A rare federal bench trial is underway in Boston, challenging what university advocacy groups describe as a politically motivated immigration policy targeting pro-Palestinian students and faculty. At the heart of the case is whether the Trump administration violated the First Amendment by allegedly detaining, revoking visas from, and deporting noncitizen academics and students based on their views and activities
The trial, which began Monday, marks a significant moment in the legal fight over immigration enforcement and freedom of expression. Filed by national academic organizations, the lawsuit claims the administration’s actions created a chilling effect on campus speech and academic freedom, particularly among those who expressed support for Palestinian rights or criticized U.S. allies.
Professors Take Rare Legal Path to Trial
Unlike most lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, which often end in early judicial rulings, this case is progressing through a full bench trial. U.S. District Judge William Young, known for preferring a fact-driven trial process, is hearing the case without a jury for over two weeks
The plaintiffs are the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which includes Harvard, Rutgers, and New York University chapters, and the Middle East Studies Association. They argue that the federal agencies conducted an orchestrated campaign to suppress campus dissent using immigration enforcement mechanisms—revoking visas, arresting individuals, and ordering deportations
Arrests and Surveillance Spark Fears
Key examples of the alleged policy’s impact include the arrest and prolonged detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate of Columbia University and a Palestinian activist, who was held in immigration custody for over 100 days earlier this year. His case is cited as the first in what plaintiffs say became a broader campaign against outspoken noncitizen students.
Also named in the lawsuit is Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, detained for six weeks in Louisiana after co-authoring an op-ed critical of her university’s stance on the war in Gaza. Plaintiffs allege such incidents prove an evil trend of political expression of retribution.
Several professors have testified that the climate created by these enforcement measures forced them to engage in self-censorship. One described how she refrained from publishing academic articles related to the Middle East for fear of being targeted. Another, a Canadian professor, said she has started considering job opportunities outside the U.S. due to rising anxiety about her immigration status.
Government Denies Existence of Such a Policy
Federal attorneys counter that no formal or informal policy exists targeting students based on ideology. They argue the administration is legally exercising its broad discretion to enforce immigration laws and reject visas for those who pose national security risks.
The government argues the plaintiffs are relying on presumption rather than written orders, stating no rule in law has been violated. They also point out that immigration law allows more limited protections for noncitizens compared to domestic constitutional rights.
What the Court Will Decide
The trial’s outcome hinges on whether Judge Young finds that the administration violated the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act. If that is the case, the court can order a remedy to enjoin similar future enforcement tactics.
Looking Ahead
As the trial enters its second week, more witnesses will take the stand about how the imputed policy impacted their college life and freedom of speech. The case could have far-reaching implications for how political expression by noncitizens is treated under immigration law and whether speech protections extend meaningfully to international members of U.S. universities.
For timely updates and analysis on immigration enforcement and related immigration issues, visit ImmigrationQuestion.com. Get answers to your immigration questions from licensed immigration attorneys. For attorneys, use our innovative 2-in-1 case management software to grow your practice. Download our free app on Google Play and Apple’s App Store.
Resources:
- https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/rare-trial-begin-challenge-trump-backed-deportations-pro-palestinian-campus-2025-07-07/
- https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/article/federal-trial-starts-over-trump-administrations-crackdown-on-pro-palestinian-campus-activists/
- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/07/trial-trump-ideological-deportation-policy-pro-palestinian-students
- https://blog.immigrationquestion.com/news/federal-trial-begins-over-trump-era-deportation-policy-targeting-pro-palestinian-campus-activists/
**ImmigrationQuestion.com is a third-party platform that serves as a meeting ground between licensed immigration attorneys and people with immigration questions. It is not a law firm. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by USCIS or AILA. Attorneys on this platform are independent and have the discretion to offer a free consultation and/or set their own fees under the law.
