U.S. District Judge William G. Young, a Reagan appointee, issued a remarkable 161-page ruling on Sept. 30 that found the Trump administration unconstitutionally violated the free speech rights of pro-Palestinian protesters and academics.
Among the 85-year-old jurist’s findings: ICE agents wore masks to “terrorize Americans” and the administration incorrectly conflated antisemitism with criticism of Israel.
Here are a few notable excerpts from the ruling:
“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.…” [page 145]
“The great paradox of this case is that the government witnesses — to a person — are decent, credible, dedicated nonpartisan professionals. True patriots who, in order to do their duty, have been weaponized by their highest superiors to reach foregone conclusions for most ignoble ends.” [page 95]
“The President may not have authorized this operation (or even known about it), but once it was in play the President wholeheartedly supported it, making many individual case specific comments (some quite cruel) that demonstrate he has been fully briefed. Such conduct, of course, violates his sacred oath to ‘faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and… to the best of [his] Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,’ by ignoring the Constitution’s command that the President “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.’” [page 96]
“ICE goes masked for a single reason — to terrorize Americans into quiescence. Small wonder ICE often seems to need our respected military to guard them as they go about implementing our immigration laws.” [page 98]
“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, see United States v. Reid, 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.” [pages 144-145]
“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.” [page 152]
“When he [Trump] 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.” [page 154]
* Young provides a definition: “A term from our Civil War – logs painted black to look like cannons.”
Roland Klose 