BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge ruled Thursday that academics who are parties to a lawsuit alleging that U.S. policy singles out non-citizens for detention or deportation because of their pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses can seek relief from the court if their immigration status is changed as punishment for participating in the case.
The ruling by US District Judge William Young follows last year’s trial, in which he ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution when it targeted non-US citizens for deportation solely for supporting the Palestinians and criticizing Israel. Young has repeatedly chastised the administration for violating the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, and on Thursday issued what he described as a “remedial sanction to protect some of the plaintiffs’ non-citizen members from any retaliation for the free exercise of their constitutional rights.”
During a hearing in the case earlier this month, Young alleged 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, creating a chilling effect on their rights through their attempts to “carry out certain individuals.”
“The big issue in this case is that cabinet secretaries, apparently and the president of the United States, are not honoring the First Amendment,” said Young, an appointee of the late Republican President Ronald Reagan. “There doesn’t seem to be an understanding of what the First Amendment is by this government.”
In his ruling, Young said a non-citizen contesting a change in his immigration status would have to prove he was a member of the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, the two groups that sued, between March 25, 2025 and Sept. 30, 2025. He would also have to show his immigration status after no felony convictions and no expired offense has not expired. The Associated Press is not aware of any members of these groups whose status has changed because they are part of the lawsuit.
“Upon such a showing, the change in immigration status will be presumed to be in retaliation for exercising their First Amendment rights in the instant 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 acknowledged that the campaign targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters. Other witnesses for the plaintiffs testified about how the campaign instilled fear among academics and caused some to stop their activism.
Among the cases fueling the lawsuit was that of former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil. Earlier this month, a federal appeals panel overturned a lower court decision that freed Khalil from an immigration prison, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and eventually deporting the Palestinian activist.
The three-judge panel of the US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals did not decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort 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 does not have jurisdiction to decide the issue at this time. Federal law requires the case to go fully through the immigration courts before Khalil can appeal the decision, they wrote.
The decision marked a major victory for the Trump administration’s sweeping campaign to detain and deport citizens who have joined anti-Israel protests. But it was not immediately clear whether the government would try to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his legal challenges continue.
Another was Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, who was released in May from six weeks in detention after being arrested on a suburban Boston street. She said she was illegally detained following an op-ed she co-wrote last year criticizing her school’s response to Israel’s war in Gaza.
During the latest hearing in the case, Young repeatedly seemed baffled 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 try to violate so many people’s rights legally here in the United States,” he told the court. “The document in this case convinces me that these high officials, which include the President of the United States, have a fearful view of liberty.”
Ramya Krishnan, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, which advocated in court, said the administration’s “lawless efforts to deport pro-Palestinian attorneys have spread terror in our campus communities.”
“Students and scholars should not have to live in fear that ICE agents could take them from their homes just because they engage in political expression,” she said. “Today’s ruling makes it clear that the administration’s campaign of intimidation must end.”