During a recent trial concerning the Trump administration’s immigration policies, officials from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) testified that the prioritization of immigration law enforcement increased significantly following the inauguration of President Donald Trump.
The testimony occurred during the seventh day of proceedings in a lawsuit filed by several higher education organizations, including the American Association of University Professors. The lawsuit challenges the administration’s approach to arresting and detaining noncitizen students and supporters of pro-Palestinian activism.
One focus of the trial is the case of Öztürk, who was arrested in March by immigration agents while walking on a street in Somerville. After being held for over six weeks at a detention facility in Louisiana, a judge in Vermont ordered her release as she contests her deportation.
U.S. District Judge William G. Young is tasked with determining whether the plaintiffs have established that the administration’s efforts to revoke the visas of pro-Palestinian protestors violate their First Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedure Act.
On Tuesday, multiple ICE officials, including those from the Boston, New England, New York, and Washington D.C. offices of Homeland Security Investigations, testified that since January, there has been a clear directive to prioritize immigration enforcement over criminal cases that had previously garnered more focus.
Cunningham, a key figure in the testimony, admitted that prior to these recent changes, he had little experience managing immigration cases of this nature.
He revealed that before Öztürk’s arrest, he consulted with an attorney from ICE’s Office of the Principal Legal Advisor to ensure that the agency was acting within legal bounds.
In previous testimonies, Peter Hatch, an assistant director from an ICE intelligence office, mentioned that analysts were instructed to investigate a pro-Israel website, which had listings of over 5,000 individuals who publicly supported the Palestinian cause. This investigation team was referred to internally as the Tiger Team.
The team used the website Canary Mission extensively, which identified international students associated with protests against the war in Gaza, including Öztürk, as part of the Trump administration’s intensified efforts to counter pro-Palestinian movements on college campuses. The plaintiffs argue that their visibility on the website has led to harassment and doxxing.
During the proceedings, an attorney for the plaintiffs produced a document labeled “Report of Analysis,” which served as ICE’s subject profile on Öztürk. This report was partially revealed in court for the first time.
Cunningham, who supervised Öztürk’s arrest, stated that he had received an email containing a memo from the State Department attached, indicating that Öztürk’s visa had been revoked. Included was a copy of an op-ed that Öztürk co-authored, advocating for Tufts University to divest from companies with ties to Israel. When pressed for similar communications he had received during his tenure, Cunningham acknowledged that he could not recall any.
The court heard that when asked if there had been an intention to keep Öztürk’s visa revocation secret, Cunningham affirmed, “We did not plan on alerting her to the fact that her visa had been revoked.”
Furthermore, John Armstrong, a senior official from the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, confirmed that Öztürk was not informed about her visa revocation due to a request from ICE, which aimed to facilitate her removal from the United States. Armstrong stated that it is typically standard protocol for the State Department to inform visa holders of revocations.
Cunningham also testified that he was the agent who signed the arrest warrant against Öztürk, confirming that her arrest was predicated on the cancellation of her visa, which rendered her in violation of immigration laws. Judge Young remarked during the testimony that not everyone whose visa is revoked is arrested, emphasizing the broader implication of the case.
The judge noted he was in possession of various documents linked to Öztürk’s arrest but was unable to share them with the plaintiffs due to a federal appeals court ruling that requires them to remain sealed. This order is currently under consideration as the court weighs the government’s request to classify the documents as privileged.
In addition to Cunningham’s testimony, other ICE agents involved in the arrests of students vocal about their pro-Palestinian views were called to testify. The agents narrated that they were directed by their superiors to act quickly upon notifications from the Department of State regarding these scholars’ violations of immigration laws, leading to their apprehensions.
The case unfolds against the backdrop of deepened divisions in immigration enforcement practices under the Trump administration, with implications for the First Amendment rights of individuals associated with political activism in educational settings.
As the trial continues, the outcomes could set significant precedents regarding the intersection of immigration law enforcement and freedom of expression.
image source from：bostonglobe
