BOSTON (AP) – The Trump administration violated the constitution when targeting non-US citizens for deportation solely to support Palestinians Criticizing Israela federal judge said Tuesday that he keenly criticized President Donald Trump and his policies as a serious threat to free speech, and sharply criticised him for being sharply criticized.
Boston US District Judge William Young agreed Several university associations The policies they described as ideological deportation violate the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, the law governing the way federal agencies develop and issue regulations. Young also found that the policy was “arbitrary or whimsical, and therefore reversed the previous policy without inferred explanation.”
“This case – perhaps the most important thing that falls within this district court jurisdiction, it clearly states whether non-citizens who are legally present in the United States actually have the same freedom of speech rights as us.
The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The plaintiff in the case welcomed the verdict.
“The Trump administration’s attempt to deport students for political views is an attack on the constitution and a betrayal of American values,” said Todd Wolfson, chairman of the American Association of Professors’ Associations. “This trial revealed their true purpose: to blackmail and silence anyone who dares to them. If we didn’t fight back, we thought Trump police would not stop at the pro-Palestinian voices.
The ruling came after a trial in which the association’s lawyers presented witnesses who testified that the Trump administration had launched coordinated efforts to target students and academics who criticized Israel or showed sympathy for the Palestinians.
“Since the McCarthy era has been the target of such intense oppression for legal political speeches,” Ramiya Krishnan, senior staff lawyer attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, told the court. “This policy creates a cloud of fear for the university community and is at war with the First Amendment.”
Lawyers for the Trump administration held witnesses who testified that there was no ideological deportation policy, as the plaintiffs argued.
“We have no policy to revoke a visa based on a protected speech,” Victoria Sontra told the court. “The evidence presented in this trial shows that the plaintiff is challenging what is merely a government enforcement of immigration law.”
John Armstrong, director of the Consular Office, testified that the revocation of the visa is based on long-standing immigration laws. Armstrong admitted that he played a role in revoking visas for several well-known activists. Rumeysa Ozturk and Mahmoud Khaliland a note was shown in favour of their removal.
Armstrong also argued that the revocation of the visa was not based on a protected speech and rejected accusations that there was a policy of targeting someone for ideology.
One witness testified that the campaign targets more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters. Of the 5,000 names reviewed, investigators wrote reports on about 200 cases that could violate U.S. law, Peter Hatch of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigation Division testified. Hatch said until this year he couldn’t remember the student protesters introduced to revoke his visa.
Reports included Palestinian activists and Columbia University alumnus Halil. He was released last month in federal immigration custody 104 days later. Halil has become a symbol of Trump’s clampdown against the protest.
The other is Ozturk, a student at Tufts University. Released in May From 6 weeks after detention Arrested on Boston Street, suburb. She said she was illegally detained after a paper she co-authored last year, criticizing her school’s response to the war in Gaza.
The young young people have accused Homeland Security Secretary Christi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his agents of targeting pro-Palestinian non-citizens to silence them, and by doing so, “denying the righteous freedom of speech, including the plaintiffs here).”
Furthermore, the impact of these targeted deportation lawsuits continues to remain unconstitutional to this day to cool free speech,” he added.
Young also criticized Trump in his 161-page ruling, suggesting that he supported the policy, although he may not approve of its operations. “The facts prove that the president himself approves the truly scandalous and unconstitutional oppression of free speech,” he wrote, as part of two senior cabinet secretaries.
He went further, saying that if Trump “forcedly increased attacks on First Amendment values” in recent months, then policies targeting pro-Palestinian activists are part of the pattern.
