Trump administration's pro-Palestinian campus activist crackdown put on trial

Yahoo

19 hours ago

The Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists was put on trial Monday, as a federal judge in Boston weighs whether the government's campaign is unlawful.
It marks the first major trial of President Trump's second administration, taking aim at a policy that has led to arrests and efforts to deport foreign-born students and faculty members who claim they were targeted over protected speech.
Those singled out in the lawsuit, including former Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, were deemed threats to the nation's foreign policy by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, but judges have since rejected those determinations, freeing or shielding them from detention.
Several university associations brought the lawsuit, which centers on the policy underpinning the attempted deportations. The groups suggest their members' speech has been chilled because of it.
Ramya Krishnan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said during opening arguments that the plaintiffs intend to present 'unambiguous' evidence the students and faculty were retaliated against for 'constitutionally protected advocacy.'
She said the Department of Homeland Security launched an operation to identify and target students and faculty protesting Israel's war in Gaza, called the Tiger Team. The team prepared reports on at least 100 students, 'potentially hundreds,' she said, and worked with other federal agencies to deport their targets.
U.S. District Judge William Young, an appointee of former President Reagan, immediately identified a 'problem.'
The statute invoked by Rubio makes deportable any noncitizen whose 'presence and activities in the United States' is deemed to have 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences' by the secretary of State.
'How do you deal with that?' he asked. 'That's lawful, isn't it?'
Krishnan said the plaintiffs are not specifically challenging the constitutionality of the foreign policy provision. However, the statute contains a safe harbor that bars deportation 'because of the alien's past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States.' The plaintiffs say the Trump administration's crackdown violates that ban.
'Are you asking me to declare that the conduct of these public officials is unconstitutional as applied, notwithstanding this text?' Young asked.
'That is correct,' Krishnan said.
Justice Department lawyer Victoria Santora called the university associations' case grounded in 'speculation and suspicion.' Though they claim the government is deploying an ideological deportation policy, 'none of that is reality,' she said.
The government intends to call four senior Homeland Security Investigations agents involved in four different arrests to testify and 'debunk' the challengers' theory that the government's arrests are ideologically motivated.
'It's a theory, it's an idea, it's conjecture, and it falls far short of meeting the steep burden plaintiffs face here,' Santora said.
Pressed by Young, Santora initially said the government's view of the First Amendment does refer to 'persons' and that 'people in the United States share the same rights under' the law, making no distinction between citizens and noncitizens.
However, she later clarified 'there are nuances,' pointing to the national security, foreign policy and immigration enforcement issues at hand.
She shut down the plaintiffs' assertion that their noncitizen members have been injured by the Trump administration's policy, suggesting instead that the evidence will show no adverse actions have been taken against those involved in the case.
'Where's the harm — the harm that is essential to prove the plaintiff's case?' Santora said. 'It's illusory.'
As their first witness, the plaintiffs called Northwestern University philosophy professor Megan Hyska, a Canadian citizen who has a U.S. green card and testified that her political speech has been chilled since the deportations of academics critical of the administration.
Hyska testified that the arrests of Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk, in particular, made her aware that engaging in 'public political dissent' could endanger her immigration status.
She called it 'shocking' that Khalil's status as a green card holder did not 'protect him from this treatment,' as news reports and statements by Trump administration officials made her believe his detention was based solely on his political speech. Then came Öztürk's arrest, which Hyska said seemed to be the result of an op-ed the Tufts student wrote in the university's student newspaper.
Since then, she said she's withdrawn from political activity.
She signed a petition under a pseudonym, turned down leadership positions with the Democratic Socialists of America and plans to reassess her Northwestern syllabi to cut back on 'risky' topics. She also declined to attend protests of the Trump administration, because she said she felt 'pretty acutely afraid of being associated with them,' or wore a mask to conceal her identity. And she said she won't return to Canada fearing extra scrutiny upon trying to reenter the U.S.
On cross-examination, Justice Department lawyer William Kanellis pointed to several talks and political meetings Hyska attended since the crackdown on pro-Palestinian protestors began, suggesting her speech wasn't truly chilled. He also said she spoke out against the administration's immigration policies.
But Hyska rejected the government's suggestion that she was not worried about dissenting.
'I have been afraid to speak out,' she said.
The trial is expected to last about two weeks.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.