The judge warned the Trump administration to change the immigration status of the plaintiffs in the First Amendment case

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge ruled Thursday that academics suing alleging that a U.S. policy on college campuses singles out noncitizens for detention or deportation because of their pro-Palestinian activism can seek court relief if their immigration status is changed in retaliation.

The decision by U.S. District Judge William Young came during a hearing last year, in which he ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution by targeting non-U.S. citizens for deportation for supporting the Palestinians and criticizing Israel. Young has repeatedly criticized the administration for violating plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, and on Thursday, he issued “a remedial sanction to protect certain non-citizen members of the plaintiffs from retaliation for the free exercise of their constitutional rights.”

During a hearing earlier this month, Young argued that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and their agents engaged in an “unconstitutional conspiracy” to limit the plaintiffs’ free speech and that they had created a chilling effect on their rights by trying to “select certain individuals.”

“The big problem in this case is that the cabinet secretaries, obviously and the president of the United States, do not respect the First Amendment,” said a young appointee of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan. “This government doesn’t seem to understand what the First Amendment is.”

In his order, Young must prove that the noncitizen challenging his immigration status change is a member of the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, two groups that filed the lawsuit between March 25, 2025, and September 30, 2025. They will have to show their immigration status and that they have not committed a crime since September. 30, 2025. The Associated Press is not aware of any members of these groups whose status has changed because they are part of the lawsuit.

“On such evidence, it will be presumed that the change in immigration status is in retaliation for the exercise of their First Amendment rights during the present case,” Young wrote.

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security did not respond to a request for comment

During last year’s trial, government witnesses admitted that the campaign targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters. Other witnesses for the plaintiffs testified about how the campaign instilled fear in academics and led some to stop their activism.

The case involved Mahmoud Khalil, a former graduate student at Columbia University. Earlier this month, a federal appeals panel overturned a lower court ruling that freed Khalil from immigration prison, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and eventually deporting the Palestinian activist.

A three-judge panel of the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals did not rule on a key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s attempt to expel Khalil from the US because of his campus activism and criticism of Israel was unconstitutional.

But in its 2-1 decision, the panel ruled that a federal judge in New Jersey did not have jurisdiction to rule on the matter at this time. Federal law requires the case to proceed fully through the immigration courts before Khalil can challenge the decision, they wrote.

The decision marked a major victory for the Trump administration’s sweeping campaign to detain and deport non-citizens who have joined anti-Israel protests. But it was not immediately clear whether the government would seek to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his legal challenges continue.

Another was Tufts University student Rumesa Ozturk, who was arrested on a suburban Boston street after a six-week detention in May. She said she was illegally detained after an op-ed piece she co-wrote last year criticizing her school’s response to Israel’s war on Gaza.

During recent hearings in the case, Young repeatedly seemed confused that the country’s top leaders would try to implement such a policy.

“How could this happen? How could the highest officials of our government seek to infringe upon the rights of the people who are lawfully here in the United States of America,” he told the court. “The record of this case convinces me that these high officials, and I, the President of the United States, hold a fearful view of liberty.”

“The administration’s unconscionable attempt to deport pro-Palestinian advocates has struck terror into our campus communities,” said Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, who argued for relief in court.

“Students and scholars should not live in fear that ICE agents can arrest them from their homes just because they engage in political expression,” she said. “Today’s ruling makes it abundantly clear that the administration’s campaign of intimidation must end.”