The lawsuit focused on reversing the Trump administration’s efforts to detain foreign students and faculty for engaging in pro-Palestinian activism finished its second week of arguments in Boston federal court Friday, with a top State Department official testifying about how the government is making detention decisions.
Key elements argued before U.S. District Judge William G. Young included what constitutes an official government policy to remove someone from the United States and how the federal government can determine if someone is removable; what the government considers to be antisemitic activity and how it’s defined; and whether an affiliation with a student group that’s pro-Palestinian constitutes action that’s harmful to the U.S.
The lawsuit was brought by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association.
A major focus of the case has been the concept of “ideological deportation” — a phrase mentioned several times throughout the hearings. The Trump administration has invoked it to strip foreign students of their visas and try to deport those who engage in pro-Palestinian advocacy. Attorneys for the plaintiffs claim the Department of Homeland Security and State Department collaborated to illegally identify students and professors who participated in campus protests against the war in Gaza.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys are focusing on the First Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act as the legs to their arguments. The APA governs how federal agencies create and issue regulations and policies.
Arguments leave distinction of how government defines antisemitism open
One of the two witnesses called on Friday was John Armstrong, senior bureau official in the Bureau of Consular Affairs, which is part of the State Department. He testified that support for ending the war in Gaza and cutting ties with Israel is directly linked to antisemitism.
But plaintiffs’ attorneys countered that no government document actually defines what constitutes antisemitism.
“You don’t know what definition of standard the visa office uses to determine whether speech or content is antisemitic, right?” said Alexandra Conlon, a plaintiff attorney with the law firm Sher Tremonte LLP.
Armstrong said he didn’t “know of any materials,” but said there is a common cultural understanding of what antisemitism is.
Judge Young latched onto that, asking Armstrong to “state that, so I understand - but what do you think is the common understanding of what antisemitism is?”
“In my opinion, antisemitism is unjustified views, biases, or prejudices, or actions against Jewish people or Israel that are the result of hatred towards them,” he replied. Conlon hinged her arguments on Armstrong’s understanding, rather than the actual documentation of what an antisemitic action could be.
“In my understanding, antisemites will sometimes hide their views and say they’re not against Jews, they’re just against Israel, which is a participle argument in my mind. It’s just a dodge,” said Armstrong.
While they are not plaintiffs themselves, foreign students who’ve expressed pro-Palestinian views and later been arrested by federal immigration authorities have been a central part of the trial, including Mahmoud Khalil in New York, Mohsen Mahdawi in Vermont, and Badar Khan Suri, a professor at Georgetown University. Rümeysa Öztürk, the Tufts Ph.D student detained by plainclothes ICE agents in March, has also been mentioned extensively throughout the proceedings as an example of a student targeted by the Trump administration for their speech.
Armstrong said he revoked Öztürk’s visa under a policy that allows him to make such a decision without the approval of Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Öztürk co-wrote an op-ed in 2024 with other students demanding Tufts University divest funds from companies in Israel supporting the war in Gaza. Armstrong said he thought “long and hard about Ms. Öztürk’s case,” and that the emphasis wasn’t “just her statements, it was things she did,” he alleged.
Conlon noted that a State Department memo claimed that while Öztürk had been involved with actions protesting Tufts’ relationship with Israel, the government had not “provided any evidence showing that Öztürk has engaged in any antisemitic activity or made any public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization or antisemitism generally.”
Armstrong insisted Öztürk had a connection to a “banned student group,” Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine.
“For activities and association, which are not speech, activities and associations with these groups may undermine foreign policy by creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and indicating support for a designated terrorist organization,” he said. Conlon noted that a State Department report found no evidence against Öztürk other than her membership in a separate student group that supported a proposal from Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine.
“That’s all there was,” she said. Armstrong insisted Öztürk was part of Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, but offered no further evidence.
“Okay, so just so we’re really clear here, because I really don’t think she deserves to be besmirched further,” said Conlon.
Young interrupted, calling Conlon’s comments “inappropriate,” and urged her to stick to asking questions.
“It’s the witnesses who are testifying here, and though I play a bit role, I’m the one who’s going to draw the inferences. Not you,” he said.
“She was associated with the organization Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine. She was against Tuft’s relationship with Israel. Association is an activity,” Armstrong later reiterated.
During Öztürk’s habeas case, in which her lawyers argued that she should be freed from detention, Tufts repeatedly expressed support for her release.
Previous court hearings featured new details about student detentions
Earlier testimony also led to new revelations about the government’s decision-making. On July 16, Patrick Cunningham, an assistant special agent in charge at the Homeland Security Investigations office in Boston, said the focus on arresting Öztürk after her visa was revoked without her knowledge was a “priority” for his superiors.
“I can’t recall a time that it’s come top-down like this with a visa revocation,” he said. Armstrong also testified last week that it’s commonplace to let a visa holder know when their visa is revoked, but Öztürk was not told, despite a request from ICE that she be informed.
Last week, Peter Hatch, the assistant director for the Office of Investigations within DHS, testified that analysts were told to look at the Canary Mission website to find leads for international student protesters who’d taken part in pro-Palestinian activity. The website, run by a group known for targeting pro-Palestinian activists, has led to many students being doxxed and harassed. Hatch noted that the site was used to identify Öztürk.
“It was unique because it was a large amount of leads — large amount of information on protesters,” Hatch said, explaining why government analysts were ordered to look at the site.
Judge Young will determine whether the administration’s targeted deportation effort on foreign students engaging in political speech is a violation of the Constitution. Closing arguments are set for Monday.
Produced with assistance from the Public Media Journalists Association Editor Corps funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation funded by the American people.
