Boston judge sides with pro-jihadist sympathizers on college campuses against Trump admin

Boston Judge William G. Young issued a 161-page ruling on Tuesday after the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association brought suit against the Trump administration. Young sided with the academics, saying that the Trump administration was in violation of the First Amendment when Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem determined to invoke the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to deport non-citizens.

That law states that a non-citizen "whose entry or proposed activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is inadmissible." For Rubio and DHS Secretary Noem, these persons include non-citizen students and academics who advocate for anti-semitism and anti-American values on college campuses.

Judge Young sees it differently, saying that the case "squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in the United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally 'yes, they do.'" The Court, Young said, heard the case of "whether the rights of these plaintiffs to constitutional freedom of speech have been unconstitutionally chilled by the deliberate misconduct of any or all of these Public Official defendants."

He concluded that "this Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, together with the subordinate officials and agents of each of them, deliberately and with purposeful aforethought, did so concert their actions and those of their two departments intentionally to chill the rights to freedom of speech and peacefully to assemble of the non-citizen plaintiff members of the plaintiff associations. What remains after issuing this opinion is to consider what, if anything, may be done to remedy these constitutional violations."

While Young takes into consideration the Secretary of State's discretion when it comes to visa revocation, he does not appear to agree with Rubio that academic agitators who advocate against American interests, espouse antisemitism, or participate in violent protests, as were those on many college campuses in 2024, create "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States." Young based his entire ruling on the First Amendment without apparently other considerations.

He said that "Rather, the intent of the Secretaries was more insidious … to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (in ways it had never been used before) to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated non-citizen (and other) pro-Palestinians into silence because their views were unwelcome." In Young's view, it is only the First Amendment, and not national security, that is at stake.

In his ruling, Young states that while the Secretary of State "may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation," that discretion does not permit such revocation to be done on the basis of "past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States." Many student agitators, both American and non-citizen, were arrested following campus protests, while many others were disciplined within the academic environment.

Young also cited a memo from the previous DHS Secretary under Joe Biden, Alejandro Mayorkas, whom the Congress attempted to impeach multiple times due to his flagrant flouting of immigration and border law. But Young feels that his missive offers an argument that bolsters his own ruling. Mayorkas had said that "A noncitizen's race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity, national origin, or political associations shall never be factors in deciding to take enforcement action. A noncitizen's exercise of their First Amendment rights also should never be a factor in deciding to take enforcement action."

Many of those targeted for removal by the Trump administration were engaged in campus actions that went far beyond the exercise of free speech and delved into the realm of violent protests. President Donald Trump issued a statement ahead of taking office, saying, "To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before."

Young doesn't think that's appropriate. He claimed Trump was a "bully" who has a "palpable misunderstanding that the government simply cannot seek retribution for speech he disdains poses a great threat to Americans’ freedom of speech."

"I fear President 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," Young said, in conclusion. "Is he correct?"

 

Judge William G. Young rules against Trump admin deporting extremists by The Post Millennial