A federal judge has ordered the transfer of Rümeysa Öztürk from a detention facility in Louisiana to custody in Vermont, amidst ongoing debates over her immigration case and the jurisdictional authority of different courts.
The ruling came shortly after a federal immigration judge denied bond to Öztürk based on arguments from government lawyers, who labeled her as both ‘a flight risk and a danger to the community.’
These recent decisions raise significant questions regarding where Öztürk’s case should be heard—whether in an immigration court or a federal district court.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a ruling on Öztürk’s transfer after her legal team requested she be moved to Vermont by Friday.
In his decision, Sessions maintained that the federal government had ignored a previous federal judge’s order from Boston that designated Vermont as the appropriate venue for her case.
He expressed his disapproval of what he saw as the government’s disregard for the emergency order, stating, ‘Ignoring an order,…is not the approach the Court expects from the government.’
The court effectively stayed its order for four days, allowing both parties to prepare for potential appeals.
Öztürk’s case was officially transferred to Vermont on April 4 following the Boston judge’s determination to deny a government request for dismissal or relocation of the case to Louisiana.
In the judgment released Friday, Sessions commented on the lack of evidence submitted by the government to substantiate their claims regarding Öztürk’s arrest.
He noted that the government’s sole justification cited was her co-authorship of a pro-Palestinian op-ed in the Tufts student newspaper, which he argued did not warrant the government’s actions.
Sessions asserted that, ‘This Court does not believe that a reasonable reader of the op-ed would find a true threat or incitement of lawless action…’
Additionally, he highlighted that Tufts University confirmed that the op-ed complied with university policy, and that no related complaints had been filed against it.
Öztürk’s attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hailed Sessions’ ruling as an essential affirmation of the rule of law.
Jessie Rossman, the legal director for the ACLU of Massachusetts, noted that the ruling reinforced that Öztürk’s case is rightly situated in Vermont, which is closer to her community and legal representation.
Öztürk, a Fulbright scholar from Turkey, had been taken into custody while walking on a sidewalk by federal immigration agents on March 25.
She has since been held in a rural detention facility in Louisiana, despite raising health concerns.
Her visa had been revoked just days before her arrest, with no notification provided to her regarding the revocation.
Earlier in the week, Sessions underscored the potential implications of a jurisdictional conflict in her case, indicating that it could lead to a ‘constitutional crisis.’
A government lawyer argued in court that Sessions had no jurisdiction over Öztürk’s detention, which is ostensibly determined by the immigration court system.
Sessions, however, articulated the difficulties posed by the overlapping authority of the immigration court and the federal District Court.
While the immigration court focuses on removal proceedings, the District Court addresses constitutional questions regarding due process.
Sessions remarked that a situation where he orders Öztürk’s release only for the government to deny it would lead to problematic constitutional dilemmas.
Sarah Sherman-Stokes, an immigration attorney at Boston University School of Law, emphasized that while it is common for ICE to transfer detainees across jurisdictions, the federal government’s specific actions in Öztürk’s case appeared deliberate.
In an affidavit, Öztürk disclosed her distress since February when she was identified online by an anonymous website labeled Canary Mission, which claimed to spotlight individuals perceived as promoting antisemitism.
She conveyed fears for her safety, believing she was at risk of abduction, and experienced multiple asthma attacks during her transfer to Louisiana.
Moreover, she stated that her requests to consult with her attorney were frequently denied in the immediate aftermath of her detention, affecting her rights to legal counsel.
As the case continues to unfold, it exemplifies the complexities surrounding immigration enforcement, free speech rights, and the authority of U.S. courts over such matters.
The White House has not publicly commented on the ruling as of Friday evening, and the Department of Homeland Security has indicated it does not discuss ongoing litigation.
As this high-profile case develops, it has raised concerns regarding the consequences of immigration policies and the protections entitled to individuals facing detention.
image source from：https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/04/18/metro/judge-orders-detained-tufts-phd-student-be-transferred-louisiana-vermont-ahead-bail-hearing/
