Noncitizens have free speech rights, and the Trump admin violated them, judge rules
The fiery 161-page decision that put the Trump administration to task for what it described as violating Free Speech protections afforded by the Constitution to noncitizens opened with reference to a handwritten scrawled postcard listed as "on file in chambers."
It reads: "Trump has pardons and tanks.... What do you have?"
The response, ostensibly written by Federal Judge William G. Young, was:
"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.
"How's how that works out in a specific case —"
The first page of Judge William G. Young's ruling on Tuesday upholding First Amendment rights for noncitizens.Court documents
Young went on to call the case against President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other government officials — brought before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by the American Association of University Professors and other academic organizations — "perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court."
The lawsuit was brought over the Trump administration policies of arresting and detaining noncitizen students and academics over Pro-Palestinian advocacy. A notable example was the arrest of Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk , after she penned an op-ed in a student newspaper in support of Palestinian rights.
"This case... squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us," Young wrote in the Tuesday decision. "The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally 'yes, they do.'"
Young described Trump's argument as being that freedom of speech applies to only American citizens, and, the judge added, an "unconstitutionally narrow view of citizenship at that."
Young further described that view as "invidious" (of an unpleasant or objectionable nature — Merriam-Webster ), and continued that Rubio, Noem and other government officials "deliberately and with purposeful aforethought" chilled the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution.
The full decision can be read here .
More on Politics
Read the original article on MassLive . Add MassLive as a Preferred Source by clicking here .
