(Boston) The Trump administration violated the Constitution by targeting non -American citizens and expelling them only because they supported the Palestinians and criticized Israel, a federal judge said on Tuesday. He made a scathing decision directly and strongly criticizing President Donald Trump and his policies, describing them as serious threats to freedom of expression.
The American district judge William Young, in Boston, said he agreed with several university associations that the policy which they qualified as an ideological expulsion violated the first amendment as well as the Administrative procedure lawa law governing the development and publication of regulations by federal agencies. Mr. Young also judged this “arbitrary or capricious policy, because it returns to a previous policy without justification”.
“This case-perhaps the most important ever brought before this district court-clearly raises the question of whether non-American citizens in regular situations in the United States really benefit from the same rights to the freedom of expression as all of us. The Court responds unequivocally to this constitutional question by “yes”, wrote Judge Young, appointed by Republican President Ronald Reagan.
The Department of Internal Security did not immediately respond to a request for comments.
The complainants praised the decision. “The Trump administration’s attempt to expel students because of their political opinions is an attack on the Constitution and a betrayal of American values,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors.
“This trial revealed their true objective: to intimidate and silence anyone who dares to oppose them. If we do not fight back, the police of Trump’s thought will not stop at the Propalenian voices: they will attack anyone who is expressed. »»
The decision was made after a trial during which lawyers’ lawyers presented witnesses attesting that the Trump administration had launched coordinated action to target students and academics who criticized Israel or manifested sympathy for the Palestinians.
“Since the McCarthy era, immigrants have never been the target of such intense repression for legal political remarks,” said Ramya Krishnan, principal lawyer at the Knight First Amendment Institute, in court. This policy creates a climate of fear within university communities and is in contradiction with the first amendment. »»
Lawyers of the Trump administration cited witnesses attesting to the lack of ideological expulsion policy, contrary to what the complainants claimed.
“There is no policy of revoking visas on the basis of freedom of expression,” said Victoria Santora in court. The evidence presented during this trial will demonstrate that the complainants do not dispute anything other than the application of the government’s laws by the government. »»
Reports on 200 demonstrators
John Armstrong, a senior official of the Consular Affairs Office, testified that visa revocations were based on immigration legislation in force for a long time. Mr. Armstrong admitted that he had played a role in the revocation of the visas of several leading activists, including Rumeysa Ozturk and Mahmoud Khalil, and received service notes approving their expulsion.
Mr. Armstrong also insisted that visa revocations were not based on freedom of expression and rejected the accusations that there was a policy aimed at targeting people because of their ideology.
A witness said the campaign was targeting more than 5,000 Propalestinian demonstrators. Of the 5,000 names examined, the investigators have written reports out of approximately 200 of them who have potentially violated US law, testified Peter Hatch, of the Internal Security Investigation Unit of the United States Immigration and Customs Service (ICE).
Until this year, said Mr. Hatch, he did not remember that a demonstrator student was the subject of a visa dismissal request.
Among the people concerned by the reports were Khalil, a Palestinian activist and a graduate of Columbia University, released last month after 104 days of detention in a federal detention center for immigrants. Khalil has become a symbol of the repression of manifestations by Donald Trump.
Ozturk, a student at TUFTS University, was also released in May after six weeks of detention after being arrested in a street in the suburbs of Boston. She said she was illegally owned following a platform she had co -wrote last year and which criticized her university’s response to war in Gaza.
Trump “approves” the suppression of freedom of expression
Judge Young accused the Secretary of Internal Security, Kristi Noem, the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and their agents of having abused their powers to target the Propalestinian non-citizens in order to reduce them to silence and, in so doing, to “intentionally deprive these people (including the complainants here) of the freedom of expression to which they are entitled”.
“In addition, the effect of these targeted expulsion procedures continues to paralyze freedom of expression unconstitutionally to date,” he added.
Mr. Young also criticized Mr. Trump in his 161-page decision, suggesting that he supported this policy, even if he may not have authorized the implementation. “The facts prove that the president himself approves an abolition of the truly scandalous and unconstitutional freedom of expression” on the part of two of his main cabinet secretaries, he wrote.
He also used this decision to attack President Trump’s wider attempt to suffocate dissent and attack anyone in disagreement with him. He started his decision with the words “Trump has presidential graces and tanks. What do you have? “, Registered at the top of the first page.
Judge Young then described Mr. Trump as someone who ignores “the Constitution, our civil laws, our regulations, our customs, our customs, our practices and our politeness”.
“Now that he is our president duly elected after a complete and equitable election, he benefits not only from a large immunity of personal responsibility, but he is also ready to deploy all the resources of the nation to counter any obstruction,” he wrote. A discouraging perspective, isn’t it? »»
