Immigration Judge Blocks Deportation of Pro-Palestinian Tufts University Student
BOSTON – An immigration judge has halted deportation proceedings against Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish PhD student at Tufts University, who was targeted by the Trump administration following her vocal advocacy for Palestinian rights. The decision, issued January 29th by Immigration Judge Roopal Patel in Boston, concludes that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to demonstrate a legal basis for her removal from the United States.
Ozturk’s case gained national attention after her arrest in March 2025 by immigration authorities in Somerville, Massachusetts, shortly after the State Department revoked her student visa. The sole reason cited for the revocation was a co-authored opinion editorial published in the Tufts Daily, the university’s student newspaper, criticizing the school’s response to Israel’s military actions in Gaza and calling for divestment from companies linked to the conflict. The editorial also used the term “Palestinian genocide,” a phrase that drew scrutiny from authorities.
“Today, I breathe a sigh of relief knowing that despite the justice system’s flaws, my case may give hope to those who have also been wronged by the US government,” Ozturk said in a statement released by her legal team.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing Ozturk, detailed the judge’s decision in a filing with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously reviewed a ruling leading to her release from immigration custody in May.
The case is part of a broader pattern of concerns raised about the targeting of students and academics expressing critical views on Israeli policy. A viral video of Ozturk’s arrest by plainclothes officers fueled accusations of political targeting and sparked protests on campuses across the country.
[Embed X/Twitter post: https://twitter.com/billybinion/status/2014776688983351422?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw]
The DHS has indicated it may appeal the judge’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, part of the Department of Justice. A DHS spokesperson characterized the ruling as “judicial activism” and defended the administration’s actions, stating that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem “has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism – think again.”
This statement has drawn criticism from civil liberties groups who argue it conflates protected speech with incitement to violence.
Ozturk, a Fulbright scholar researching child development, was detained for 45 days in Louisiana before a federal judge in Vermont ordered her release, finding substantial evidence of unlawful retaliation for exercising her free speech rights.
In a separate ruling last month, a federal judge in Boston found that the Trump administration had implemented an unlawful policy of detaining and deporting scholars with pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel views, creating a chilling effect on academic freedom. The Justice Department has moved to appeal that decision as well.
The case has also attracted amicus briefs from numerous Jewish organizations, including dozens who filed a joint brief arguing that Ozturk’s arrest and potential deportation violated fundamental constitutional rights. These groups emphasized the importance of protecting free speech, even on controversial topics.
The outcome of Ozturk’s case sets a precedent for similar cases involving non-citizen students and academics facing deportation for their political views. It underscores the ongoing debate surrounding the balance between national security concerns and the protection of First Amendment rights in the context of immigration enforcement.
