Judge warns administration against changing immigration status of students who sued over free speech
A federal judge in Boston has ruled that academics and students who were part of a lawsuit alleging an "unconstitutional conspiracy" by the Trump administration to target them for their pro-Palestinian activism may seek immediate relief if the government attempts to alter their immigration status.
U.S. District Judge William Young, who ruled last year that the government had illegally targeted the students for deportation based on their speech, also unsealed internal government documents that were used as evidence in last year's trial.
The documents, released with Young's ruling on Thursday, included memos from the Department of Homeland Security indicating that the arrests of the five students and academics at the heart of the case -- including Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil -- were recommended based on their involvement in campus protests, writings, and social media posts.
In one document, Homeland Security officials said the agency had "not identified any alternative grounds of removability" for the academics and students apart from a rarely used law that grants the U.S. secretary of state discretion to deport non-citizens based on foreign policy interests.
According to the documents, officials also acknowledged the students and academics were "likely to challenge their removal under this authority" and that courts may "scrutinize the basis for these determinations."
In the case of Khalil and of Mohsen Mahdawi, the Columbia University student and green card holder who was detained in Vermont last year, officials noted that courts might consider their actions "inextricably tied to speech protected under the First Amendment."
Judge Young said Thursday that, under his ruling, any non-citizen challenging a change to their immigration status must prove they are a member of the American Association of University Professors or the Middle East Studies Association, the two groups that sued last year.
The judge added that they must also show their immigration status had not expired and that they had not committed any crime after Sept. 30, 2025.
"Upon such proof, it shall be presumed that the alteration in immigration status is in retribution for the exercise of their First Amendment rights during the course of the present case," the judge said.
