“Judge Young’s historic ruling correctly held that this policy is unconstitutional. But without stronger relief, noncitizen students and faculty will continue to be chilled from speaking out on issues that are important to them,” said Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute. “The policy has created a climate of fear on college campuses across the country, and we’re asking the First Circuit to ensure that this campaign of intimidation comes to a definitive end.”

In his landmark ruling, Judge Young concluded that the administration’s policy constitutes unlawful viewpoint discrimination and “unequivocally” affirmed that noncitizens lawfully present in the United States “have the same free speech rights as the rest of us.” Although the district court declared the policy unconstitutional and unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, it stopped short of granting the full injunctive relief plaintiffs sought.

The government filed its own notice of appeal last month and a motion for a partial stay of the remedies order earlier this month. The district court has scheduled a hearing on the government’s partial stay motion for Thursday, February 26, at 2 p.m. ET. Registration to attend is available here.

Filed in March 2025, the lawsuit—brought by the Knight Institute and Sher Tremonte LLP on behalf of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association (MESA)—challenges what plaintiffs describe as the Trump administration’s “ideological deportation” policy. The case marked the first major trial of President Trump’s second term. During a nine-day trial in July, 15 witnesses testified about the policy’s implementation and its disruptive effects on campuses nationwide. A summary of the evidence presented at trial is available here.

Read today’s notice of cross-appeal here.

Read Judge Young’s January 2026 remedies order here.

Read Judge Young’s September 2025 ruling here.

Read more about the case here.

In addition to the AAUP and MESA, plaintiffs include AAUP chapters at Harvard, Rutgers, and NYU. The associations’ members include tens of thousands of faculty and students across the country.

Lawyers on the case include Ramya Krishnan, Jameel Jaffer, Alex Abdo, Scott Wilkens, Carrie DeCell, Xiangnong (George) Wang, Stephany Kim, and Raya Koreh of the Knight First Amendment Institute; Ahilan Arulanantham; Michael Tremonte, Noam Biale, Alexandra Conlon, and Courtney Gans of Sher Tremonte; and Edwina Clarke and David Zimmer for Zimmer, Citron & Clarke.

For more information, contact: Adriana Lamirande, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org. 

In a landmark ruling issued last September, Judge Young declared that the Trump administration’s policy of arresting, detaining, and threatening to deport noncitizen students and faculty for their political speech violates the First Amendment, unequivocally affirming that “non-citizens lawfully present here in [the] United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us.” Earlier this month, the Knight Institute appeared before Judge Young urging the court to permanently block the Trump administration from implementing the policy. Young was first nominated by President Reagan and has served as a federal judge for over 40 years. He has described this case as “perhaps the most important” of his career.

The order issued today formally declares that the Trump Administration’s policy was a viewpoint discriminatory effort to chill the protected speech of noncitizens in violation of the First Amendment. It also formally declares that the policy is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act, and voids and sets aside the policy under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The order also provides that, in any district court case in which a noncitizen who was an AAUP or MESA member during the litigation challenges an adverse change to their immigration status, that action will be presumed to have been taken in retribution for that individual’s constitutionally protected speech, unless the government demonstrates otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.

Read today’s order here.

The court also released all public evidence admitted during the nine-day trial, including the intelligence reports administration officials relied on to target Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Mohsen Mahdawi, Badar Khan Suri, and Yunseo Chung.

The following can be attributed to Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute:
“The administration’s lawless efforts to deport pro-Palestinian advocates has spread terror in our campus communities. Students and scholars shouldn’t have to live in fear that ICE agents could seize them from their homes merely for engaging in political expression. Today’s judgment makes emphatically clear that the administration’s campaign of intimidation must end.”

The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute:
“Judge Young’s resolution of this case will stand as a powerful reaffirmation of principles that are fundamental to our democracy. The First Amendment’s protection extends to everyone in this country, wherever they’re from, and whatever their politics. By constitutional design, our government lacks the power to imprison or expel people simply because it disapproves of what they have to say.”

The following can be attributed to Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors:
“The Trump administration's ideological deportation policy has had harrowing impacts on the lives of our noncitizen members. We are greatly relieved that the federal court has declared that this policy is unlawful and in violation of the First Amendment, and we are hopeful that the Trump administration will obey the court's order.”

The following can be attributed to Ussama Makdisi, president of MESA:
“We thank the court for its findings and laud the ruling, which affirms that the Constitution protects noncitizen scholars and students against viewpoint-based retaliation. The chilling effect of the government’s ideological-deportation policy must be redressed. We will continue to defend academic freedom that is crucial to our work as scholars and students.”

The following can be attributed to Noam Biale, partner and pro bono coordinator at Sher Tremonte LLP:
“Over two weeks of trial last summer, we proved a conspiracy by top administration officials to violate the First Amendment and chill our clients’ protected speech. We appreciate Judge Young’s resolve to shine a light on this unlawful enforcement policy and to hold the administration accountable. We hope that his order gives immediate relief to noncitizen students and faculty across the United States.”

Read more about the lawsuit, AAUP v. Rubio, here.

In addition to the AAUP and MESA, plaintiffs include AAUP chapters at Harvard, Rutgers, and NYU. The associations’ members include tens of thousands of faculty and students across the country.

Lawyers on the case include Ramya Krishnan, Jameel Jaffer, Alex Abdo, Scott Wilkens, Carrie DeCell, Xiangnong (George) Wang, Stephany Kim, and Raya Koreh of the Knight First Amendment Institute; Ahilan Arulanantham; Michael Tremonte, Noam Biale, Alexandra Conlon, and Courtney Gans of Sher Tremonte; and Edwina Clarke and David Zimmer for Zimmer, Citron & Clarke.

For more information, contact: Adriana Lamirande, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org 

“Government officials have vigorously maintained they have the authority to deport foreign citizens based on lawful speech since the beginning of this case—and, incredibly, they doubled down on this dangerous claim after the court ruled that this policy is unconstitutional," said Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute. “It’s crucial that the court order the government to abandon this unconstitutional policy. The Trump administration should not be permitted to go on terrorizing foreign citizens for political expression that the First Amendment protects.”

Filed in March, the lawsuit–brought by the Knight Institute and Sher Tremonte LLP on behalf of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association (MESA)–alleged that the Trump administration’s “ideological deportation” policy is unconstitutional. It was the first major trial of President Trump’s second term. The nine-day trial in July that included the testimony of 15 witnesses forced the disclosure of a wealth of new details about the policy and its devastating effects on campuses nationwide. See a summary of the disclosures, here.

Today’s motion asks the court to formally declare that the policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), to vacate and set aside the policy under the APA, and to permanently enjoin the administration’s further implementation of it. The motion also proposes a series of notice, transparency, and training requirements the court should require the government to adhere to in order to counteract the ideological deportation policy’s chilling effects and ensure compliance with the court’s ruling. 

Read today’s motion here.

Read more about the case here.

In addition to the AAUP and MESA, plaintiffs include AAUP chapters at Harvard, Rutgers, and NYU. The associations’ members include tens of thousands of faculty and students across the country.

Lawyers on the case include Ramya Krishnan, Jameel Jaffer, Alex Abdo, Scott Wilkens, Carrie DeCell, Xiangnong (George) Wang, Stephany Kim, and Raya Koreh of the Knight First Amendment Institute; Ahilan Arulanantham; Michael Tremonte, Noam Biale, Alexandra Conlon, and Courtney Gans of Sher Tremonte; and Edwina Clarke and David Zimmer for Zimmer, Citron & Clarke.

For more information, contact: Adriana Lamirande, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org 

Filed in March, the lawsuit alleged that the Trump administration’s “ideological deportation” policy violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional. The nine-day trial in July that included the testimony of 15 witnesses forced the disclosure of a wealth of new details about the policy and its devastating effects on campuses nationwide. See a summary of the disclosures here.

In today’s ruling, Judge Young wrote, “This case—perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court—squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in  [the] United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’ ‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence.”

The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute:
“This is a historic ruling that should have immediate implications for the Trump administration’s policies. If the First Amendment means anything, it means the government can’t imprison people simply because it disagrees with their political views. We welcome the court’s reaffirmation of this basic idea, which is foundational to our democracy.” 

The following can be attributed to Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute:
“No one should have to live in fear that they could be seized by ICE agents for their political expression. Today’s decision rightly affirms that the First Amendment protects noncitizens just as it protects citizens. The administration’s ideological deportations dishonor the First Amendment and democracy.”

The following can be attributed to Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors:
“The Trump administration’s attempt to deport students for their political views is an assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of American values. This trial exposed their true aim: to intimidate and silence anyone who dares oppose them. If we fail to fight back, Trump’s thought police won’t stop at pro-Palestinian voices—they will come for anyone who speaks out. Defending democracy means standing up now—loudly, visibly, and together.”

The following can be attributed to Aslı Bâli, president of MESA:
“We deeply appreciate the court’s principled ruling. The Trump Administration’s actions have grievously harmed our colleagues, by treating protected free speech and freedom of association as deportable offenses. Our ability to meet, as a scholarly association, and to discuss critical topics of our field, have been directly diminished by the chilling effect of the government’s ideological deportations. The attack on  the constitutionally protected rights of our members and conference attendees is unconscionable, and must be redressed.”

The following can be attributed to Noam Biale, partner and pro bono coordinator at Sher Tremonte LLP:
“Sher Tremonte is honored to have partnered with the Knight Institute on this groundbreaking case. Judge Young’s decision comes at a moment when it is most needed. Presidential administrations come and go, but as long as we keep fighting, our Constitution endures.”

Read today’s decision here.

Read more about the case here.

In addition to the AAUP and MESA, plaintiffs include AAUP chapters at Harvard, Rutgers, and NYU. The associations’ members include tens of thousands of faculty and students across the country.

Having found that the policy violates the First Amendment, the court will turn to the question of relief in the coming weeks.  

Lawyers on the case include Ramya Krishnan, Jameel Jaffer, Alex Abdo, Scott Wilkens, Carrie DeCell, Xiangnong (George) Wang, Talya Nevins, Jackson Busch, and Stephany Kim of the Knight First Amendment Institute; Ahilan Arulanantham; Michael Tremonte, Noam Biale, Alexandra Conlon, and Courtney Gans of Sher Tremonte; and Edwina Clarke and David Zimmer for Zimmer, Citron & Clarke.

For more information, contact: Adriana Lamirande, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org. 

“As we showed at trial, the Trump administration has been targeting noncitizen students and faculty based on their lawful political expression,” said Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight Institute. “This policy is at war with the First Amendment and has created a climate of fear on university campuses nationwide.”

Drawing on the evidence presented at trial, the brief provides copious detail about the Trump administration’s “ideological deportation” policy. The evidence shows that government officials targeted students for arrest and deportation on the basis of their protected political speech; that the government’s policy characterized pro-Palestinian advocacy and speech critical of Israel as antisemitic and “pro-Hamas”; and that the government adopted the policy to silence noncitizen scholars engaged in pro-Palestinian expression. The brief also argues that noncitizens lawfully admitted to the United States are fully protected by the First Amendment–a proposition that Justice Department lawyers disputed at trial.

Read the brief here.

For a summary of the evidence disclosed at trial, see here. 

Read more about the case here.

Lawyers on the case include Ramya Krishnan, Jameel Jaffer, Alex Abdo, Scott Wilkens, Carrie DeCell, Xiangnong (George) Wang, Talya Nevins, Jackson Busch, and Stephany Kim of the Knight First Amendment Institute; Ahilan Arulanantham; Michael Tremonte, Noam Biale, Alexandra Conlon, and Courtney Gans of Sher Tremonte; and Edwina Clarke and David Zimmer for Zimmer, Citron & Clarke.

For more information, contact: Adriana Lamirande, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org 

“We’re grateful to have had the opportunity to show the court and the public how the Trump administration’s targeting of noncitizen student protesters has left a cloud of fear over university communities and is at war with the First Amendment,” said Ramya Krishnan, senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University who will be presenting closing arguments today for the plaintiffs. “The government’s testimony throughout the trial made clear that it impermissibly sought to deport these students in retaliation for their protected speech. We’re hopeful Judge Young rules accordingly.”  

Filed in March, the lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration’s “ideological deportation” policy violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutional. Over eight days of witness testimony, the trial has forced the disclosure of a wealth of new details about the policy and its devastating effects on campuses nationwide. For a summary of the disclosures, see HERE. 

“Following the example of the world's most repressive regimes, the Trump administration is imprisoning and expelling people because of their political viewpoints,” said Jameel Jaffer, the Knight Institute’s executive director. “It would be difficult to conceive of a policy more offensive to the First Amendment, or to the values the First Amendment was meant to serve. We’re glad to have the opportunity to present this case to the court and hope it reaches a decision quickly.” 

Register to join a livestream of closing arguments on Monday 7/21 at 10:00am ET here.

Register to join AAUP’s post-trial press conference on Monday 7/21 at 4:00pm ET here.

Read daily trial summaries here.

Read trial transcripts here.

Read more about the case here.

In addition to the AAUP and MESA, plaintiffs include AAUP chapters at Harvard, Rutgers, and NYU. The associations’ members include tens of thousands of faculty and students across the country. 

Lawyers on the case include Ramya Krishnan, Jameel Jaffer, Alex Abdo, Scott Wilkens, Carrie DeCell, Xiangnong (George) Wang, Talya Nevins, Jackson Busch, and Stephany Kim of the Knight First Amendment Institute; Ahilan Arulanantham; Michael Tremonte, Noam Biale, Alexandra Conlon, and Courtney Gans of Sher Tremonte; and Edwina Clarke and David Zimmer for Zimmer, Citron & Clarke.

These records, made public by the court on January 22, 2026, include the intelligence dossiers (called “reports of analysis”) that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel prepared on five pro-Palestinian students—Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, Bader Khan Suri, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Yunseo Chung—that focus on those individuals’ speech and associations, and that repeat unvetted and unsupported allegations from opaque pro-Israel organizations like Canary Mission that their activities were antisemitic or pro-Hamas. The released documents also include referral letters from DHS to the State Department that purport to summarize actions by the targeted students that violate President Trump’s executive orders on antisemitism, and largely only repeat the unverified allegations in the reports of analysis; as well as State Department “action memos” formally recommending that the targeted students be deported on the basis of their speech and advocacy. The government additionally disclosed new State Department guidance memorializing the legal pathways it believes it may use to deport pro-Palestinian protesters. Several of the key documents are listed below:

Documents Pertaining to Mahmoud Khalil

• DHS Report of Analysis on Mahmoud Khalil, dated March 6, 2025: Ex. 233
• Referral Letter, from Andre Watson, Assistant Director, National Security Division, DHS, to Andrea Whiting, Director, Field Operations, Department of State, re: Mahmoud Khalil, dated March 7, 2025: Ex. 242
• Action Memo for the Secretary, from John Armstrong, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State, re: Removal of Yunseo Chung and Mahmoud Khalil, both U.S. LPRs [Lawful Permanent Residents], under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), dated March 8, 2025: Ex. 247
• Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security, from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, re: Notification of Removability Determinations under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): Ex. 8

Documents Pertaining to Rümeysa Öztürk

• DHS Report of Analysis on Rumeysa Ozturk, dated March 17, 2025: Ex. 232
• Referral Letter, from Andre Watson, Assistant Director, National Security Division, DHS to John Armstrong, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State, re: Rumeysa Ozturk, dated March 21, 2025: Ex. 245
• Action Memo for Senior Bureau Official John Armstrong, from Stuart Wilson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Visa Services, Department of State, re: Revocation of F1 Visa for Rumeysa OZTURK, dated March 21, 2025: Ex. 250
• Memo for ICE, from John Armstrong, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State, to Andre Watson, Assistant Director, National Security Division, DHS, re: Revocation of Visa - Rumeysa OZTURK, dated March 21, 2025: Ex. 16

Documents Pertaining to Bader Khan Suri  

• DHS Report of Analysis on Bader Khan Suri, dated March 10, 2025: Ex. 234
• Referral Letter, from Andre Watson, Assistant Director, National Security Division, DHS, to John Armstrong, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State, re: Badur Khan Suri, dated March 14, 2025: Ex. 246
• Action Memo for the Secretary, from John Armstrong, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State, re: Determination of Deportability of Badar Khan Suri under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), dated March 15, 2025: Ex. 249
• Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security, from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, re: Determination of Deportability under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): Ex. 21

Documents Pertaining to Mohsen Mahdawi

• DHS Report of Analysis on Mohsen Khader Mahdawi, dated March 12, 2025: Ex. 235
• Referral Letter, from Andre Watson, Assistant Director, National Security Division, DHS, to John Armstrong, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State, re: Mohsen Mahdawi, dated March 14, 2025: Ex. 244
• Action Memo to the Secretary, from John Armstrong, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State, re: Determination of Deportability of Mohsen Mahdawi, a U.S. Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR), under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), March 15, 2025: Ex. 248
• Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security, from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, re: Determination of Deportability under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): Ex. 12

Documents Pertaining to Yunseo Chung

• DHS Report of Analysis on Yunseo Chung, dated March 6, 2025: Ex. 236
• Referral Letter, from Andre Watson, Assistant Director, National Security Division, DHS, to Andrea Whiting, Director, Field Operations, Department of State, re: Yunseo Chung, dated March 7, 2025: Ex. 243
• Action Memo to the Secretary, from John Armstrong, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State, re: Removal of Yunseo Chung and Mahmoud Khalil, both U.S. LPRs [Lawful Permanent Residents], under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), March 8, 2025: Ex. 247
• Memorandum for the Secretary of Homeland Security, from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, re: Notification of Removability Determinations under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): Ex. 19

New State Department Guidance

• Diplomatic Cable 25 STATE 17178, “Catch And Revoke: National Security Through Timely Processing of Visa Systems Messages,” dated Feb. 28, 2025: Ex. 51
• Diplomatic Cable 25 STATE 26168, “Enhanced Screening and Social Media Vetting for Visa Applicants,” dated March 25, 2025: Ex. 64
• Diplomatic Cable 25 STATE 45612, "Caught and Revoked: Updated Guidance on Systems Messages," dated May 15, 2025: Ex. 50
• Diplomatic Cable 25 STATE 59756, “Expanding Screening and Vetting for FMJ Applicants,” dated June 18, 2025: Ex. 239

January 15, 2026

• Full Transcript

July 7, 2025

• Volume 1
• Volume 2

July 8, 2025

• Volume 1
• Volume 2

July 9, 2025

• Volume 1
• Volume 2

July 10, 2025

• Volume 1
• Volume 2

July 11, 2025

• Volume 1
• Volume 2

July 14, 2025

• Volume 1

July 15, 2025

• Volume 1
• Volume 2

July 17

• Full Transcript

July 18

• Volume 1
• Volume 2

July 21

• Full Transcript

July 18, 2025

• Official Confirms State Department Considered Statements Critical of Israel and U.S. in Revoking Foreign Students’ Visas (Press Release).
  • John Armstrong, the most senior official at the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that he either gave final approval or passed to Secretary Rubio the “action memos” approving Rümeysa Öztürk’s visa revocation and Mahmoud Khalil’s determination of removability.
  • Under questioning from Alexandra Conlon of Sher Tremonte LLP, Armstrong admitted that statements critical of Israel or U.S. foreign policy could qualify a visa or green card holder for deportation. He also conceded that Öztürk’s action memo highlighted her op-ed and her attenuated connection with a pro-Palestinian student group.

  • The court also heard from Veena Dubal, the general counsel of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Dubal explained that the ideological deportation policy has fundamentally altered AAUP’s activities, spurring the organization to advocate for its noncitizen members whose academic freedom and immigration status is under threat. She was questioned by Xiangnong (George) Wang of the Knight First Amendment Institute.

  • Closing arguments will begin this coming Monday, July 21 at 10 am ET after a short discussion of the parties’ remaining documentary evidence starting at 9 am ET.

July 17, 2025

• I Signed Letters Referring Student Protesters for Deportation, ICE Official Testifies (Press Release).
  • A senior Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official testified that he signed the letters referring Rümeysa Öztürk, Mahmoud Khalil, and other student protesters to the State Department for visa revocation or a determination of removability.
    • The official, Andre Watson, leads the National Security Division in ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) unit. Watson testified that, beginning in early 2025, ICE and the State Department coordinated on a new process to implement President Trump’s executive orders targeting student protesters. In this process, HSI’s Office of Intelligence would collect names based on referrals and write dossiers on those people. (Peter Hatch, a senior official in the Office of Intelligence, testified last week that many of those names came from the Canary Mission website.) The Office of Intelligence would then pass some of these dossiers on to Watson, who would in turn refer them to the State Department. Watson admitted that he has never declined to refer a case to the State Department.

    • Watson testified that the referral letters he signed—entered into evidence by the court but not shown to the public gallery—rely on the Office of Intelligence’s dossiers, which discuss protesters’ pro-Palestinian views and include material from Canary Mission.

    • Watson also admitted that the letter referring Khalil to the State Department was sent only one day before Khalil’s arrest. He was cross-examined by Ramya Krishnan of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.

  • Tomorrow’s witnesses: John Armstrong, the most senior official in the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs; and Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine and the general counsel of the AAUP.

July 15, 2025

• Senior Officials Pushed for Arrests of Student Protesters, ICE Agents Testify (Press Release).

  • Four ICE agents who oversaw the arrests of Rümeysa Öztürk, Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, and Badar Khan Suri testified today. Some of these agents told the court that they had never been asked to conduct an arrest based on similar legal or factual grounds. And some reported that they were instructed to prioritize the arrests by senior ICE officials.

    • William Crogan, then an agent at ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) unit in New England, recounted his participation in Mahdawi’s arrest. He stated that, before Secretary Rubio’s determination of removability for Mahdawi, he had never seen a document determining a noncitizen removable on similar legal grounds in his 20-plus years at HSI. He testified that he had never seen a noncitizen removed from the United States based on similar factual allegations. And he explained that his supervisors both gave him advance notice of Secretary Rubio’s determination and instructed him to prioritize the case. Crogan was cross-examined by Alexandra Conlon of Sher Tremonte LLP.

    • Patrick Cunningham, an agent at HSI’s Boston field office, testified that, before Öztürk’s detention, he had never seen an arrest based on similar factual or legal allegations, and that he was instructed by his superiors to prioritize the case. Cunningham was cross-examined by Michael Tremonte of Sher Tremonte LLP.

    • Darren McCormack, an agent at HSI’s New York field office, testified that the request to arrest Khalil was unusual, that it came from high-level officials at ICE, that he received advanced notice of Secretary Rubio’s determination, and that it was relayed to him that Secretary Rubio and/or the White House were interested in Khalil’s case. McCormack was cross-examined by Alexandra Conlon of Sher Tremonte LLP.

• • The ICE agents also testified that there is no uniform agency policy on whether and when officers may wear masks when conducting arrests, but that they have allowed the officers under their command to wear them.
  • Tomorrow, July 16, is a day off. Trial will resume on Thursday, July 17.

July 14, 2025

• Court Addresses Evidentiary Privileges, Will Hear Testimony from ICE Officials Tomorrow (Press Release).
  • The court addressed the government’s invocation of certain evidentiary privileges, stating that he had previously rejected the government’s overbroad assertion of the law enforcement privilege, sustaining to a limited extent its reliance on the deliberative process privilege, and deferring decision as to the government’s invocation of the presidential communications privilege to withhold a report written by the Department of State and addressing “Authorities to Counter Anti-Semitism and Recommendations for Familiarizing Institutions of Higher Education with the Security and Related Grounds for Visa Inadmissibility.”  

  • The court said it would hear tomorrow from ICE officials, including Patrick Cunningham, William Crogan, and Darren McCormack.

July 11, 2025

• First Week of Trial in Challenge to Trump Administration’s Ideological Deportation Policy Wraps Up (Press Release).

  • Closing out the first week of testimony, two senior officials in the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs testified about State’s process for revoking student visas and issuing determinations of removability for green card holders. 

    • During testimony by Maureen Smith, a Senior Advisor in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, the government invoked the presidential communications privilege to block questioning about the Homeland Security Council. Smith was cross-examined by Scott Wilkens of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 

    • John Armstrong, the most senior official in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, denied that there was any ideological deportation policy but confirmed that he has reviewed between 15 and 20 memos recommending action against student protesters. Armstrong was cross-examined by Alexandra Conlon of Sher Tremonte LLP. His cross examination will continue Monday. 

  • Late on Thursday evening, the government filed papers in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit—the appellate court that sits above Judge Young—challenging his decision to release government documents to the plaintiffs. As an interim measure, the First Circuit paused further disclosure of certain government documents in an order that Judge Young received and read in open court this afternoon. 

  • Monday’s expected witnesses: John Armstrong, the Senior Bureau Official in the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, and Jeffrey Reger, the Executive Director of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA). 

July 10, 2025

• DHS Dossiers on Öztürk, Khalil, Other Students Focused on Their Pro-Palestinian Speech, ICE Official Testifies (Press Release). 

  • A senior ICE official testified in court today that the dossiers the agency compiled on Rümeysa Öztürk, Mahmoud Khalil, and others highlighted their pro-Palestinian speech and association. After Judge Young provided the dossiers to the plaintiffs this morning, they were admitted into evidence and shown in open court—the first time that anyone outside the government has seen these documents.

    • The official testified that Öztürk’s dossier included her student newspaper op-ed. The dossier also incorporated Öztürk’s page on the Canary Mission website.

    • The official likewise testified that Khalil’s dossier referenced news articles about his participation in pro-Palestinian protests and his page on the Canary Mission website.

  • The official, Peter Hatch, helps lead an office within ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations division that compiles background reports on targets of the agency’s investigations. He was questioned by Alexandra Conlon of Sher Tremonte LLP.

  • The court later heard testimony from Amy Greer, one of Khalil’s lawyers, who described Khalil’s March 8 arrest by federal agents. She was questioned by Noam Biale of Sher Tremonte LLP.

  • Tomorrow’s expected witnesses: John Armstrong, the Senior Bureau Official in the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, and Maureen Smith, a Senior Advisor in the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs.

July 9, 2025

• DHS “Tiger Team” Scrutinizing Student Protesters Was Told to Investigate 5,000 Names Listed by Canary Mission, ICE Official Testifies (Press Release). 

  • A senior Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official testified that the agency assembled a team in early 2025 to investigate student protesters. The team—referred to internally as the “Tiger Team”— rapidly compiled over 100 reports based on a list of 5,000 people identified on the Canary Mission website. 
  • The official, Peter Hatch, helps lead an office within ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations division that compiles background reports on targets of the agency’s investigations. He was questioned by Alexandra Conlon of Sher Tremonte LLP. 
  • Tomorrow’s expected witnesses: Peter Hatch, a DHS official who is the Assistant Director of the Office of Intelligence in Homeland Security Investigations and Amy Greer, a lawyer for Mahmoud Khalil.

July 8, 2025

• The court continued to hear testimony from noncitizen witnesses who changed their behavior after learning about the arrests of Rümeysa Öztürk and Mahmoud Khalil.

  • Nadje Al-Ali, an anthropology and Middle East studies professor at Brown, continued her testimony, which began yesterday. She explained that, since the arrests of Öztürk and Khalil, she has refrained from signing public letters or engaging in public advocacy on Palestine. Al-Ali was questioned by Noam Biale of Sher Tremonte LLP.

  • Bernhard Nickel, a philosophy professor at Harvard, testified that he stopped attending protests, stopped signing public statements related to Palestine, and cancelled planned international travel after learning about Öztürk’s arrest. Nickel was questioned by Noam Biale of Sher Tremonte LLP.

  • Nadia Abu El-Haj, an anthropology professor at Barnard, testified that Khalil’s arrest terrified her noncitizen students into silence. Abu El-Haj was questioned by Alexandra Conlon of Sher Tremonte LLP.

• The court also heard from witnesses who authenticated key pieces of evidence. 

  • Mike Mathis, whose home security system captured footage of Öztürk’s arrest, authenticated that widely circulated footage. Mathis was questioned by George Wang of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 

  • Sara Johnson, a professor at Tufts and Öztürk’s academic advisor, confirmed that Öztürk was the person arrested in that video footage and authenticated Öztürk’s profile on the website Canary Mission. Johnson was questioned by Alex Abdo of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 

  • Tomorrow’s expected witness: Peter Hatch, a DHS official who is the Assistant Director of the Office of Intelligence in Homeland Security Investigations. 

July 7, 2025

• The court heard opening statements from both plaintiffs and the government.
  • In their opening statement, plaintiffs explained that the evidence at trial will show (1) a cross-government effort to target, arrest, and deport noncitizens for pro-Palestinian speech, and (2) that this policy chilled the speech and association of plaintiffs’ members and plaintiffs themselves, creating a culture of repression not seen since the McCarthy era. 

  • In its opening statement, the government conceded that noncitizens lawfully present in the United States have the same First Amendment rights as citizens. But it later walked back that concession, claiming that there are “nuances” related to national security, immigration, and foreign policy.

• The court then heard testimony from two noncitizen witnesses who changed their behavior after learning about the arrests of Rümeysa Öztürk and Mahmoud Khalil.  
  • Megan Hyska, a philosophy professor at Northwestern University, testified that because of the government’s policy, she curtailed her protest activity, refrained from publishing an op-ed that she drafted, and declined to pursue leadership positions in a political organization that she belongs to. 

  • Nadje Al-Ali, an anthropology and Middle East studies professor at Brown University, testified that because of the government’s policy, she pulled out of research fellowships abroad and stopped pursuing a research project related to Palestine.  
    
    

Daily court transcripts from the trial in AAUP v. Rubio can be found here. 

Lawyers on the case include Ramya Krishnan, Jameel Jaffer, Alex Abdo, Scott Wilkens, Carrie DeCell, Xiangnong (George) Wang, Talya Nevins, and Jackson Busch for the Knight First Amendment Institute, Ahilan Arulanantham, Michael Tremonte and Noam Biale for Sher Tremonte, and Edwina Clarke and David Zimmer for Zimmer, Citron & Clarke.

For more information, contact: Adriana Lamirande, adriana.lamirande@knightcolumbia.org.