A federal judge in Massachusetts has sharply rebuked the Trump administration's immigration crackdown on pro-Palestinian college campus activists and invoked his own wife in the process.
In a 161-page opinion issued September 30, U.S. District Judge William Young quoted his wife's remark that former President Donald Trump "seems to be winning. He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead," saying it "perfectly captures" Trump's public approach to power.
Young said that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio "deliberately and with purposeful aforethought" used immigration powers to chill noncitizens' free speech, setting up a likely appellate fight over how far a president can go in linking immigration enforcement to political dissent.
Why It Matters
Young's ruling goes beyond one immigration dispute, drawing a clear constitutional boundary on presidential power. By affirming that noncitizens lawfully in the United States share First Amendment protections, the decision limits the government's ability to use deportation threats to stifle speech and reinforces academic freedom on U.S. college campuses.
Young underscored the stakes by invoking his wife's concerns about unchecked presidential action, using that perspective to frame the risk that executive power can silence dissent.
It also sets up a broader debate over the scope of presidential authority in shaping immigration policy in relation to foreign policy or national security concerns.
The decision—one of the first major legal tests of Trump's second-term immigration agenda—rejected the administration's argument that it was acting to protect national security. Instead, Young found that the government's approach aimed to deter dissent on U.S. campuses by threatening students and faculty with visa revocation or deportation.
The administration has stated that it will appeal the limits of presidential authority to tie immigration enforcement to political expression.
The ruling followed a nine-day bench trial brought by several academic associations, including the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association.
The plaintiffs challenged a policy under which foreign students and lawful permanent residents critical of Israel's conduct in Gaza were investigated and, in some cases, detained or targeted for deportation.
Judge Young rejected the administration's contention that the policy was a routine application of immigration law, writing that officials "misuse[d] the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech."
The ruling scrutinized the administration's actions in early 2025, after Trump issued a series of executive orders linking immigration enforcement to national security and antisemitism.
The Department of Homeland Security's investigative arm compiled "reports of analysis" on student protesters, drawing on names from sources such as the pro-Israel Canary Mission website, according to trial testimony from Homeland Security Investigations Assistant Director Peter Hatch.
Hatch said analysts who typically worked on counterterrorism and cybercrime were reassigned to review protest activity "because of the workload."
How The Policy Emerged
Academic witnesses described a chilling effect on speech. Megan Hyska, a Canadian citizen and philosophy professor at Northwestern University, testified she abandoned plans to publish an op-ed critical of the Trump administration after the high-profile arrest of Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil.
"It became apparent to me…that my engaging in public political dissent would potentially endanger my immigration status—that I risked detention and deportation for being publicly politically critical of the Trump administration," Hyska told the court.
Inside The Trial
Administration lawyers denied any intent to suppress speech. Justice Department attorney William Kanellis called the plaintiffs' claims "a product of the imagination and creative conjuring," arguing no formal "ideological deportation policy" existed.
The White House responded to the decision by stating that it would appeal, with spokeswoman Liz Huston calling the ruling "outrageous."
"The President is a staunch supporter and defender of First Amendment rights, but violent riots and student harassment are not protected speech," Huston said.
The Court's Findings
Judge Young's opinion also contained unusually personal commentary about presidential power, but in quoting his wife, who he noted was speaking in a different context, Young stressed he was not labeling Trump lawless but observed that "he can do most anything until an aggrieved person or entity will stand up and say him 'Nay.'"
While the decision resolved the core constitutional question—affirming that noncitizens lawfully present in the United States enjoy First Amendment free speech protections—it left open the question of what remedies might follow for those affected.
Young called the dispute "perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court."
What People Are Saying
U.S. District Judge William Young's AAUP v. Rubio opinion, September 30, 2025: "This Court must draw the most reasonable inference: that the manner and method of their execution was adopted or at least approved of once the first such arrest had been made, in part intentionally to chill the speech of other would-be pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speakers."
Canadian-born professor and plaintiff witness Megan Hyska, testifying about why she came forward despite fear of retaliation: "If noncitizens aren't willing to take the risk, it won't move forward at all."
Homeland Security Investigations Assistant Director of Intelligence Peter Hatch's testimony about how the "Tiger Team" built reports on student protesters: "Most of those names came from Canary Mission, a pro-Israel website that is anonymously run… I was not given a deadline, but I knew … that we needed to work through this expeditiously."
What Happens Next
The plaintiffs challenging the Trump administration won a major victory, but the case isn't over. Young still must decide what remedies to order, such as restoring visas or blocking similar deportations, while the Trump administration has vowed to appeal immediately to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
That ruling could then be taken to the Supreme Court, setting up a potential test of how far presidential immigration powers can go when they collide with First Amendment protections for noncitizens.