Judge Blasts Rubio, Noem for 'Deliberate' Attack on Free Speech

Paul Riverbank, 10/1/2025 A federal judge's landmark ruling exposes a troubling pattern of constitutional violations by the Trump administration in targeting pro-Palestinian activists. The decision, penned by Reagan appointee Judge Young, reveals how top officials systematically weaponized immigration enforcement to suppress protected political speech on college campuses.

Judge William G. Young, a Reagan-era appointee known for his meticulous legal analysis, didn't mince words. His 161-page opinion cuts through the rhetoric to expose how top officials, including Secretary of State Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Noem, orchestrated what amounts to a systematic campaign against pro-Palestinian voices on college campuses.

I've spent the morning poring over the details of this remarkable decision. What stands out isn't just the verdict, but the methodical way Young dismantles the government's justification for targeting non-citizen activists. The judge's findings paint a disturbing picture: federal agencies essentially outsourcing their target lists to Canary Mission, a pro-Israel organization, while bypassing proper vetting procedures.

The case of Mahmoud Khalil serves as a stark example. Like others caught in this dragnet, Khalil faced deportation not for any security threat, but for expressing political views that happened to criticize Israeli policies. The government's elastic definition of antisemitism, as Young points out, wrapped protected speech into a dangerous package labeled "support for terrorism."

Perhaps most telling is Young's unusual decision to address an anonymous threat he received – a postcard asking "TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS... WHAT DO YOU HAVE?" His response speaks volumes about the state of our democracy and the courage required to uphold constitutional principles under pressure.

Having covered the federal judiciary for over two decades, I can't overstate the significance of this ruling. It's not just about Palestine or Israel – it's about the fundamental principle that government power must not be wielded to silence political dissent, regardless of the speaker's citizenship status.

The court has scheduled additional hearings to determine appropriate remedies. But the message is already clear: our Constitution's protections aren't suggestions, and they don't come with an asterisk excluding non-citizens. In these politically charged times, that's a reminder we desperately need.

In what may prove to be a watershed moment for civil liberties, a federal court has delivered a stinging rebuke to government overreach in suppressing political speech. The ruling, which landed on my desk yesterday, reveals troubling patterns of constitutional violations that deserve our careful attention.Judge William G. Young, a Reagan-era appointee known for his meticulous legal analysis, didn't mince words. His 161-page opinion cuts through the rhetoric to expose how top officials, including Secretary of State Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Noem, orchestrated what amounts to a systematic campaign against pro-Palestinian voices on college campuses.I've spent the morning poring over the details of this remarkable decision. What stands out isn't just the verdict, but the methodical way Young dismantles the government's justification for targeting non-citizen activists. The judge's findings paint a disturbing picture: federal agencies essentially outsourcing their target lists to Canary Mission, a pro-Israel organization, while bypassing proper vetting procedures.The case of Mahmoud Khalil serves as a stark example. Like others caught in this dragnet, Khalil faced deportation not for any security threat, but for expressing political views that happened to criticize Israeli policies. The government's elastic definition of antisemitism, as Young points out, wrapped protected speech into a dangerous package labeled "support for terrorism."Perhaps most telling is Young's unusual decision to address an anonymous threat he received – a postcard asking "TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS... WHAT DO YOU HAVE?" His response speaks volumes about the state of our democracy and the courage required to uphold constitutional principles under pressure.Having covered the federal judiciary for over two decades, I can't overstate the significance of this ruling. It's not just about Palestine or Israel – it's about the fundamental principle that government power must not be wielded to silence political dissent, regardless of the speaker's citizenship status.The court has scheduled additional hearings to determine appropriate remedies. But the message is already clear: our Constitution's protections aren't suggestions, and they don't come with an asterisk excluding non-citizens. In these politically charged times, that's a reminder we desperately need.