BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge ruled Thursday that academics who are party to a lawsuit alleging that U.S. policy singles out noncitizens 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 in retribution for taking part in the case.
US District Judge William Young’s ruling followed a trial last year, in which he ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution by targeting 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 certain non-citizen members of the Plaintiffs from any retribution for the free exercise of their constitutional rights.”
During the hearing in the case earlier this month, Young claimed that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and their agents were involved in an “unconstitutional conspiracy” to limit the plaintiffs’ free speech, and created a chilling effect on their rights with their attempts to “take away certain people.”
“The big problem in this case is that the 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 that a non-citizen contesting the change in his or her immigration status would have to prove that he or she 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 September 30, 2025. They would also have to show their immigration status. 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 proof, it must be presumed that the change in immigration status is in retribution for the exercise during the course of the present case of their First Amendment rights,” 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 actors testified how the campaign caused fear among the academics and led some to stop their activism.
Among the cases that raised the cause was that of former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil. Earlier this month, a federal appeals panel reversed a lower court ruling that freed Khalil from immigration detention, bringing the government one step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian activist.
The three-judge panel of the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals did not decide the main issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the US because of his activism and criticism on Israel campuses was unconstitutional.
But in its 2-1 decision, the panel ruled that a federal judge in New Jersey did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time. Federal law requires the case to proceed fully through the immigration courts first, before Khalil can challenge the decision, they wrote.
The decision marked a major victory for the Trump administration’s massive campaign to detain and deport non-citizens who 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 Rümeysa Öztürk, who in May was released from six weeks of detention after being arrested on a suburban Boston street. She said she was illegally detained after an op-ed piece she co-wrote last year that criticized her school’s response to Israel’s war in Gaza.
During the last hearing in the case, Young repeatedly appeared concerned that the country’s top leaders would try to implement such a policy.
“How can this happen? How can the highest officials of our government seek to violate the rights of people legally here in the United States like this,” he told the court. “The record in this case convinces me that these high officials, and I include the president of the United States, have an appalling view of liberty.”
Ramya Krishnan, a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, who argued for relief in court, said the administration’s “lawless efforts to deport pro-Palestinian advocates have spread terror in our campus communities.”
“Students and scholars should not have to live in fear that ICE agents may abduct them from their homes simply for engaging in political expression,” she said. “Today’s ruling makes it emphatically clear that the administration’s campaign of intimidation must end.”