Judge Orders Tufts Grad Student Rumeysa Ozturk Be Released on Bail From Immigration Detention
Ozturk's continued detention "potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens," said U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions III.

On Friday, a judge ordered the government to immediately release Tufts University graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk on bail from a federal immigration detention center. The judge said Ozturk's challenge of her arrest raised serious claims of due process and First Amendment violations, and that her continued detention "potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens."
U.S. District Judge for the District of Vermont William K. Sessions III said the government's failure to produce any evidence against Ozturk besides an op-ed she helped write for the Tufts student newspaper suggested that she was detained for protected First Amendment speech. Citing the extraordinary circumstances of her case, the chilling effects of her continued detention, and Ozturk's medical testimony, Sessions found that Ozturk's detention could not stand and ordered her released on her own recognizance without restriction on travel.
The ruling is a loss for the Trump administration's campaign to deport student visa holders for speaking in favor of Palestine and participating in pro-Palestine protests. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has claimed sweeping powers to revoke the visas of foreigners that the federal government deems harmful to its foreign policy interests and have them arrested without a warrant or criminal charges.
"Rumeysa can now return to her beloved Tufts community, resume her studies, and begin teaching again. We could not be more delighted," Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a press release. "Today's ruling underscores a vital First Amendment principle: No one should be imprisoned by the government for expressing their beliefs."
Immigration agents snatched Ozturk off the street near her home in Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25. She was then whisked away to Vermont, followed by an immigration detention center in Louisiana before she was allowed to speak with a lawyer.
The Department of Homeland Security claimed that Ozturk "engaged in activities in support of Hamas, a foreign terrorist organization that relishes the killing of Americans." However, the only evidence it could provide, even after prodding from Sessions, was an op-ed Ozturk helped write that called on Tufts to divest from Israel.
Ozturk filed a habeas corpus petition challenging her arrest and detention.
At her court hearing on Friday, Ozturk testified via Zoom from the Louisiana detention facility where she has been held for more than six weeks. She said she suffers frequent and severe asthma attacks. She also testified that a nurse ordered her to take her hijab off when she was trying to get help for one of those attacks.
"The nurse said 'take the thing off my head,'" Ozturk said.
The Trump administration's legal arguments in Ozturk's and similar cases have alarmed civil rights groups and federal judges. In another student visa case, a federal judge compared the tactics to the Red Scare and Palmer raids. Free speech groups have also condemned Ozturk's arrest.
"It is unthinkable that a person in a free society could be snatched from the street, imprisoned, and threatened with deportation for expressing an opinion the government dislikes," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) wrote in an amicus brief filed last month in support of Ozturk.
Ozturk still faces deportation, but Sessions' ruling is welcome pushback against the Trump administration's thuggish campaign to silence disfavored speech.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Which part of government holds power over Visas by law? What are the conditions of those visas?
Yeah nothing in this article addresses how the administration's actions are beyond their legal authority or how this judge has jurisdiction.
Congress.
Bullshit.
Liying pile of lefty shit.
And false despite having the actual laws linked to you dozens of times at this point.
I know it's rhetorical, but:
The executive branch of the U.S. government holds power over visas. Specifically, the Department of State and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) play key roles. The Department of State manages the issuance of both immigrant and non-immigrant visas, while USCIS oversees lawful immigration and adjudicates applications for naturalization, visas, and work permits.
Based on laws passes by Congress. Otherwise none of that would be needed.
Yeah laws that give the executive full authority. Are you too stupid to understand that you're just agreeing with Idaho-Bob?
So Congress passed legislation authorizing the Executive power over visas. What's your complaint then?
Why is it ok for Trump to wield unconstitutional laws you like and ignore unconstitutional laws you don’t like? Because you don’t give a fuck about the Constitution, that’s why. You just want a strongman who will smite people you hate. That’s it.
Visas are unconstitutional?
They’re not in the document and didn’t exist until 1924.
Which laws are unconstitutional?
And who do those laws give determination of visa status to molly?
The President has zero obligation to allow courts to grossly overstep their assigned powers.
And the courts have zero obligation to allow him to grossly overstep his.
As a TDS-addled slimy pile of shit, you haven't provided evidence of other than your raging case of TDS.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
You fascist fuck will shit your pants in the opening days of the war and you won't last long.
Get reamed with a barb-wire wrapped broomstick, you slimy pile of lefty shit.
I'm so glad you've gone full leftist in believing courts dont have to follow the law.
Are you really defending the right/ability of the government to warrantlessly snatch people off the street and disappear them to the other side of the country for writing something? Leave aside what was written. It wouldn't matter if she authored a defense of cannibalism.
That's just wrong. Unless you're some Russian shill and already live in a country like that I don't know how anyone could think that's okay. Blink twice if Putin has your family in a black site prison.
Long TDS here. Fuck off and die, shit-pile.
It is called expedited removal you retarded leftist shit.
But your maddow like emotive language shows you don't actually care about the laws.
Even going with the russia accusations lol.
Meanwhile you demand the open borders marxism to take from citizens to give to foreigners and get outraged when citizens complain. What a good little Marxist you are. Demanding theft without complaint.
Trump defenders want a dictator. Proof? They say he’s above Congress, SCOTUS, the law and the Constitution. And they want his word to be law. That’s the definition of a dictator. A one-man government.
Following congressional law is being above congress?
If Trump was following the law we would not be in this situation.
If MG had a room temperature IQ, s/he wouldn't be posting lies like this.
Fuck off and die, shit stain.