Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk has recently found herself at the center of a national legal and political firestorm. Her arrest by masked agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) set off national reactions. Her arrest came immediately after the publication of this op-ed. In it, she called on her university to do more to protect human rights for those in Gaza. This incident is a reminder of how meaningful immigrants’ freedom of speech rights are here in the United States. It arrives amidst a period of increased violence, or at least threats of violence, during the Donald Trump presidency.
Öztürk’s arrest underscores a larger, deeply disturbing pattern. When immigrants publicly advocate for political issues, they’re increasingly being met with retribution. Judge William Young of the United States District Court for Massachusetts ruled on this issue, emphasizing that the Constitution does not differentiate between those born in the United States and those who arrive as immigrants. This ruling is a welcome relief to organizations suing the Trump administration. Critics argue that it unlawfully restricted the First Amendment rights of foreign nationals, particularly those pushing pro-Palestinian agendas.
In March, Mahmoud Khalil joined demonstrations in support of Palestinians. The green card holder and Columbia University graduate was subsequently arrested during the action. These arrests raise troubling ethical questions. In detail, these reports illuminate how the immigration system has been used as a weapon against noncitizen students simply for expressing their political beliefs. Reports have shown that the Department of Homeland Security’s investigative arm, formerly Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations, typically focuses on drug smuggling and human trafficking. More recently, it has redesigned its mission to detaining noncitizen students who protest.
Judge Young’s ruling reminds us of the fundamental importance of free speech. Specifically, he claims that the First Amendment protects all people in the U.S., regardless of immigration status. He criticized Trump for acting as though these protections apply solely to American citizens, stating, “Noncitizens’ speech rights are identical to those of citizens.” This view is consistent with over a century of judicial precedent. It claims that persons legally living in the U.S.—including immigrants—have a right to constitutional protections.
“Once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.” – Justice Frank Murphy
The implications of Judge Young’s ruling extend beyond individual cases like Öztürk’s and Khalil’s. It underscores a deeper issue—the administration’s pattern of using the immigration system as a tool for political purposes. Academic freedom advocates have already sounded the alarm that this is an attempt to silence oppositional voices in and outside of academia.
Austin Sarat, a legal scholar, pointedly remarked on the situation: “The effort to deport pro-Palestinian student activists reflects a troubling approach to dissent.” Tens of thousands of advocates are united by the conviction that silencing free speech endangers immigrants and the heart of our democratic principles. This aspiration resonates profoundly with everyone who values liberty and justice.
Past examples have established that annoying political speech cannot be a valid ground for being expelled from the United States. Judge Young echoed this sentiment in his ruling, insisting that “political speech is not, on its own, a facially legitimate reason for expelling persons from this country.” He connected these threats to freedoms with a quote from former President Ronald Reagan: “Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction.”
Yet again, the court has ruled that the Trump administration violated free speech on unconstitutional grounds. This misconduct took place in the course of detaining and deporting people such as Öztürk and Khalil. Here, again, is the perpetual tension between national security and civil liberties. Finally, since the mid-20th century, First Amendment jurisprudence has consistently offered individuals protection against deportation. They may not be expelled just because of their ideas or speech.
In his ruling, Judge Young framed the threats faced by immigrants and their categorical exclusion as directly linked with the rights of every American. He reminded readers that “we must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately,” invoking Benjamin Franklin to emphasize solidarity among those who cherish democratic principles.
The impact of these legal rulings could be felt well beyond the specific cases at play. Hostility against immigrants, and for that matter civil rights, is at a boiling point in America today. The actions against Öztürk and Khalil are critical examples of this reality. These incidents test more than legal doctrine – they test moral judgments about what our society really cares about when it comes to free expression.