A federal lawsuit filed in Boston is challenging the Trump administration’s policy of detaining foreign students and faculty involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy.
The case highlights significant legal questions regarding the government’s capacity to determine removability based on alleged antisemitic actions, particularly in the context of political speech.
The American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association brought the lawsuit forward, arguing that the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department collaborated to identify and target students and professors for deportation due to their pro-Palestinian activism.
A major theme of the trial is the concept of “ideological deportation,” a term used by the Trump administration to justify stripping visas from foreign nationals involved in certain activist activities.
During testimonies over the last two weeks, essential questions arose regarding the government’s definitions of official policies related to visa revocation and the parameters for identifying antisemitism.
One of the witnesses, John Armstrong, a senior official from the Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that expressing support for the end of the Gaza conflict and severing ties with Israel could be classified as antisemitic.
In response, plaintiffs’ attorneys pointed out the lack of a clear governmental definition of antisemitism.
Alexandra Conlon, a plaintiff attorney from Sher Tremonte LLP, pressed Armstrong, indicating that no specific guidelines were provided to the visa office regarding speech or actions considered antisemitic.
Armstrong conceded that he was unaware of any official materials to define antisemitism but emphasized what he described as a common cultural understanding.
Judge William G. Young, overseeing the case, engaged with Armstrong on his interpretation of antisemitism, pushing for clarity on its definition.
Armstrong described antisemitism as biases or actions against Jewish individuals or Israel resulting from hatred.
Conlon argued that this perspective overlooks the complexity of how antisemitism can be misrepresented, especially when critics of Israel assert they are merely opposing the actions of the state rather than targeting Jewish individuals.
The suit has also spotlighted individual cases of foreign students and educators affected by these policies.
Prominent among them is Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University Ph.D. student who was detained by ICE in March.
Öztürk had co-authored an op-ed calling for Tufts to divest from companies linked to the Israeli war in Gaza, which Armstrong acknowledged when he ordered the revocation of her visa.
He claimed that it was not solely her statements that led to the decision, but also her actions, which connected her to a “banned student group”.
However, Conlon countered that the government had not provided evidence of any antisemitic activity linked to Öztürk beyond her affiliation with a student group.
In previous testimonies, the government’s approach to identifying and arresting international students involved in pro-Palestinian protests was described as a priority.
Evidence surfaced during the trial showing that ICE’s action against Öztürk was part of a broader strategy rather than a mere isolated case.
On July 16, Patrick Cunningham, an assistant special agent in charge at Homeland Security Investigations in Boston, testified regarding this prioritization concerning Öztürk’s situation.
He noted that the urgency surrounding her arrest was unprecedented for visa revocation cases.
Armstrong also testified that usually, visa holders are informed about any revocation, yet Öztürk was not notified, despite a request for her to be informed.
Further complicating the matter, a witness linked to the Department of Homeland Security revealed that analysts were directed to use the Canary Mission website to find leads on international students involved in activism.
Hatch, the assistant director for the Office of Investigations within DHS, explained that this website, which is well-known for targeting pro-Palestinian activists, provided a substantial amount of data on protesters.
The extent to which this site has contributed to harassment of students has raised widespread concerns about the legitimacy of the government’s tactics in targeting individuals based on their political beliefs.
Judge Young will ultimately decide if the actions taken by the Trump administration regarding the deportation of foreign students involved in political speech are unconstitutional.
The trial is set to conclude with closing arguments expected on Monday, which may significantly impact the future of how political speech and activism are treated within the realm of immigration policy.
image source from：wgbh
