A Judge’s Ardent Plea for Free Speech

Reflecting on the wisdom of a Reagan-appointed district judge who stands up for the First Amendment rights of non-citizens that this regime is seeking to deport

New York City demonstrators cheer for former Columbia University student and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil after he was released from ICE detention in June. (Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The military occupation of American cities and the attacks by Donald Trump on “the radical left” and “the enemy within”: This is about restricting free speech and silencing dissent. The attacks on colleges and universities, law firms, media organizations and, yes, late-night comedians: This, too, is about restricting free speech and silencing dissent.

The authoritarian Trump regime is working aggressively to silence any and all Americans and non-citizens who disagree with them. This is not American. The loss of our First Amendment would represent the end of our most fundamental democratic right. This cannot stand.

While I have much to say about this topic, I am deeply grateful that Judge William G. Young—an 85-year-old Massachusetts district judge appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985—felt compelled to make an ardent plea for freedom of expression from the bench.

His insights are found in his scathing 161-page ruling concerning a suit filed against Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons and, of course, Donald Trump. The case was filed by The American Association of University Professors at Harvard University, New York University and Rutgers University, as well as a Middle East Studies association on behalf of international students who have faced deportation because of their pro-Palestinian views and campus protesting.

I won’t dig into all the factual details of the case Judge Young addresses, but I think it’s worth looking closely at his ruling and its passionate defense of our most fundamental constitutional rights. Judge Young is clearly alarmed by the government’s actions in this case—and was motivated to deploy his insights in the hope of providing a meaningful check on the government’s power. I hope you’ll find his passion as moving as I do in times like these.

This is no typical opinion. That’s clear by how he begins:

Post card dated June 19, 2025 (On file in Chambers)

“TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS…WHAT DO YOU HAVE?”

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. Here’s how that works out in a specific case—

Thus begins Judge Young’s “Articulation of Facts and Findings of Law,” specifically citing that the First Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1789, ratified in 1791 and its words are “carved in New Hampshire granite on the exterior of the very courthouse in which this Court sits.”

He includes those hallowed words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The judge notes that Trump issued an executive order on his first day entitled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship” and that it was “ostensibly issued to reverse conduct of his predecessor” and “barred federal officials from any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.” Yet, “President Trump here makes clear that, in his view, the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech applies to American citizens alone, and to an unconstitutionally narrow view of citizenship at that.”

Judge Young calls this case “perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court” and explains that it “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.”

He goes on:

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. No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.

With this constitution ruling firmly undergirding its approach, the Court here held a full hearing and a nine-day bench trial on the issue of whether the rights of these plaintiffs to constitutional freedom of speech have been unconstitutionally chilled by the deliberate conduct of any or all of these Public Official defendants. The Court heard witnesses and admitted 250 exhibits consisting of documents, photographs, and video clips.

Having carefully considered the entirety of the record, this Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, together with the subordinate officials and agents of each of them, deliberately and with purposeful aforethought, did so concert their actions and those of their two departments intentionally to chill the rights to freedom of speech and peacefully to assemble of the non-citizen plaintiff members of the plaintiff associations. What remains after issuing this opinion is to consider what, if anything, may be done to remedy these constitutional violations.

Note that phrase: Noem and Rubio “deliberately and with purposeful afterthought” sought “intentionally to chill the rights of freedom of speech and peacefully to assemble.” This tells us with utter clarity their level of hostility to our beloved country and the Constitution upon which it is based.

For more than a hundred pages, Judge Young details the facts of the case and his assessment of the defendants’ chilling of speech by the non-citizen plaintiffs, a group that includes campus protestors and op-ed writers. He explains the dangerous quandary and confrontations these plaintiffs faced:

The Plaintiffs’ noncitizen members here have all been made to understand that there are certain things that it may be gravely dangerous for them to say or do, but have not been told precisely what those things are (or are not); the diffuseness and ambition of this coercion campaign do not render it less constitutionally suspect.

This understanding of danger has been conveyed, moreover, not just by means of the threatening statements and speech targeted arrests, detentions, and visa revocations already discussed, but also by the manner in which these arrests, detentions, and revocations have been conducted: by often-masked agents, without prior notice of visa revocation or altered status, sometimes on the street or at immigration appointments, followed by conveyance quickly out of district and across the country.

The judge also notes how the “terrorist” label can be used falsely by the government to deny non-citizen targets their rights within our constitutional system:

To conclude, and to be clear, this Court has no sympathy for terrorism, or for those who genuinely support it. It has proudly sentenced terrorists…and understands its own role as one small part of a federal scheme that exists significantly to protect this Nation’s national security. Nor does the Court take a position on any foreign conflict or express special sympathy for any side of any political debate, foreign or domestic. Rather, the judicial role is limited to safeguarding the rights of all persons lawfully present in this country. This includes the freedom of speech that allows those persons to understand each other and to debate. If “terrorist” is interpreted to mean “pro-Palestine” or “anti-Israel,” and “support” encompasses pure political speech, then core free speech rights have been imperiled.

Throughout these proceedings, the Public Officials have emphasized that the noncitizens at issue are present at our grace. They describe their presence here as a privilege, which can be revoked for almost any reason, or at least when we begin to feel we would not have invited them here had we known what they were going to say to us. This Court in part must agree: non-citizens are, indeed, in a sense our guests. How we treat our guests is a question of constitutional scope, because who we are as a people and as a nation is an important part of how we must interpret the fundamental laws that constrain us. We are not, and we must not become, a nation that imprisons and deports people because we are afraid of what they have to tell us.

Then comes Judge Young’s conclusion:

This Court finds as fact and concludes as matter of law that Secretaries Noem and Rubio and their several agents and subordinates acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech. They did so in order to strike fear into similarly situated non-citizen pro-Palestinian individuals, pro-actively (and effectively) curbing lawful pro-Palestinian speech and intentionally denying such individuals (including the plaintiffs here) the freedom of speech that is their right. Moreover, the effect of these targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to chill freedom of speech to this day.

But Judge Young was not done, not by a long shot. He had something more to say, addressing directly the man who currently occupies our White House. In an epilogue titled “Justice in the Trump Era,” Young notes that this “unitary presidency” has rejected “reasoned discourse,” preferring instead to issue insistent, uninformed orders through directives and requirements. Indeed, there have not been a lot of “wonky white papers out of this Administration.”

He then turned to his spouse for the right words to assess Donald Trump:

“He seems to be winning. He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead.”

Half admiring, half quizzical, a very wise woman—my wife—made this comment about our 47th President in an entirely different context. I quote it here because it so perfectly captures the public persona of President Trump, especially as it pertains to the issues presented in this case. A brief explanation will suffice.

Then he uses each part of his wife’s cutting words to explain Trump’s approach to “governance.” First:

He seems to be winning.

Triumphalism is the very essence of the Trump brand. Often this is naught but hollow bragging: “my perfect administration,” wearing a red baseball cap in the presidential oval office emblazoned “Trump Was Right About Everything,” or most recently depicting himself as an officer in the First Cavalry Division. Unfortunately, this tends to obscure the very real and sweeping changes President Trump has wrought in his first year in office. If change is a mark of success, President Trump is the most successful president in history.

Second:

He ignores everything . . .

This is indubitably true. The Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies—all of it; the President simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act. A broad swath of our people find this refreshing in what they may feel is an over regulated society. After all, lawyers seem to have a penchant for telling you what you can’t do. President Trump simply ignores them.

This is not to suggest that he is entirely lawless. He is not. As an experienced litigator he has learned that—at least on the civil side of our courts—neither our Constitution nor laws enforce themselves, and he can do most anything until an aggrieved person or entity will stand up and say him “Nay,” i.e. take him to court. Now that he is our duly elected President after a full and fair election, he not only enjoys broad immunity from any personal liability, Trump v United States, 144 S.Ct. 2312 (2024), he is prepared to deploy all the resources of the nation against obstruction. Daunting prospect, isn’t it?

Small wonder then that our bastions of independent unbiased free speech—those entities we once thought unassailable—have proven all too often to have only Quaker guns. Behold President Trump’s successes in limiting free speech -– law firms cower, institutional leaders in higher education meekly appease the President, media outlets from huge conglomerates to small niche magazines mind the bottom line rather than the ethics of journalism.

Third:

. . . and he keeps bullying on.

Whether it’s social media, print, or television, President Trump is the master communicator of our time. His speech dominates today’s American idiom. Indeed, it may be said to define it. It is triumphal, transactional, imperative, bellicose, and coarse. It seeks to persuade –- not through marshaling data driven evidence, science, or moral suasion, but through power.

While the President naturally seeks warm cheering and gladsome, welcoming acceptance of his views, in the real world he’ll settle for sullen silence and obedience. What he will not countenance is dissent or disagreement. He recognizes, of course, that there are legislative and judicial branches to our government, co-equal even to a unitary Presidency. He meets dissent from his orders in those other two branches by demonizing and disparaging the speakers, sometimes descending to personal vitriol.

Dissent elsewhere among our people is likewise disfavored, often in colorful scurrilous terms. All this the First Amendment capaciously and emphatically allows.

When he drifts off into calling people “traitors” and condemning them for “treason,” however, he reveals an ignorance of the crime and the special burden of proof it requires. More important, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment; it is defamatory. In his official capacity as President, however, President Trump enjoys broad immunity from any civil liability.

And finally:

Retribution

Everything above in this section is necessary background to frame the problem this President has with the First Amendment. Where things run off the rails for him is his fixation with “retribution.” “I am your retribution,” he thundered famously while on the campaign trail. Yet government retribution for speech (precisely what has happened here) is directly forbidden by the First Amendment. The President’s palpable misunderstanding that the government simply cannot seek retribution for speech he disdains poses a great threat to Americans’ freedom of speech. It is at this juncture that the judiciary has robustly rebuffed the President and his Administration.

Judge Young has two more parting shots. One concerns a quote by Ronald Reagan that he says deeply moved him when he first heard it: ”Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.”

And then he hits the nail on the head:

As I’ve read and re-read the record in this case, listened widely, and reflected extensively, I’ve come to believe that President Trump truly understands and appreciates the full import of President Reagan’s inspiring message—yet I fear he has drawn from it a darker, more cynical message. I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected.

Is he correct?

The judge has one more thing to say, reverting to the postcard writer he addresses before getting into the facts of the case—that’s the person who sought to stick it to a member of our judiciary by letting him know that Trump has pardons and tanks to achieve his goals. This octogenarian wanted to share the values and principles that have clearly driven his work, delivered in a personal note:

I hope you found this helpful. Thanks for writing. It shows you care. You should.

Sincerely & respectfully,

Bill Young

P.S. The next time you’re in Boston [the postmark on the card is from the Philadelphia area] stop in at the Courthouse and watch your fellow citizens, sitting as jurors, reach out for justice. It is here, and in courthouses just like this one, both state and federal, spread throughout our land that our Constitution is most vibrantly alive, for it is well said that “Where a jury sits, there burns the lamp of liberty.”

Each day we are left to wonder how this dark chapter in our history will conclude. I make an effort to look for the light at the end of the tunnel that, frankly, some days seems to grow dimmer and farther away.

But Judge William G. Young has given us reason for hope. We have surely been learning that no one will “save us,” especially as we can be sure this ruling will be appealed. But we can take both solace and strength that there are Americans in our justice system that will stick by the values, principles and rights that have defined and built our nation—and they can continue to be critical fuel to drive us through and out of this dark tunnel.

Becoming a paid subscriber to America, America—for $50 a year or just $5 a month—helps sustain our work, keeps nearly all the content free for everyone and gives you full access to our dynamic community conversations. It also represents your commitment to fearless and independent journalism. That’s never been more critical.