“Upon such proof, it shall be presumed that the alteration in immigration status is in retribution for the exercise of their First Amendment rights during the course of the present case,” Young wrote.
A Boston-based federal judge has ruled that the academics and students part of a lawsuit alleging that the Trump administration engaged in an “unconstitutional conspiracy” to punish international students for participating in pro-Palestine protests may seek immediate legal relief if the government attempts to alter their current immigration statuses.
“The big problem in this case is that the Cabinet secretaries, and ostensibly, the president of the United States, are not honoring the First Amendment,” U.S. District Judge William Young said. “There doesn’t seem to be an understanding of what the First Amendment is by this government.”
In his decision, Young—who last year found that the federal government broke the law by attempting to deport students who’d exercised their First Amendment rights—also unsealed internal government governments that were used as evidence during last year’s trial.
The documents, which Young released along with his ruling on Tuesday, included memos from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that indicated the arrest of the five students and academics identified as plaintiffs in the lawsuit—including Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil—were recommended based on factors including participation in protests and social media posts.
In one document, an official said that the agency had not yet “identified any alternative grounds of removability” for the plaintiffs. The only available option, instead, was a rarely-used law gives the U.S. Secretary of State authority to deport non-citizens based on foreign policy interests.
The Department of Homeland Security noted that any persons detained under this law were “likely to challenge their removal.” The agency also conceded the possibility that courts may “scrutinize the basis for these determinations.”
Young clarified that any non-citizen challenging an unexpected change to their immigration status under his ruling most prove that they are a member of the American Association of University Professors or the Middle East Studies Association, both of which were involved in last year’s litigation. He also said the court would require proof that the petitioners’ immigration status had not expired and that they had not committed any crime after September 30, 2025.
“Upon such proof, it shall be presumed that the alteration in immigration status is in retribution for the exercise of their First Amendment rights during the course of the present case,” Young wrote.
Young, who was appointed to his post by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, said that his order is a “remedial sanction to protect certain of the Plaintiffs’ non-citizen members from any retribution for the free exercise of their constitutional rights.”
The Trump administration has since said that it will appeal Young’s decision.
“There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,” Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “The framers of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights never contemplated a world where foreign citizens could come here as guests and hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism.”
Sources
Judge warns administration against changing immigration status of students who sued over free speech
Judge warns Trump administration against changing immigration status of plaintiffs in case
Judge warns Trump administration from changing plaintiffs immigration status in First Amendment case
Join the conversation!