Federal Judge Protects Academic Freedom for Non-Citizens in Pro-Palestinian Speech Case

A federal judge in Boston ruled Thursday that non-citizen academics involved in a lawsuit alleging discrimination for pro-Palestinian activism will receive special protection from potential immigration retaliation.

U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, established a legal mechanism allowing non-citizens to seek court relief if their immigration status changes in what appears to be retribution for their participation in the case.

The ruling follows Young’s determination last year that the Trump administration violated constitutional rights when it targeted non-U.S. citizens for deportation based solely on their support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel.

“The big problem in this case is that the cabinet secretaries, ostensibly and president of the United States, are not honoring the First Amendment,” Young said during recent proceedings. “There doesn’t seem to be an understanding of what the First Amendment is by this government.”

During a hearing earlier this month, Young asserted that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and their agents engaged in an “unconstitutional conspiracy” to restrict free speech rights. He accused the administration of creating a chilling effect by attempting to “pick off certain people” who expressed pro-Palestinian views.

The judge appeared visibly troubled by high-ranking officials’ disregard for constitutional protections, stating in court: “How could this happen? How could our government’s highest officials seek to so infringe on the rights of people lawfully here in the United States? The record in this case convinces me that these high officials, and I include the president of the United States, have a fearful view of freedom.”

Protection for Academic Freedom

According to Young’s ruling, non-citizens challenging immigration status changes would need to prove they were members of either the American Association of University Professors or the Middle East Studies Association—the organizations that filed the lawsuit—between March 25 and September 30, 2025. Additionally, they must demonstrate their immigration status had not expired and that they hadn’t committed crimes after September 30.

“Upon such proof, it shall be presumed that the alteration in immigration status is in retribution for the exercise during the course of the present case of their First Amendment rights,” Young wrote in his decision.

The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to requests for comment on the ruling.

High-Profile Cases Underpinning the Lawsuit

The legal challenge gained prominence through several high-profile deportation attempts targeting pro-Palestinian voices on college campuses. Government witnesses acknowledged during last year’s trial that the administration’s campaign targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters nationwide.

Among the most notable cases is that of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student. Earlier this month, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had released Khalil from immigration detention. The 2-1 panel ruling determined that Khalil’s case must fully proceed through immigration courts before he can challenge the government’s actions in federal court.

While the appeals court didn’t address whether the administration’s deportation effort was unconstitutional, the decision represented a significant victory for the Trump administration’s broader campaign against non-citizen protesters. It remains unclear whether authorities will seek to detain Khalil again while legal proceedings continue.

Another case involves Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University student who was released in May after six weeks in detention. Öztürk was arrested on a suburban Boston street following an op-ed she co-authored criticizing her university’s response to Israel’s war in Gaza.

Impact on Academic Communities

Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute, which advocated for relief in court, emphasized the ruling’s significance: “The administration’s lawless efforts to deport pro-Palestinian advocates has spread terror in our campus communities. Students and scholars shouldn’t have to live in fear that ICE agents could seize them from their homes merely for engaging in political expression.”

Witnesses for the plaintiffs testified during last year’s trial about how the government’s campaign generated fear among academics and prompted many to cease their activism entirely. The judge’s new protective order represents a significant guardrail against what he characterized as retaliatory immigration enforcement.

“Today’s judgment makes emphatically clear that the administration’s campaign of intimidation must end,” Krishnan added.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between national security priorities, immigration enforcement, and constitutional protections for free speech—particularly as they apply to non-citizens engaged in controversial political discourse on American college campuses.