On Tuesday, William G. Young, a federal district court judge in Massachusetts and a Reagan appointee, issued a powerful decision that starkly condemns the unconstitutional actions of the current president of the United States. This ruling emerges from a significant case brought by academic associations aiming to challenge the Trump administration’s aggressive policy of targeting and arresting noncitizens who protest Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Judge Young’s ruling unequivocally affirms that the First Amendment rights of students like Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk were violated when federal agents detained them and shipped them off to distant immigration detention centers. In a poignant critique, the judge stated, “ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence.” His words reflect a deep-seated contempt for the tactics employed by the Trump administration, which he argues are not just unconstitutional but also fundamentally damaging to the fabric of American democracy.
The legal conclusions drawn in the 161-page decision are significant, following a nine-day trial that featured 15 witnesses and an extensive array of evidence. The trial revealed alarming information indicating that the Trump administration relied on dubious online sources, such as Canary Mission, to identify individuals to target. Judge Young announced that a hearing to discuss how the government can address its unconstitutional conduct will be scheduled “promptly,” emphasizing the urgency of rectifying these violations.
What distinguishes this ruling is its unvarnished critique of Trump’s actions alongside a sincere defense of the rights that have been trampled. The judge sets the tone right from the outset, quoting a postcard he received on June 19 that reads, “TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS …. WHAT DO YOU HAVE?” Young’s response in the ruling is both humble and defiant:
“Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States—you and me—have our magnificent Constitution. Here’s how that works out in a specific case—”
He considers the case before him “perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court,” dismissing the notion of an “ideological deportation policy” aimed at pro-Palestine speech. Instead, he asserts that the intent behind the actions of the Secretaries involved was far more insidious:
“The intent of the Secretaries was more invidious—to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (in ways it had never been used before) to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated non-citizen (and other) pro-Palestinians into silence because their views were unwelcome.”
Young does not shy away from holding Trump accountable for violating his “sacred oath” to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” He points out that while Trump may be, “for all practical purposes, totally immune from any consequences for this conduct,” as highlighted by the Supreme Court’s 2024 immunity decision, this does not absolve the court of its responsibility to uncover the truth.
The judge’s disdain for the practices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under Trump is palpable. He critiques the agency’s disingenuous claim to operate within criminal law enforcement, stating, “Despite the meaningless but effective ‘worst of the worst’ rhetoric, however, ICE has nothing whatever to do with criminal law enforcement and seeks to avoid the actual criminal courts at all costs.” He emphasizes that ICE operates under a civil law mandate and questions the legitimacy of its operations, which he argues have been weaponized against innocent individuals.
Young expresses particular outrage over the masked agents who detained Öztürk and others, labeling the government’s defense of such practices as “disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable.” He elaborates on the chilling implications of ICE’s tactics:
“ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence. 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—and honor still matters. 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.”
Throughout the decision, the judge conveys a sense of patriotic horror at the blatant violations of First Amendment rights. He reflects on the lack of outrage these actions have sparked and calls for a return to America’s foundational ideals:
“The United States is a great nation, not because any of us say so. It is great because we still practice our frontier tradition of selflessness for the good of us all.”
In an unorthodox conclusion, Young shares a personal note, quoting his wife’s observation that “Trump seems to be winning. He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead.” He warns of the consequences of this unchecked power:
“The Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies—all of it; the President simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act.”
He concludes with a poignant reminder of the fragility of freedom, echoing President Reagan’s words that freedom is “never more than one generation away from extinction” and must be “fought for and defended constantly.” In a final touch of defiance, he addresses the anonymous letter writer, expressing hope that they found his response enlightening, and closes with a respectful sign-off.
This ruling is a clarion call for the protection of constitutional rights and a stark reminder of the ongoing battle for justice and accountability in America.
