Federal Judge Accuses Trump, Rubio, and Noem of ‘Unconstitutional Conspiracy’

In an unusually pointed rebuke from the federal bench, U.S. District Judge William Young—appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985—has accused President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of orchestrating an “unconstitutional conspiracy” to violate the First Amendment rights of pro-Palestinian activists.

The Reagan-era judge, known for his measured demeanor over four decades on the bench, announced plans to issue a formal order blocking further targeted deportations of individuals whose only apparent offense is vocal support for Palestine.

Young’s remarks came during a hearing on cases involving activists Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk, whom the judge described as having been singled out solely for their political speech.

“I find it breathtaking that I have been compelled on the evidence to find the conduct of such high-level officers of our government—Cabinet secretaries—conspired to infringe the First Amendment rights of people with such rights here in the United States,” Young stated. “These Cabinet secretaries have failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.”

The judge did not stop at procedural criticism. He drew a historical parallel, likening the administration’s deportation efforts to the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required the return of escaped enslaved people to their owners.

“I’ve asked myself why—how did this happen? How could our own government, the highest officials in our government, seek to infringe the rights of people lawfully here in the United States?” Young asked rhetorically. “And I’ve come to believe that there’s a concept of freedom here that I don’t understand.”

He continued with a direct critique of the president’s leadership style: “We cast around the word ‘authoritarian,’ I don’t, in this context, treat that in a pejorative sense, and I use it carefully, but it’s fairly clear that this president believes, as an authoritarian, that when he speaks, everyone, everyone in Article II is going to toe the line absolutely.”

Young indicated he will release a detailed written ruling sometime next week, which is expected to enjoin the administration from continuing targeted deportations based on protected political expression.

Trending: ICE Agents Dined at a Minnesota Restaurant — Then Went Back and Arrested the Staff Who Worked There

Cases at the Center of the Controversy

The hearing focused on two high-profile deportations: Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident and outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights, whose detention and removal proceedings have been widely criticized as retaliation for his activism. Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish national and student whose visa was revoked after she participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

Both cases involve individuals who, according to the court record, have no criminal convictions or immigration violations unrelated to their political speech. The government has argued national security concerns, but Young dismissed those justifications as pretextual, finding that the evidence pointed to viewpoint discrimination.

The White House has not yet issued a formal response to Judge Young’s remarks. Administration officials have previously defended the deportations as necessary for national security and immigration enforcement, framing them as lawful actions against individuals who pose risks or violate visa terms.

Trump has repeatedly criticized pro-Palestinian activism as antisemitic and has supported aggressive measures against such speech, including visa revocations and deportations. The cases have become flashpoints in the broader debate over free speech, foreign policy, and immigration enforcement.

Democrats have seized on Young’s ruling as validation of their long-standing accusations of overreach, while some Republicans have dismissed the judge as an activist jurist. The decision could set significant precedent if upheld on appeal, potentially limiting the administration’s ability to target political speech through immigration tools.

Did You Know?: RFK Jr. Reveals Trump Is ‘Pumping Himself Full of Poison All Day Long’

Analysis of the Historical and Legal Significance

Judge Young’s invocation of the Fugitive Slave Act is particularly striking, as it draws a direct parallel between modern enforcement actions and one of the most reviled laws in American history.

The 1850 Act required citizens and local officials to assist in capturing and returning escaped enslaved people, often under threat of penalty.

By comparing the current deportation policy to that era, Young suggests a fundamental betrayal of constitutional values and the rule of law. His characterization of Trump as an “authoritarian” who expects absolute obedience from executive branch officials further elevates the critique from procedural to existential.

The ruling, when issued, is almost certain to face immediate appeal from the Justice Department, potentially reaching the First Circuit Court of Appeals and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.

Young’s decision, if finalized, could have sweeping effects: It would restrict the use of immigration law as a tool to punish protected political speech. It may set precedent for other courts reviewing similar cases involving pro-Palestinian activists. More so, it could force the administration to reevaluate its approach to visa revocations and deportations targeting political expression.

The hearing and impending order arrive amid escalating tensions over immigration enforcement, including recent controversies in Minneapolis and nationwide protests against ICE tactics.

---

TOP STORIES

1. Jack Smith, Who Claimed He Found Dirt on Trump, Is Now Set to Give Live Testimony in Major Reversal
2. Gamblers Accuse Karoline Leavitt of ‘Insider Trading’ After Abrupt Stage Exit
3. Trump Bullies GOP to Scrap Senate Tradition to Get His Way

---

All eyes are on Judge Young—a Reagan appointee with a reputation for independence—and whether his condemnation of the administration’s actions will withstand appellate review as the ruling approaches.

For now, his words stand as one of the most forceful judicial rebukes of the Trump administration’s policies to date, warning that the line between lawful enforcement and unconstitutional suppression has been dangerously crossed.