Universities Should Challenge Trump’s Speech-Based Deportations of Students in Court
The Trump administration has been detaining and trying to deport immigrant and foreign students for their First-Amendment protected speech. That includes even speech that does not even support terrorism, as in the case of a Tufts graduate student detained for an anti-Israel op ed that, however flawed, does not endorse Hamas terrorism, or indeed even mention it. Such detention and deportation is an assault on freedom of speech, and violates the First Amendment, which has no exception for immigration restrictions.
In a recent public letter, the faculty of Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy propose universities take action to stop this travesty:
Resolved: That the undersigned Executive Faculty of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy urge and would support Tufts University commencing legal action, without delay and in concert with other universities if possible, to enjoin the government and its agents from arresting, detaining, or deporting university students, staff, or faculty based upon their engagement in constitutionally protected expression.
The signatories below constitute a majority of the Executive Faculty.
This is a good idea, and schools should pursue it. I am just a rank-and-file academic and do not speak for my university. But I will do what I can to persuade relevant authorities act on the Tufts Fletcher School faculty’s suggestion. I urge other academics and university officials to do the same.
Up till now, students and university employees targeted for deportation based on their speech have been largely left to fend for themselves, trying to challenge the deportations after they have already been detained. A lawsuit brought by a coalition of universities would have important advantages over this case-by-case approach.
Most obviously, the universities could file a class action lawsuit or seek a nationwide injunction. This could block such detentions and deportations throughout the country in one fell swoop. By contrast, under the status quo, individual students and employees targeted for deportation for their speech often have to spend weeks or months in cruel detention. Even if they ultimately prevail in court, they will have undergone considerable suffering, and potentially significant losses to their education and career prospects. Moreover, freeing one such detainee won’t necessarily protect others. Thus, the “chilling effect” on other students’ and employees’ speech could continue.
A class-action lawsuit or nationwide injunction could solve these problems. If successful, it could preemptively block speech-based detention and deportation of university students and employees throughout the country. This would save immigrant and foreign students from enduring weeks in detention, and lift the cloud of fear that has descended on campuses.
Moreover, universities have far greater resources to conduct litigation than individual students and employees do. They could much more easily employ topnotch legal talent, and expend the resources needed to prevail.
The case for a nationwide injunction here is similar to that which led to the grant of multiple nationwide injunctio
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
