The immigration judge ordered Colombian activist Mahmoud Khalil
Mahmoud Khalil, a former Colombian student who has become lightning over Palestinian protests, is one step closer to deportation.
Straight Arrow News
- US District Court Judge William Young published his opinion on September 30 in AAUP v. Rubio, a lawsuit relating to the Trump administration’s efforts to deport foreign-born student protesters.
- Young added that such actions were unconstitutional and that the case was “probably the most important” because it was within the jurisdiction of his court.
- The Trump administration condemned the ruling and vowed to appeal.
The September 30th opinion from a federal judge in Boston who opposed President Donald Trump’s administration began in an unusual way with scanned, handwritten notes sent to his office.
“Trump has pardons and tanks – what do you have?” Read the note dated June 19th at the top of US District Judge William Young’s opinion.
“Dear Anonymous or Anonymous” reads the beginning of Young’s typed response. “I have nothing but a sense of duty. People of the United States – you and me – have our grand constitution. Here’s how it works in certain cases.”
His 161-page opinion concluded in his finding that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Department of Homeland Security’s Christi Noem, along with his subordinates, misused the falsehood of “non-citizen parents – Palestinians targeting deportation primarily for first-ended political speeches.”
It was a “really monumental” verdict, said George Wang, a staff lawyer at Knight’s First Amendment Institute. The organization represents the Plaintiffs – the American Association of University Professors and its chapters, and the Middle East Studies Association.
White House spokesman Liz Houston told USA Today he “will appeal this false decision immediately.”
USA Today reached the court for comment.
Here’s what you need to know about the case and its First Amendment impact:
What do you say about the ruling?
His ruling was in favor of the plaintiffs, but Young opposed the Trump administration’s notion of an “ideological deportation policy.”
Rather, the secretary “treated several to speak out, and tried to use the full rigorousness of the immigration and nationality laws – in a way that has never been used before – to curb the protests of Palestinian students and to be silent on similarly positioned non-citizens, which terrorize Palestinians.
Young said Noem and Rubio “intentionally and in concert” implemented Trump’s executive order in “a perspective-discriminatory way to make protected speeches cold.”
“This conduct violated the First Amendment,” he wrote.
What else did the judge say about the initial amendment and non-citizenship?
Young said it depends on whether a non-citizen in law has a right to free speech, adding that the case is “probably the most important” because it is within his court’s jurisdiction.
“Of course, no one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, but these restrictions are the same for both citizens and non-citizens,” Young wrote.
Wang said Young’s ruling was “really important to understand the country’s first amendment.”
“It shows how valuable our initial freedom of revision is and shows that they need intense defense,” he said.
Houston said Trump “is a solid supporter and advocate for the First Amendment rights, but violent riots and student harassment are not protected speeches.”
What else has the Trump administration said about the ruling?
Houston called the rule “outrageous” and “thwarts the safety and security of our country.”
“It’s amazing that even after terrorist attacks and recent riot police arrested a gun with a gun outside the ice facility, the judge decided to blow the embers of hatred,” said Homeland Security Deputy Director Tricia McLaughlin.
State Department spokesman Tommy Piggott said the country “has no obligation to allow foreign foreigners to come to our country, commit anti-Americans, professional terrorists, anti-Semitic acts of hatred and incite violence.”
“We will continue to revoke visas for those who put the safety of our citizens at risk,” he said.
Who is Judge William Young?
Young is a Harvard Law School graduate who has been on the bench for 40 years.
In June, Young blocked the end of the National Institute of Health Administration, which significantly cut funding for research related to minority communities.
“I hesitate to draw this conclusion, but I have an unlinear duty to draw it. This represents racism,” Young said, according to the New York Times.
Young’s September 30th opinion ended when it began and ended with a response to anyone who submitted a handwritten note.
“I hope this helps,” he wrote. “Thank you for writing. It shows you’re being careful with you. You should.”
Brieanna Frank is the first amendment reporter for USA Today. Contact her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.
Reports on the First Amendment issue for USA Today are funded through collaborations between the Freedom Forum and Journalism’s fundraising partners. Funders do not provide editor input.
