预计为期两周的法官审判的第一天，挑战特朗普政府驱逐表达以下观点的国际学生和学者的努力亲巴勒斯坦的观点周一在波士顿开始讨论非公民的第一修正案权利。
该诉讼由美国大学教授协会和中东研究协会提起，代表了全国数百名教授和学生。
虽然最近驱逐知名国际学生的努力马哈茂德·哈利勒和rümeysa oz Turk被认定违宪，并在联邦法院暂时受阻，特朗普政府继续对他们进行罢免程序。
本案将国务卿马尔科·卢比奥列为被告，并对他援引《移民和国籍法》的几项条款提出质疑，其中包括一项很少援引的条款，该条款用于驱逐在美国居留的移民被视为威胁外交政策利益。
哥伦比亚大学奈特第一修正案研究所(Knight First Amendment Institute)代表学术团体的律师拉姆亚·克里希南认为，政府“采取了一种意识形态驱逐政策”，让学生和教授的言论变得冰冷。作为证据，Krishnan说，他们将拜访那些表示因其亲巴勒斯坦的教义或观点而面临被驱逐风险的教授和学者。
在开场声明中，克里希南还指着特朗普官员的几个社交媒体帖子，包括卢比奥在评论哈利勒被捕时的X帖子，上面写道，“我们将吊销美国哈马斯支持者的签证和绿卡，以便他们可以被驱逐出境。”
在一连串的声明中...官员们参考并重申了这项政策，”她说。“他们还明确表示，他们认为大量支持巴勒斯坦和反战的言论是支持哈马斯和反犹太主义的。”
美国地区法官威廉·杨(William Young)多次打断克里希南的陈述，质疑她是否认为他有权挑战卢比奥援引法律规定的广泛自由裁量权。
“你是要我宣布包括国务卿在内的这些公职人员的行为违宪吗?”法官问。
“这是正确的，”克里希南回应道。
“嗯，那我就有这个问题了。如果这是你要问的，你的人，你的诉讼当事人，你的客户，没有质疑它，是吗?”他追问。
“法官大人，我想说清楚，我们并没有直接质疑外交政策条款的合宪性。我们所质疑的是一项依赖各种移民归化局条款，根据政治观点驱逐非公民学生和教师的政策，”她说。
DOJ律师Victoria Santora反驳了政府针对学生受宪法保护的言论的指控。
桑托拉说:“政府的证据将表明，这些法律机构已经存在了几十年，他们的目的是促进安全和保障。”"现实是，设定移民执法的优先顺序是每个政府的特权."
但在她宣读政府的开幕词之前，杨法官问她所代表的政府官员是否认为合法居住在美国的非公民享有与公民一样的宪法第一修正案规定的权利。
当她犹豫不决时，杨法官又追问了一遍。
“我们的立场是，第一修正案确实提到了人，美国人民根据第一修正案享有同样的权利，”桑托拉说。
“谢谢你，这是一个答案，我会让你坚持下去，请继续，”法官杨回应道。
然而，几分钟后，桑托拉收回了他的话——补充说“第一修正案有细微差别”
她说:“微妙之处在于，正如我在开场白中所说的那样，这一背景涉及国家安全、外交政策、移民执法和执法自由裁量权等问题。”。
原告的律师继续传唤几位非公民教授出庭，他们表示害怕因他们以前的演讲或教学而遭到报复。
预计政府官员将在未来几天被传唤的其他证人中。
Trial challenging administration's deportation of pro-Palestinian scholars gets underway
The first day of an expected two-week bench trial challenging the Trump administration's efforts to deport international students and scholars who expresspro-Palestinian viewsbegan Monday in Boston with the question of noncitizens' First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit was filed by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, which represents hundreds of professors and students across the country.
While recent efforts to deport high-profile international students likeMahmoud Khaliland Rümeysa Öztürk have been found unconstitutional and temporarily thwarted in federal courts, the Trump administration has continued removal proceedings against them.
This case names Secretary of State Marco Rubio as a defendant and challenges his invocation of several provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, including a rarely invoked provision used to deport immigrants whose presence in the U.S. isdeemed a threatto foreign policy interests.
Ramya Krishnan, an attorney with Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, which is representing the academic groups, argued that the government has "adopted a policy of ideological deportation" and is chilling the speech of students and professors alike. As evidence, Krishnan said they will call on professors and academics who say they feel at risk of deportation over their pro-Palestinian teachings or views.
During the opening statement, Krishnan also pointed at several social media posts by Trump officials, including Rubio's X post commenting on Khalil's arrest that said, "We will be revoking the visas and green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported."
"In a litany of statements ... officials have referenced and reaffirmed the policy," she said. "They have also made clear that they deem a broad spectrum of pro-Palestinian and anti-war speech to be pro-Hamas and antisemitic."
Police officers gather during demonstrations by protesters in support of Palestinians in Gaza and pro-Israel counter-protesters, amid the ongoing
U.S. District Judge William Young interrupted Krishnan's statements on several occasions to question if she believed he had the right to challenge Rubio's wide-ranging discretion to invoke the provisions of the law.
"Are you asking me to declare that the conduct of these public officials, including the Secretary of State, is unconstitutional?" the judge asked.
"That is correct," Krishnan responded.
"Well, then I've got this problem. If that's what you're asking, your people, your litigants, your clients, haven't challenged it, have they?" he pressed.
"So to be clear, your honor, we do not challenge the constitutionality of the foreign policy provision directly. What we challenge is a policy of relying on a variety of INA provisions in order to deport noncitizen students and faculty based on their political viewpoint," she said.
DOJ attorney Victoria Santora pushed back on accusations that the administration is targeting students for constitutionally protected speech.
"The government's evidence will show that these legal authorities have existed for decades and that their purpose is to promote safety and security," Santora said. "The reality is that is the prerogative of each administration to set immigration enforcement priorities."
But before she could deliver the government's opening statement, Judge Young asked if the public officials she is representing believe that noncitizens who are lawfully in the country have the same rights under the First Amendment as citizens.
When she wavered on her answer, Judge Young pressed again.
"Our position would be that the First Amendment does refer to persons and that people in the United States share the same rights under the First Amendment," Santora said.
"Thank you, that's an answer and I'll hold you to that and please go ahead," Judge Young responded.
However, a few minutes later Santora backtracked -- adding that there were "nuances to the First Amendment."
"The nuance is that, as I addressed in our opening statement, this context involves issues of national security, foreign policy, immigration enforcement and enforcement discretion," she said.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs proceeded to call to the stand several noncitizen professors who have expressed fear of being retaliated against for their previous speech or teachings.
Government officials are expected to be among other witnesses called in the next few days.
