A federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump's administration violated the First Amendment rights of pro-Palestinian students who are in the country on student visas by attempting to deport them. But, analysts on Wednesday were more stunned by the language the judge used in his opinion than by the crimes the administration purportedly committed.
On Tuesday, Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that Secretary of State Marco Rubio's efforts to deport student visa holders because of their political views violated the students' free speech rights.
"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," Young wrote in his opinion. "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.”
Sam Stein, managing editor of The Bulwark, and editor Jonathan V. Last discussed the ruling on a new episode of "Bulwark Takes."
"When I read it, the first 135 pages are dismantling the case, but then the last 12 pages or so are just him sort of undressing Donald Trump, and like in a way that I think probably was gratifying for him," Stein said. "It's become sort of this new fashion for judges to try to one-up each other about how badly they can rebuke Trump.
"But in this case, it was kind of dark underneath it," he added. "It's like we've really entered it."
Last added that Young's decision echoed one of the Republicans' favorite jurists, Antonin Scalia.
"What Judge Young is saying with this is that the real test on this case is do First Amendment rights apply to people who are lawful residents of the United States?" Last said. "So non-citizen lawful residents, and his contention is, by any reasonable reading of the Constitution, the answer is yes."