Court rules government can't deport Rümeysa Öztürk, Tufts student who criticized Israel

Student Visa and Green Card Holders Have the Same First Amendment Rights as U.S. Citizens

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution does not contain a citizenship test. It does not say “Americans only.” It does not say “citizens only.” It says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” For more than a century, U.S. courts have been clear about what that means: non-citizens lawfully present in the United States enjoy the same core free-speech protections as citizens.

That principle was reinforced yet again this month when an immigration court terminated the government’s attempt to deport Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University Ph.D. student, after the Trump administration sought her removal following her criticism of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian human rights.

Constitutional Rights Do Not Depend on Citizenship

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that “persons” under the Constitution include non-citizens who are lawfully present in the country. In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the Court made this unmistakably clear, holding that constitutional protections extend to “all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.”

Later cases reaffirmed the same principle. Lawful permanent residents, student visa holders, and other legally present non-citizens are protected by:

• The First Amendment (speech, press, association)

• The Fifth Amendment (due process)

• The Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)

The government cannot punish protected speech simply by labeling it “foreign,” “controversial,” or politically inconvenient.

Criticizing a Foreign Government Is Protected Speech

Öztürk’s case centers on speech — not violence, not criminal conduct, not material support for terrorism. She co-authored an opinion piece criticizing her university’s response to Israel’s war in Gaza and calling for divestment. That is textbook political speech.

Political speech is the most protected category of expression under the First Amendment. Courts have been explicit: advocating for unpopular causes, criticizing U.S. allies, or opposing government policy does not become illegal because the speaker is a non-citizen.

The government’s attempt to recast criticism of Israel as a “foreign policy threat” does not change the constitutional analysis. If that standard were accepted, any administration could deport any foreign student for speech it dislikes, simply by asserting vague diplomatic consequences.

The immigration court correctly rejected that logic.

“Privilege, Not a Right” Is a Legal Red Herring

The Department of Homeland Security responded by claiming that student visas are a “privilege, not a right.” That talking point is misleading — and legally irrelevant.

Yes, visas are discretionary at issuance. But once a person is lawfully present, the government cannot retroactively punish them for protected speech. The Supreme Court has made clear that constitutional rights attach to presence, not paperwork.

The government cannot say:

• “You’re allowed to speak freely — until we don’t like what you say.”

• “You can criticize any country — except this one.”

• “Free speech applies to you — unless it embarrasses U.S. foreign policy.”

That is not how constitutional law works.

Weaponizing Immigration Law to Silence Speech Is Unconstitutional

Öztürk’s lawyers warned that the government’s theory would allow it to detain any non-citizen indefinitely by filing meritless deportation proceedings in retaliation for speech, all while avoiding meaningful judicial review.

That is not enforcement — it is punishment.
That is not immigration policy — it is viewpoint discrimination.
And it is precisely what the First Amendment exists to prevent.

The immigration court’s decision sends a clear message: immigration law cannot be used as a censorship tool.

The Bottom Line

A student visa holder.
A green card holder.
A permanent resident.
A citizen.

When it comes to freedom of speech, the Constitution draws no distinction.

Criticizing Israel is not a deportable offense.
Advocating for Palestinian rights is not terrorism.
And lawful non-citizens do not surrender their First Amendment rights at the airport.

Any government that claims otherwise is not defending the Constitution — it is testing how far it can bend it before the courts push back.