‘Full-throated assault on the First Amendment’: Judge rips into Trump over attempts to deport pro-Palestinian academics

By Devan Cole, Holmes Lybrand, CNN

(CNN) — A federal judge on Tuesday delivered an extraordinary 161-page rebuke of President Donald Trump, ruling that the administration impermissibly chilled the protected political speech of university professors and students by targeting non-citizens on college campuses who have spoken out in support of Palestinians.

Judge William G. Young lambasted Trump and his administration for attacking free speech “under the cover of an unconstitutionally broad definition of Anti-Semitism” used in efforts to deport non-citizen activists.

Notably, Young devoted more than a dozen pages of his decision to discussing in stark terms the president himself, the First Amendment and the state of the country, in ways seldom seen by any federal judge – let alone in a formal ruling.

Trump’s conduct, the judge wrote, violated the sacred oath of a president to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” and the actions of his administration represented a “full-throated assault on the First Amendment.”

Young cited President Ronald Reagan, who nominated him to the federal bench in Massachusetts in 1985, as saying that “freedom is a fragile thing” and must be fought for “constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.”

That warning, Young said, has been ignored.

“I fear (Trump) has drawn from it a darker, more cynical message” from Reagan, the judge wrote. “I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected.”

“Is he correct?” Young asked.

Efforts to deport pro-Palestinian protesters

The case centers on efforts by the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to deport pro-Palestinian non-citizen professors and students who’ve protested the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and their subordinates, Young wrote, “acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech.”

“They did so in order to strike fear into similarly situated non-citizen pro-Palestinian individuals, pro-actively (and effectively) curbing lawful pro-Palestinian speech and intentionally denying such individuals (including the plaintiffs here) the freedom of speech that is their right,” Young wrote.

Young, highlighting the significance of the case, wrote that it is “perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court” and “squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us.”

Singling Rubio and Noem out, Young wrote the secretaries never intended to deport all pro-Palestinian non-citizens in one large swoop.

“Rather, the intent of the Secretaries was more invidious,” Young wrote, adding that Rubio and Noem sought “to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (in ways it had never been used before) to have them publicly deported.”

The goal, Young wrote, was to tamp down “pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated non-citizen (and other) pro-Palestinians into silence because their views were unwelcome.”

“The Secretaries have succeeded, apparently well beyond their immediate intentions,” Young wrote.

The judge added that while it would be speculation to suggest the secretaries were acting under the direction of Trump, it’s clear Trump “wholeheartedly supported it” and his comments “demonstrate he has been fully briefed.”

Trump’s conduct, Young wrote, violated the sacred oath of a president to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Masks and a weaponized government

One issue at play during the trial was the use of masks by ICE agents, who claim to wear masks to protect their identity, avoiding targeting or doxxing.

“ICE goes masked for a single reason – to terrorize Americans into quiescence,” Young wrote, noting that while ICE “seems to need” the National Guard to protect them, “our troops do not ordinarily wear masks.

“Can you imagine a masked marine? It is a matter of honor – and honor still matters,” Young wrote. “In all our history we have never tolerated an armed masked secret police. Carrying on in this fashion, ICE brings indelible obloquy to this administration and everyone who works in it.”

Young lamented that “perhaps we’re now afraid to stick our necks out” against such action by the federal government.

“If the distinguished Homeland Security intelligence agency can be weaponized to squelch the free speech rights of a small, hapless group of non-citizens in our midst, so too can the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and the audit divisions of the I.R.S. and the Social Security Administration,” Young wrote.

The judge warned the federal government could “be weaponized against the President’s ever growing list of ‘enemies’ or opponents he ‘hates’ notwithstanding that political persecution is anathema to our Constitution and everything for which America stands.”

“The only Constitutional rights upon which we can depend are those we extend to the weakest and most reviled among us,” Young concluded.

“No one should have to live in fear that they could be seized by ICE agents for their political expression,” said Ramya Krishnan, an attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute, which represents the professors in the case.

An outspoken Trump critic

Young has been especially outspoken this year about controversial Trump administration actions that are being litigated before him.

In a case over the government’s decision to halt hundreds of millions of dollars in public health grants that officials say touch on race and gender issues, the judge said earlier this year that he had “never seen government racial discrimination like this.”

His rulings in that matter have resulted in numerous appeals to the Supreme Court, which has said the judge erred by requiring the administration to revive the health grants. Young later apologized in court after Justice Neil Gorsuch admonished lower courts in a concurring opinion for not following the Supreme Court’s prior orders.

Judge pushes back on ominous letter

Young included at the top of his ruling a copy of a handwritten post card that was sent to him in June from an anonymous individual.

“TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS …. WHAT DO YOU HAVE?” the card read, according to the ruling.

In a short message addressed to the card’s sender, the judge wrote: “Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States – you and me – have our magnificent Constitution. Here’s how that works out in a specific case.” The opinion then follows.

At the very end of the opinion, the judge addresses the card’s sender again: “I hope you found this helpful. Thanks for writing. It shows you care. You should.”

A postscript from the judge implores the card’s sender to come to his Boston courthouse to watch the judicial system play out in person.

“It is here, and in courthouses just like this one, both state and federal, spread throughout our land that our Constitution is most vibrantly alive, for it is well said that ‘Where a jury sits, there burns the lamp of liberty,’” Young wrote.

This story has been updated with additional details.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2025 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.