Federal judge questions free speech rights of noncitizens in US
A federal judge in Boston, Massachusetts, is weighing a constitutional question raised during legal challenges related to the Trump administration’s decision to revoke foreign student visas. During a hearing in the case, Judge William Young expressed uncertainty about whether noncitizens in the U.S. have the same full free speech rights as citizens, ABC News reported on Tuesday, May 6.
“I find that that’s assumed by a number of my colleagues in related cases that deal with free speech in the lower courts, but I’m not clear that noncitizens have, I will call them, the full rights to free speech that a citizen has,” the judge said, according to ABC. “I’m hopeful we don’t get to it in this case, but I don’t see how that will work if a noncitizen has the same rights as a citizen to speak about these matters.”
Young suggested a higher court, such as the Supreme Court, may need to settle the issue.
Trump-era policy faces legal scrutiny
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is using an immigration rule that gives Secretary of State Marco Rubio the power to deport noncitizens if their actions are seen as creating serious foreign policy problems for the United States.
The case in question was brought by several groups, including the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) chapters from Harvard, Rutgers and New York University, as well as the Middle East Studies Association. The groups sued the Trump administration over the arrests, detainments and deportations of noncitizen students and faculty who participate in pro-Palestinian protests or engage in other types of political expression that are legally protected under the First Amendment.
The groups argued that the government’s actions amount to “ideological deportation,” and said the Trump administration is targeting people for removal from the U.S. because of their political views.
“The First Amendment means the government can’t arrest, detain or deport people for lawful political expression — it’s as simple as that,” Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, said in a press release. “This practice is one we’d ordinarily associate with the most repressive political regimes, and it should have no place in our democracy.”
Case proceeds despite government push to dismiss
The federal government was unsuccessful in getting the case thrown out.
Judge Young emphasized during the hearing that the core issue in the case is about free speech rights, and he made the point that free speech protections apply broadly and protect everyone, from top government officials, like the president, to their critics.
The judge said the court is trying to determine whether the government engaged in “retribution” against someone because of their speech or political expression, ABC wrote.
Individual cases highlight broader implications
Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish Ph.D. student at Tufts University, was arrested in March 2025 after coauthoring a pro-Palestinian opinion article. Ozturk’s legal team argued that her arrest was retaliatory and infringed upon her constitutional rights. Her case is currently active.
On April 14, 2025, Mohsen Mahdawi was picked up by ICE agents while at a citizenship interview in Colchester, Vermont. Even though he’s a legal permanent resident, he was held under an immigration rule that claimed his pro-Palestinian activism was a threat to U.S. foreign policy. He was later released.
Ella Rae Greene, Editor In Chief
