step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting him. The panel did not decide whether the effort to expel Khalil over his 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 time, because federal law requires the case to move fully through the immigration courts first. It was not immediately clear whether the government would seek 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 and released in May after six weeks of detention. She said she was illegally detained after co-writing an op-ed last year that criticized 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, said the administration's efforts to deport pro-Palestinian advocates have spread terror in campus communities. Students and scholars, she said, should not have to fear that ICE agents could seize 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 now is whether the government alters the status of any plaintiff members, which would test Young's presumption, and how the Third Circuit's jurisdiction ruling in Khalil's case shapes similar challenges.