BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge ruled Thursday that the academics were involved in a lawsuit alleging U.S. policies that detain or deport noncitizens incommunicado because of their pro-Palestinian activities on college campuses. If their immigration status is changed as a result of participating in the case, they can seek relief from the courts.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge William Young follows a trial last year in which he ruled the Trump administration violated the Constitution by targeting non-U.S. citizens for deportation simply for supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel. Young has repeatedly denounced the government for violating the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights and on Thursday issued what he called “remedial sanctions to protect certain non-citizen members of the plaintiffs from any punishment for the free exercise of their constitutional rights.”
During a hearing in the case earlier this month, Yang insisted that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and their agents were involved in an “unconstitutional conspiracy” to limit the plaintiffs’ free speech in an attempt to “eliminate certain individuals” and have a chilling effect on their rights.
“One of the big issues in this case is that the cabinet secretaries and the President of the United States, ostensibly, did not abide by the First Amendment,” said Young, an appointee of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan. “This administration does not appear to understand what the First Amendment is.”
In his ruling, Young said noncitizens challenging changes in their immigration status must prove they are members of the American Association of University Professors and the Association for Middle Eastern Studies, two organizations that filed the lawsuit between March 25, 2025, and September 30, 2025. They must also prove that their immigration status has not expired and that they have not committed any crimes after September 30, 2025. The AP is not aware of any criminal wrongdoing. Members of these groups, because they are part of the proceedings, have their status changed.
“Based on this evidence, it is presumed that the change in immigration status was in retaliation for their exercise of First Amendment rights during the course of this case,” Young wrote.
A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment.
At last year’s trial, government witnesses acknowledged that the campaign targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters. Other witnesses for the plaintiffs testified how the campaign stoked fear among academics and prompted some to cease their activities.
Among the cases that prompted the lawsuit was that of former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil. Earlier this month, a federal appeals panel overturned a lower court’s decision to release Khalil from immigration jail, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and eventually deporting the Palestinian activist.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit did not rule on a key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s efforts to expel Khalil from the United States for his campus activities and criticism of Israel were unconstitutional.
But in a 2-1 ruling, the panel ruled that a federal judge in New Jersey did not have the authority to rule on the matter at this time. Federal law requires that the case first go through a full immigration court before Khalil can challenge the decision, they wrote.
The decision marks a major victory in the Trump administration’s sweeping campaign to detain and deport non-citizens participating in anti-Israel protests. But it is unclear whether the government will again seek to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, as the legal challenges he faces continue.
Another was Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who was detained for six weeks and released in May after being arrested on a suburban Boston street. She said she was unlawfully detained last year after she co-authored an opinion piece critical of her school’s response to Israel’s war in Gaza.
During the latest hearing in the case, Yang repeatedly appeared confused that the country’s top leader was trying to implement such a policy.
“How could this happen? How could the highest official in our government attempt to so violate the rights of people lawfully living in the United States,” he told the court. “The record in this case leads me to believe that these senior officials, including the President of the United States, have a fearful view of freedom.”
Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, argued in court for relief, saying “the administration’s unlawful actions in expelling pro-Palestinian advocates spread terror throughout our campus community.”
“Students and academics should not have to live in fear that ICE agents may remove them from their homes simply for engaging in political expression,” she said. “Today’s sentencing makes clear that the government’s campaign of intimidation must end.”
