The Illegal Judge Rules Movement against Noncit Protesters

In a harsh decision issued on Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that two federal agencies led a campaign to detain and expel international students and faculty to create a speech to Palestine with the aim of making further protests violate the First Amendment.
“There is no ideological deportation policy,” William G. Young, a senior U.S. District Judge appointed by Reagan, wrote in a 161-page ruling. “Never been a secretary,” he wrote. [Marco Rubio, of the Department of State, and Kristi Noem, of the Department of Homeland Security] The immediate deportation of all pro-Palestine non-citizens from the obvious First Amendment could have caused serious outcry. Instead, the secretary’s intentions were even more shocking – speaking to a few people and then publicly deported using the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (a method that has never been used before) with the aim of curbing the protests of pro-Palestine students and dispatching their views with similar protests and terrorist terrorists (and others) because their views were unwilling, because their opinions were unwilling.
He also made it clear that non-citizens in the United States have the same First Amendment rights as citizens, although during the trial, the Trump administration’s arguments were contrary to that.
The decision is perhaps the most important decision ever to belong to his region, about two months after the two-week trial, in the case of U.S. University professor v. Rubio, during which time employees of the State Department and Department of Homeland Security explained that their mission was to identify pro-Palestinian activists in non-Sita Islands to investigate and deport. Young wrote in his decision that the actions of the departments clearly show that they are working together to carry out targeted deportations with the aim of shocking remarks – such deportations are still felt now.
The plaintiffs include AAUP, whose three chapters are Rutgers, Harvard and New York University, and the Middle East Research Association, celebrated the victory at a remote press conference Tuesday afternoon.
“This is a very important victory and should also have a direct impact on the Trump administration’s policies,” said Ramya Krishnan, the lead litigant in the case and senior staff attorney of the Knights First Amendment Institute. “If the First Amendment means anything, it is that the government cannot imprison you because it doesn’t like the speech you’re involved in, and this decision is really welcome because it reaffirms the basic idea that it is the foundation of our democracy.”
Despite this, despite the victory, several plaintiffs highlighted the federal government’s concerns against students and faculty members who are pro-Palestine non-citizens. AAUP president Todd Wolfson said he believes these actions, along with other federal attacks on academic freedom, pose a greater threat to higher education than McCarthyism.
“The only equivalent may be red panic and McCarthyism, but that’s even worse, right? Because it’s attacking not only individual speech, but also institutional independence and speech, right?” he said. “The Trump administration’s attack on senior ED is the biggest attack we have seen in the history of this country.”
So, what will happen next?
Young previously divided the case into two stages, one focused on government responsibilities and the other focused on plaintiff’s relief. According to Krishnan, the judge will arrange a future hearing to determine such relief. Plaintiff hopes Young will continue to target the government based on political views, allowing the judge to impose an injunction in March.
But Young noted in Tuesday’s ruling that he was unsure what the plaintiff’s remedy might look like in an era when the president always seemed able to avoid pursuing unconstitutional behavior.
“I am worried that President Trump believes that the American people are so different that today they will not stand up and fight and defend our most valuable constitutional values as long as they are delayed to believe that their personal interests will not be affected,” he wrote.
“Is he right?”