U.S. District Judge William Young found that the Trump administration wrongly ordered the deportation of pro-Palestinian students to "strike fear" and deny free speech rights.

Young began his blistering 161-page ruling on Tuesday by sharing a threat he received in his chambers.

"Trump has pardons and tanks... what do you have?" the threat said.

"Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty," the judge wrote in response. "Together, we the people of the United States — you and me — have our magnificent Constitution."

Young went on to explain why he had ruled against administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

"This Court finds as fact and concludes as matter of law that Secretaries Noem and Rubio and their several agents and subordinates acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target non-citizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech," he wrote.

"They did so in order to strike fear into similarly situated non-citizen pro-Palestinian individuals, pro-actively (and effectively) curbing lawful pro-Palestinian speech and intentionally denying such individuals (including the plaintiffs here) the freedom of speech that is their right."

"Moreover, the effect of these targeted deportation proceedings continues unconstitutionally to chill freedom of speech to this day," he added.

The judge addressed the "Trump brand" by quoting his wife.

“He seems to be winning. He ignores everything and keeps bullying ahead,” Young quoted.

Agreeing with the sentiment, Young noted that the president often ignored "the Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies -- all of it; the President simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act."

"Behold President Trump’s successes in limiting free speech -– law firms cower, institutional leaders in higher education meekly appease the President, media outlets from huge conglomerates to small niche magazines mind the bottom line rather than the ethics of journalism," Young added. "Where things run off the rails for him is his fixation with 'retribution.'"

"It is at this juncture that the judiciary has robustly rebuffed the President and his administration."

Young concluded that monetary damages would not suffice because "harm here and the deprivations suffered runs far deeper." It was not clear, however, what the judge would order in a future "remedy phase."

"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," he remarked. "Is he correct?"

Some court watchers were shocked by the ruling.

"Omg. I’ve never seen anything like this in a judicial opinion," lawfare senior editor Anna Bower wrote.

Omg. I’ve never seen anything like this in a judicial opinion:

[image or embed]
— Anna Bower (@annabower.bsky.social) September 30, 2025 at 12:46 PM