Federal Judge Condemns Trump Administration’s Deportation Efforts Against Pro-Palestinian Protesters

A Reagan-appointed federal judge delivered a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration Thursday, condemning its efforts to deport pro-Palestinian protesters and academics at major universities as “unconstitutional” and a targeted attempt to suppress free speech.

U.S. District Judge William G. Young, speaking during a remedies hearing in Boston, accused President Trump of acting “illegally” and “intentionally” in targeting noncitizen pro-Palestinian academic protesters on college campuses. The judge’s remarks sparked immediate and fierce pushback from White House officials.

“I find it breathtaking that I have been compelled on the evidence to find the conduct of such high-level officers of our government — cabinet secretaries — conspired to infringe the First Amendment rights of people with such rights here in the United States,” Young stated during the hearing. “These cabinet secretaries have failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.”

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly responded forcefully, calling it “bizarre that this judge is broadcasting his intent to engage in left-wing activism against the democratically elected President of the United States.” A senior Department of Homeland Security official similarly denounced the judge’s comments.

The case stems from a September ruling in which Young sided with the plaintiffs — the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association — finding that the Trump administration’s actions violated First Amendment protections. Thursday’s hearing was meant to determine appropriate remedies to protect the affected noncitizens from deportation or immigration status changes.

Instead, the proceeding evolved into a pointed critique of top administration officials, including President Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Judge Young reserved his most pointed criticism for Trump himself, likening the president’s actions to those of an “authoritarian” leader with a “palpable misunderstanding” of constitutional free speech protections.

“We cast around the word ‘authoritarian,'” Young said. “I don’t, in this context, treat that in a pejorative sense — and I use it carefully — but it’s fairly clear that this president believes, as an authoritarian, that when he speaks, everyone, everyone in Article II is going to toe the line absolutely.”

The judge outlined a draft order he plans to finalize next week detailing conditions under which administration officials can amend the immigration status of the academic groups in question. Despite the administration’s requests, Young also stated his intention to make public much of the evidence used in the case.

Administration lawyers had defended their actions as part of a broader effort to combat antisemitism on college campuses, specifically arguing that the individuals targeted were “pro-Hamas.” However, Judge Young rejected this characterization, stating that Trump and his advisors have adopted a “fearful approach” to freedom of speech designed to “exclude from participation everyone who doesn’t agree with them.”

In response to the judge’s statements, DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin issued a pointed statement: “There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here.”

This is not Judge Young’s first clash with the Trump administration. In June, he ruled that the administration acted illegally in cutting National Institutes of Health research grants, describing the cuts as “appalling” evidence of “racial discrimination” and “discrimination against the LGBTQ community.” The Supreme Court later voted 5-4 to lift Young’s injunction in that case, with two justices criticizing his approach.

The ongoing legal battle highlights the tension between the administration’s immigration enforcement priorities and constitutional free speech protections, particularly in academic settings where pro-Palestinian protests have sparked controversy nationwide.