Trump officials were accused of targeting pro-Palestine campus activists, then a judge stepped in with a sharp warning

A federal judge has issued a new order warning the Trump administration against retaliating against campus activists by altering their immigration status. The ruling follows a legal battle in which the court found that senior officials coordinated actions targeting noncitizens who criticized Israel’s war in Gaza or expressed support for Palestinians.

As reported by Yahoo News, the case was brought by two academic organizations that argued immigration enforcement was used to suppress protected speech. The court found that the government’s actions created fear among noncitizen students and faculty members, discouraging them from speaking out.

U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, described the order as a remedial sanction meant to protect noncitizen members of the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. He said the measure was necessary after concluding that constitutional violations had already taken place.

The ruling establishes a presumption against retaliatory enforcement

The decision followed a roughly two-week trial last year, which became the first major trial of President Trump’s second administration. Judge Young found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio took part in what he described as an unconstitutional conspiracy to target noncitizens for deportation in order to chill political speech, an issue unfolding alongside broader political scrutiny, such as Republicans grilling Jack Smith over Trump-era actions.

During the proceedings, the judge sharply criticized the administration, stating that senior officials were not honoring the First Amendment. He said the evidence reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional protections, even when applied to noncitizens lawfully present in the United States, echoing tensions seen in debates like a Trump advisor’s Gaza plans revealed.

Under the new order, the court creates a presumption against the government if a qualifying noncitizen’s immigration status is changed. To receive protection, an individual must show they were a member of one of the plaintiff associations between March 25, 2025, and September 30, 2025, that their immigration status had not expired, and that they had not committed any crimes since September 30, 2025.

If those conditions are met and a person’s status is altered, the court will presume the change was retaliatory. The alteration is void unless the government can demonstrate that the status expired, the individual was convicted of a qualifying crime, or there was a legitimate and appropriate reason under immigration law.

Evidence presented at trial outlined the scope of the targeting effort, including testimony that more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters were flagged for scrutiny. The court also heard that some names were allegedly sourced from the online blacklist Canary Mission, and that Immigration and Customs Enforcement analysts were reassigned from other duties to handle protest-related reports.

Faculty members with green cards testified that high-profile arrests of outspoken students caused fear and discouraged others from expressing their views. The administration has said it plans to appeal the ruling, with officials arguing that visas are a privilege and that immigration law can be used to remove individuals it considers security threats.