American Association of University Professors v. Rubio

Summary

In early March 2025, Columbia University student and green card holder Mahmoud Khalil was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after participating in a pro‑Palestinian protest, sparking national outrage over what advocates described as a campaign of “ideological deportation.” Shortly afterward, Tufts doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk and Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi were also detained or had their visas revoked without charges, all based on their political activity. These incidents formed part of a broader Trump administration initiative to surveil, detain, and deport foreign students involved in pro‑Palestinian activism.

In response, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), alongside student plaintiffs and represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute, filed a federal lawsuit — AAUP v. Rubio — challenging the administration’s actions as unconstitutional. The suit alleges violations of the First Amendment, the Administrative Procedure Act, and due process rights, asserting that the government used immigration enforcement not for national security purposes, but to silence dissenting political speech on campus.

The case went to trial in July 2025 in federal court in Boston before Judge William Young. A post‑trial brief submitted by the plaintiffs detailed the government’s extensive efforts to suppress student activism: a Department of Homeland Security “tiger team” reviewed thousands of social media posts and collaborated with pro‑Israel groups such as Canary Mission to flag over 5,000 individuals for visa revocation or deportation. More than 300 student visas were reportedly revoked in the first half of 2025 alone under Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s directive, despite the absence of criminal allegations.

Testimony during trial revealed a chilling effect across U.S. campuses, with students and faculty self‑censoring to avoid government scrutiny. Plaintiffs argued that this amounted to a politically motivated purge targeting protected speech. The Knight Institute characterized the deportations and visa cancellations as part of a “coordinated campaign to punish foreign students for their viewpoints.”

In September 2025, Judge Young issued a sweeping 161‑page decision ruling that the Trump administration had acted unconstitutionally in targeting noncitizen students and scholars for deportation on account of their pro‑Palestinian viewpoints. Young concluded that the administration’s actions violated the First Amendment by chilling speech, and that senior officials in DHS and State “acted in concert to misuse their sweeping powers” to target noncitizen pro‑Palestinian advocates. He sharply condemned the use of masked ICE agents in the arrest of Öztürk, decrying such tactics as reminiscent of “cowardly desperados” and dangerously secretive.

Young also held that the policy was “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act, noting that it reversed prior immigration practices without reasoned explanation. He emphasized that noncitizens lawfully present in the U.S. enjoy First Amendment protections and that government power cannot be used to intimidate dissenters into silence. In his opinion, he warned that the case could be “perhaps the most important ever” to come before his court, and reserved judgment on remedies, leaving open the possibility of injunctions to bar future ideological deportations.

The ruling was immediately hailed by plaintiffs and civil liberties advocates as a landmark affirmation of free speech rights for noncitizens. The Trump administration, meanwhile, swiftly announced its intention to appeal, framing the decision as a threat to national security and immigration enforcement.