US judge rules targeting noncitizens for pro-Palestine views is unconstitutional

A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled on Tuesday that the Trump administration's attempts to detain and deport noncitizens for pro-Palestine views were illegal and unconstitutional.

In a 161-page rebuke, US District Judge William Young in Boston concluded that Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio sought to "misuse" their sweeping powers to target those with pro-Palestine views for deportation primarily on account of political speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

Judge Young added that they did so to "strike fear" among other non-citizens with pro-Palestine views, thereby curbing lawful pro-Palestine speech and intentionally denying such individuals the freedom of speech that is their right.

The effect of these targeted deportation proceedings, he said, "continues unconstitutionally to chill freedom of speech to this day".

The ruling comes after the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) brought a court case against the government in March, accusing them of unconstitutionally deporting people in violation of their First Amendment rights. The decision was deliberating on whether the Trump administration had implemented an unlawful policy.

The suit followed a push by the Trump administration to detain and deport noncitizen students from March onwards. Some high profile cases included Mahmoud Khalil, Rumeysa Ozturk, Bader Khan Suri and Mohsen Mahdawi. Other students who were unsuccessfully targeted were Yunseo Chung and Ranjani Srinivasan.

According to Rubio, hundreds of student visas have been cancelled, some of which were later reversed.

The US Department of Justice in reaction to the ruling said there was no ideological deportation policy according to Reuters.

But in March, Rubio publicly implied that revocations were being done along ideological lines.

"We gave you a visa to come and study and get a degree, not to become a social activist that tears up our university campus. We've given you a visa and you decide to do that - we're going to take it away," Rubio said during a press conference in Guyana.

"At some point, I hope we run out because we've gotten rid of all of them, but we're looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up," he said. 

The students who were detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents were transferred to Texas and Louisiana, and spent weeks and months in detention without being accused of any crime.

The judge's ruling stopped short of blocking the government from further deportations.

'Freedom is a fragile thing'

Judge Young, however, did not stop at criticism of Secretaries Noem and Rubio, but criticised President Trump as well, splitting his critique into four categories.

"Triumphalism is the very essence of the Trump brand," Young wrote in a section about Trump's wins. "Often this is naught but hollow bragging: 'my perfect administration', wearing a red baseball cap in the presidential oval office emblazoned 'Trump Was Right About Everything', or most recently depicting himself as an officer in the First Cavalry Division," he added.

"Unfortunately, this tends to obscure the very real and sweeping changes President Trump has wrought in his first year in office."

Trump administration backtracks on cancelling thousands of foreign student visas

Read More »

Young then went on to say that Trump "ignores everything", including the "constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies – all of it; the president simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act".

Young added that Trump "keeps bullying" and used social media, print and television to "dominate today's American idiom". He described Trump's speech as "triumphal, transactional, imperative, bellicose and coarse. It seeks to persuade - not through marshalling data-driven evidence, science or moral suasion, but through power... what he will not countenance is dissent or disagreement".

He also said Trump was prone to retribution.

"Government retribution for speech (precisely what has happened here [in the court case]) is directly forbidden by the First Amendment," Young wrote. "The president's palpable misunderstanding that the government simply cannot seek retribution for speech he disdains poses a great threat to Americans' freedom of speech."

Young then extolled the virtue of freedom, saying it is "a fragile thing and it's never more than one generation away from extinction... it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation".

He wrote that he feared Trump "believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected".

The Trump administration has repeatedly argued that noncitizens don't have the same free speech rights as US citizens when on American soil, but the judge disagreed with this interpretation of civil rights.

"This case - perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court - squarely presents the issue whether noncitizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this constitutional question unequivocally 'yes, they do'."