Massachusetts District Court Judge William G. Young is 85 years old. A Reagan appointee, he has sat on the federal bench for 40 years. I share that information not to denigrate his age or his abilities, but to posit that this may, at least in part, explain why he's opted to let it rip, so to speak, in his latest ruling.
On Tuesday morning, Young issued a 161-page decision ("Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law") in the case styled American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, in which the plaintiffs (several academic associations) challenged the Trump administration's removal of non-citizen pro-Palestinian protestors from the U.S., pursuant to Executive Orders 14161 ("Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats") and 14188 ("Additional Measures To Combat Anti-Semitism"). The plaintiffs claim that this action by the administration violates the First Amendment.
Following a nine-day bench trial held in August, Young has concluded that the administration's actions are/were unconstitutional. In doing so, Young makes no secret of his animus toward President Trump (and, by extension, his administration):
This case — perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court — squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us. The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally “yes, they do.” “No law” means “no law.” The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence. See Section III.A infra. No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.
...
Having carefully considered the entirety of the record, this Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, together with the subordinate officials and agents of each of them, deliberately and with purposeful aforethought, did so concert their actions and those of their two departments intentionally to chill the rights to freedom of speech and peacefully to assemble of the non-citizen plaintiff members of the plaintiff associations. What remains after issuing this opinion is to consider what, if anything, may be done to remedy these constitutional violations.
That Young reached this conclusion is not surprising. At the risk of ruffling a few feathers, I'll note that I'm not entirely sure I disagree. As someone who considers herself a First Amendment absolutist, this is one area in which I've had some ambivalence regarding the administration's approach. I do think there are legitimate arguments to be made that, under our current immigration laws, the government perhaps has more leeway in this arena, particularly if we're talking about screening applicants who seek to travel/study/work here before they do so. But that's a slightly different issue than the removal of those already (otherwise lawfully) here, and if I were placing money on it, I think this may well be an instance where the administration would lose this fight on appeal — and I suspect it will be appealed.
RELATED: Trump Administration Wins: Mahmoud Khalil Ordered Deported by Immigration Judge
New: Mahmoud Khalil's Latest Interview Is So Bad, He Should Be Deported Immediately
But that's all beside the point, because the approach Young took in delivering this decision is...well, it leaves ample room for criticism. To start, he begins his opinion with a screenshot of an anonymous nastygram postcard he received sometime in June and his response to it.
Why he decided that was germane to his analysis isn't entirely clear — perhaps he thought he was demonstrating his deep appreciation for the First Amendment by allowing Mr. or Ms. Anonymous to have their say — even have it publicized — without being shushed by the government.
Again, I don't fault his fondness for the First Amendment or the Constitution as a whole. I do fault his showboating.
Later in the opinion, he shares with us his wife's perspective on President Trump and his approach to the presidency:
B. President Donald J. Trump
“He seems to be winning. He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead.”
Half admiring, half quizzical, a very wise woman –- my wife — made this comment about our 47th President in an entirely different context. I quote it here because it so perfectly captures the public persona of President Trump, especially as it pertains to the issues presented in this case.
Young then proceeds to lay out his distaste for the president — none of which has anything to do with whether or not it's constitutional for the government to remove a non-citizen from the country for actively participating in demonstrations which amount to support for a known terrorist organization. But I suspect the judge had some delicious fun expounding upon it nonetheless — that should be good for a few backslaps at the next cocktail party or judicial conference, I'm sure.
Young concludes his decision by citing an oft-quoted Ronald Reagan observation, and then wrapping it up with a rhetorical flourish:
Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.
I first heard these words of President Reagan’s back in 2007 when my son quoted them in the Law Day celebration speech at the Norfolk Superior Court. I was deeply moved and hold these words before me as a I discharge judicial duties. As I’ve read and re-read the record in this case, listened widely, and reflected extensively, I’ve come to believe that President Trump truly understands and appreciates the full import of President Reagan’s inspiring message — yet I fear he has drawn from it a darker, more cynical message. I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected.
Is he correct?
I'll end my own piece here with this simple observation: I appreciate Judge Young's devotion to First Amendment principles. I think this decision might ultimately be upheld. But he could have done the same quite ably without attempting to psychoanalyze the president or preen for his federal judiciary brethren. It's not a great look.
Editor's Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump's agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.