A federal court has ruled that the systematic targeting of non-citizens for their political speech constitutes a clear violation of the First Amendment. In an opinion issued September 30, 2025, U.S. District Judge William G. Young declared that government officials “deliberately and with purposeful aforethought” orchestrated a campaign to chill protected speech through selective deportations.

The case, brought by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association against Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other federal officials, centered on allegations that the administration created an “ideological deportation policy” targeting individuals who criticized Israel’s policies or expressed pro-Palestinian views.

Judge Young concluded that the defendants violated the First Amendment by implementing Executive Orders 14161 and 14188 in a “viewpoint-discriminatory way to chill protected speech.” The court found that officials misused their authority to target non-citizen pro-Palestinians for deportation “primarily on account of their First Amendment-protected political speech.”

The judge firmly established that non-citizens lawfully present in the United States possess the same First Amendment rights as citizens, declaring: “No law means no law.”

The controversy began immediately after President Trump’s January 20, 2025 inauguration, when he issued Executive Order 14161 targeting aliens who “espouse hateful ideology” and Executive Order 14188 combating anti-Semitism. The orders directed agencies to identify and remove individuals deemed to undermine U.S. foreign policy interests.

By February 2025, Secretary Rubio issued the “Catch and Revoke” cable directing increased scrutiny of visa holders, leading to a 150% increase in visa revocations. The administration formed a “Tiger Team” within Homeland Security Investigations to expedite investigations of campus protesters, drawing names from websites like Canary Mission that target pro-Palestinian activists.

The policy’s effects became visible in March 2025 with high-profile arrests of individuals like Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and Columbia University graduate student arrested in his apartment lobby. The administration’s public statements grew increasingly inflammatory, with Secretary Rubio declaring he would revoke visas of “these lunatics” and stating that “every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa.”

The court found compelling evidence that the government created an enforcement mechanism specifically designed to silence political dissent. Officials investigated approximately 5,000 individuals from databases targeting pro-Palestinian activists, ultimately preparing reports on fewer than 5% while focusing exclusively on those engaged in political speech.

Judge Young noted the unprecedented nature of the enforcement actions, writing that the foreign policy deportation statute “has only been applied in a handful of instances prior to 2025” and had never been used to target domestic speech. The administration’s own officials acknowledged they were operating without precedent, with one noting they were “not aware of any prior exercises” of this particular removal authority.

Young also made very strong and detailed comments about masked ICE agents. He devoted significant attention to this issue and used extraordinarily harsh language to criticize the practice.

Judge Young specifically addressed the use of masks by ICE agents during arrests, particularly in the arrest of Rumeysa Öztürk. The judge described in detail how the arrest unfolded, noting that agents initially appeared unmasked but then “masked up” during the arrest:

“At 1:51 of the Öztürk Arrest Video, three plain-clothes officers exit a grey SUV, none initially wearing masks… The agents then all masked up, with the exception of one agent who already had a hood covering his head.”

When someone off-camera asked “Why are you hiding your faces?” the judge called this “A fair question.”

His criticism was both pointed and historically referenced:

“ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence… It is disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable. Small wonder ICE often seems to need our respected military to guard them as they go about implementing our immigration laws. It should be noted that our troops do not ordinarily wear masks. Can you imagine a masked marine? It is a matter of honor—honor still matters.”

The judge drew explicit comparisons to infamous groups in American history:

“To us, masks are associated with cowardly desperados and the despised Ku Klux Klan. In all our history we have never tolerated an armed masked secret police.”

Judge Young connected the mask-wearing to broader constitutional violations:

“Carrying on in this fashion, ICE brings indelible obloquy to this administration and everyone who works in it… If the distinguished Homeland Security intelligence agency can be weaponized to squelch the free speech rights of a small, hapless group of non-citizens in our midst, so too can the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and the audit divisions of the I.R.S. and the Social Security Administration be unconstitutionally weaponized against the President’s ever growing list of enemies.”

The judge acknowledged that ICE officials testified that mask-wearing was for agent safety and to protect their identities for undercover work, but he explicitly rejected this explanation:

“This Court has listened carefully to the reasons given by Öztürk’s captors for masking-up and has heard the same reasons advanced by the defendant Todd Lyons, Acting Director of ICE. It rejects this testimony as disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable.”

Based on the court ruling, the case is now entering a remedy phase where the judge must determine what specific injunctive relief can be crafted to address the constitutional violations. Judge Young has established that Secretaries Noem and Rubio deliberately violated the First Amendment rights of non-citizens through their “ideological deportation policy,” but he acknowledges significant constraints in fashioning an effective remedy. The court will proceed to a hearing focused on narrowly tailored relief that may enjoin the officials from applying immigration statutes in a viewpoint-discriminatory manner, while respecting presidential immunity and separation of powers principles.