I’ve never been a fan of federal judges writing cute or gimmicky opinions. Much as I may enjoy them on occasion, federal cases are serious matters and the court’s decisions should be serious as well. So I join the chorus of those who question why radical left lunatic Reagan appointee, Judge William Young of the District of Massachusetts, began his very lengthy decision in AAUP v. Rubio like this.

But from there, Judge Young got down to business.

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 [between citizens and non-citizens] and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence… No one’s freedom of speech is unlimited, of course, but these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.

To some of us (most of us?), this may be as uncontroversial a statement of law as can be. Of course the First Amendment draws no distinction between citizens and non-citizens. So why, oh why, is this even before a federal court, wasting the time of a federal judge?

Much of the opinion is a long detailed recitation of the extensive evidence showing that the administration does indeed have a policy of targeting non-citizen students and university employees for deportation based on their anti-Israel or pro-Palestinian speech. One can quibble with some of the details here. But the combined weight of evidence is overwhelming, in so far as high officials from the president on down have openly said that is what they are doing. In several cases, such as that of Tufts graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk, they have indeed tried to deport people whose only offense was to engage in speech disapproved of by the administration. Thus, Judge Young is right to conclude there is a basis for a lawsuit by the AAUP and the Middle East Studies Association, both of which have members vulnerable to deportation under the policy.

It is a MAGA article of faith that we need not tolerate guests in this country who utter words or take positions contrary to those approved by the president. If they’re being “unAmerican” in their speech or beliefs, then they have no right to be here and deserve nothing more than the next plane out.

But, but, but, it’s argued, immigrants aren’t entitled to all the rights and privileges of Americans, so why should they be allowed this right, to “agitate,” as the president likes to say in his jumble of empty words, against American interests?

The text of the First Amendment is worded as a general limitation on government power, not a form of special protection for a particular group of people, such as US citizens or permanent residents. The Supreme Court held as much in a 1945 case, where they ruled that “Freedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”

A standard response to this view is the idea that, even if non-citizens have a right to free speech, they don’t have a constitutional right to stay in the US. Thus, deporting them for their speech doesn’t violate the Constitution. But, in virtually every other context, it is clear that depriving people of a right as punishment for their speech violates the First Amendment, even if the right they lose does not itself have constitutional status. For example, there is no constitutional right to get Social Security benefits. But a law that barred critics of the President from getting those benefits would obviously violate the First Amendment. The same logic applies in the immigration context.

Next comes the contention that if it’s lawful to deny entry to an alien based on speech, why would it not also be lawful to deport them? Curiously, Ilya Somin argues that both should be unconstitutional.

While Judge Young’s ruling – following Supreme Court precedent – applies a distinction between speech-based initial exclusions and speech-based deportations (allowing greater scope for the former), I would argue both are equally unconstitutional.

There is a distinction between those we allow to enter, which allows for denial to those who would seek to attack or undermine our nation, and deportation after entry. Our First Amendment does not extend to the universe, but only our nation. Until someone is given entry, they do not fall within the universe of people who can claim the First Amendment’s protection.

That does not mean that Homeland Security can be trusted with the exercise of the authority to exclude people because they aren’t MAGA enough.

“Communist?”

DENIED.

“Terrorist?”

DENIED.

“Globalist?”

DENIED. pic.twitter.com/oPcyulhkqd

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) October 1, 2025

Globalist? As opposed to what, flat earther? Perhaps they will require immigrants to sign a pledge of loyalty to Trump before admission? It is one thing to deny entry to a terrorist, even if it raises the thorny problem of how one determines who is a terrorist, but that’s because they seek entry to commit terror, not challenge our politics.

Perhaps the reason Judge Young was compelled to write a decision on such an obvious, if not banal, understanding of the scope of the First Amendment is that the thrust to deport non-citizens, even if they are here lawfully and they can’t be squeezed into the DHS “worst of the worst” hole no matter how far the government is willing to stray from the truth or reality, is that they just want to get rid of immigrants and any excuse, even one as nonsensical as their not being included within the First Amendment, will do.