In a landmark decision on Tuesday, a Massachusetts district judge declared that the Trump administration's efforts to deport non-citizens for their participation in pro-Palestine protests were a violation of the First Amendment. The case, centered around the intense scrutiny under President Trump's Executive Order 14149, which controversially limits free speech protections to American citizens, has sparked a significant legal debate on the rights of non-citizens under U.S. constitutional law.

Judge Williams of the US District Court for Massachusetts criticized the actions taken by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. He stated that they specifically targeted non-citizen protestors with deportation proceedings to suppress their freedom of speech and assembly, rights upheld by the First Amendment regardless of citizenship status.

The protests erupted on various U.S. college campuses following Hamas attacks on October 7, with several non-citizens, including Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk, being arrested and threatened with deportation by ICE. The administration justified these actions by citing § 237 (4)(c)(i) of the Immigration and Nationalization Act of 1952, claiming the deportations were necessary due to potential adverse foreign policy consequences. However, this stance was challenged as the law does not allow for removal based on legally expressed political beliefs.

The lawsuit was initiated by the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, representing the Middle East Studies Association and chapters of the American Association of University Professors from Harvard, Rutgers, and NYU. Jameel Jaffer, the Executive Director of the institute, hailed the ruling as "historic," emphasizing that it reaffirms the government cannot imprison or deport individuals merely for their political views.

A remedy hearing is scheduled to follow, where further consequences of this ruling will be discussed. This decision not only underscores the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional rights but also sets a significant precedent concerning the treatment of non-citizens and their freedom to express political dissent in the United States.