Judge weighs reality of Trump ‘ideological’ deportation policy as activists crackdown trial ends

A federal judge on Monday questioned the true nature of the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists during closing arguments of a bench trial over the controversial arrests. 

U.S. District Judge William Young, an appointee of former President Reagan, must determine whether the so-called “ideological deportation policy” exists, such that the administration singled out campus activists critical of Israel’s war in Gaza unlawfully.  

The plaintiffs, who make up several university associations, argued that the administration’s policy is to revoke the visas and green cards of noncitizens based on their pro-Palestinian advocacy in aim of chilling speech.  

“It is stifling dissent, your honor,” said Alexandra Conlon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “That’s the goal.” 

But the Justice Department called the suggestion “silly,” contending that the trial evidence demonstrated no such policy exists.  

"This policy is a product of the imagination and creative conjuring of the plaintiffs,” said DOJ lawyer William Kanellis. 

The arguments cap a roughly two-week trial over the crackdown, namely the arrests of and efforts to deport foreign-born students and faculty members linked to campus demonstrations. It was the first major trial of President Trump’s second administration. 

Across several days, green card-holding professors at U.S. universities took the stand to testify that the high-profile arrests of outspoken students, like former Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk, made them fearful and stifled their speech.  

On Monday, Conlon argued that was the administration’s goal. She referenced statements made by Trump and other officials lauding the arrests and said they were “designed to terrorize” those who share the views of those who were arrested.

She also pointed to testimony from a senior Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), official that “most” names his team was directed to investigate in March came from Canary Mission, a pro-Israel online blacklist that is anonymously run. 

The site has been accused of doxxing people protesting Israel’s war with Palestinian militant group Hamas but describes its mission as documenting individuals and organizations “that promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on North American college campuses and beyond.” Conlon called the group “extremist.” 

“The fact that’s the pool of people the government started with shows you what the point of this policy was,” she said.  

Young questioned whether the trial evidence showed Canary Mission is “extremist” and said it seems “perfectly appropriate” for the government to take leads from any source, noting that leads frequently come from a “wrongdoer” or “rival gang.” 

But Conlon said those leads relate to alleged lawbreaking, where here, the leads amount only to criticism of Israel or the U.S. 

“That’s how you end up with someone like Ms. Ozturk being described as pro-Hamas,” she added, a reference to the student’s arrest being publicly linked only to an op-ed urging her university’s divestment from Israel. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio deemed several of the campus demonstrators threats to the nation’s foreign policy, invoking a statute that makes deportable any noncitizen whose “presence and activities in the United States” is thought to have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." 

In a memo explaining the apparent threat posed by Khalil, Rubio cited the student’s beliefs as justification for his deportation.  

Young later expressed having “trouble” with the apparent policy. Without making any formal findings, he said it seems to him that the new administration is implementing new foreign policy within the existing legal framework – efforts that fall squarely within executive powers.  

The Justice Department argued that’s exactly right. Ethan Kanter, another DOJ lawyer, said that noncitizens do not have equivalent rights under the First Amendment. The nature of those rights are “context dependent” and tied to “competing government interests in play.” 

“That is what these cases demonstrate,” Kanter said, though noting that the judge does not have to rule on that matter to decide the case in the government’s favor.  

Young zeroed in on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s use of masks as a cause of concern, saying he’s not aware of any other law enforcement agencies in the U.S. that allow the practice. 

He signaled disbelief in the government’s contention that the agents were protecting their identities, instead suggesting that the “common sense” interpretation might be that their objective is to “spread fear.” 

“Perhaps they’re afraid what they’re being called upon to do is of concern,” the judge said. 

Kanter rejected that notion, asserting that those decisions came down to the “judgment, experience and operational needs” of individual agents.  

Kanellis, the other DOJ lawyer, compared the plaintiffs' case to the fictional Don Quixote's fight with windmills.  

In the story, Quixote sees windmills and believes they are giants. He’s flung off his horse while riding to “fight” them and does not believe his squire who notes they are windmills, not giants, insisting they were changed. 

“Plaintiffs in this case imagine lawful standards amount to some grand government conspiracy,” Kanellis said, adding the challengers have been “knocked off their horse.” 

But Young said another historical reference better befits the case.  

He described King Henry II of England asking his court to rid him of a “troublesome priest.” Two knights went out to “hack down” the bishop. The president, Young said, has likewise raised various concerns about campus protests.  

“He doesn’t have errant knights, but he’s got Stephen Miller,” the judge said, referencing the top White House adviser. 

Young said he will issue a written ruling deciding the case but gave no indication of when it can be expected.