A federal trial in Boston is currently examining the Trump administration’s deportation tactics targeting pro-Palestinian activists, including Tufts University doctoral student Rumeysa Öztürk.
Testimony from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Patrick Cunningham revealed that the operation to arrest Öztürk was so unusual that he needed to confirm the legality of the decision with a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorney.
Cunningham, who oversaw Öztürk’s arrest in March, noted that he had no knowledge of any criminal activity committed by her.
Öztürk was detained by ICE for two months before being released in May.
Cunningham explained to the court, “When you receive information from headquarters at this level, top down, you make the assumption that it’s legally sufficient.
But I did contact our legal counsel to ensure that we’re on solid legal ground.”
Mahsa Khanbabai, Öztürk’s attorney, indicated that the case has been primarily about retaliating against and punishing protected speech, rather than immigration enforcement.
Khanbabai expressed confidence that the legal system would uphold the principles of a fair society.
Cunningham’s statements are part of a trial where five academic organizations are arguing that Öztürk’s detainment, along with others’ attempted deportations, infringed upon First Amendment rights.
ICE agents arrested Öztürk in late March, following allegations by the DHS that she supported Hamas through her activism and writings.
In her previous op-ed for the student newspaper, she called for Tufts to recognize what she referred to as the “Palestinian genocide” and recommended divesting from companies connected to Israel.
Tufts University has denied any wrongdoing in relation to her op-ed.
Cunningham testified that he shared pertinent information about Öztürk with other agents to aid in her apprehension.
Significantly, Cunningham acknowledged having read the op-ed prior to her arrest, stating, “I didn’t see anything in the op-ed suggesting she committed a crime.”
Throughout his career, Cunningham has mostly engaged in drug enforcement and financial crimes, and admitted he had little prior experience dealing with arrests based on visa revocations.
However, he mentioned that following President Donald Trump’s inauguration, several meetings were conducted regarding how these types of arrests could become a priority for the agency.
He specified that the orders for Öztürk’s arrest came directly from DHS headquarters.
“I can’t recall a time that it’s come top down like this with a visa revocation—under my purview anyway,” Cunningham testified.
Öztürk was moved to three different facilities after her arrest before finally being placed in an ICE center in rural Louisiana.
Judge William K. Sessions III subsequently ordered her release in May, stating, “I am not going to put a travel restriction on her, because, frankly, I don’t find that she poses any risk of flight.”
As the trial approaches its conclusion, the dramatic testimonies have laid bare the motivations and methods behind the actions taken against Öztürk and similar individuals.
Earlier in the proceedings, Peter Hatch, a senior DHS investigations official, made a significant revelation that most of the names of student activists flagged by the agency for scrutiny originated from a controversial organization known as Canary Mission.
This group maintains a detailed database of students and educators alleged to have expressed anti-Israel and antisemitic sentiments.
Hatch clarified, “I can say that Canary Mission is not part of the U.S. government.
It is not information that we would take as an authoritative source, and we do not work with the individuals who create the website.”
He further stated, “I don’t know who creates the website.
We don’t have a relationship with the creators of the website.”
The trial, which could mark a pivotal moment in the intersection of immigration enforcement and freedom of speech, is expected to conclude this week with closing arguments scheduled for Friday.
image source from：nbcnews
