A federal judge appointed by President Ronald Reagan sharply criticized President Donald Trump during a court hearing Thursday, labeling him an “authoritarian” as he signaled plans to restrict the administration’s efforts to deport pro-Palestinian protesters from U.S. college campuses.
U.S. District Judge William Young is presiding over a case challenging the Trump administration’s response to campus protests that followed Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, which left more than 1,200 people dead. Those protests, some of which turned violent, prompted the administration to pursue deportation actions against certain noncitizen demonstrators. According to Reuters, Young indicated during Thursday’s hearing that he would likely issue a ruling curbing the government’s actions.
In unusually blunt remarks from the bench, Young suggested that Trump views presidential authority in sweeping terms. “We cast around the word ‘authoritarian,’” Young said, according to Reuters. While he claimed not to be using the term as an insult, Young asserted that Trump believes that when he speaks, everyone within the executive branch must “toe the line absolutely.”
The White House responded forcefully. Spokeswoman Anna Kelly said that the judge’s comments were inappropriate and politically charged. Kelly accused Young of telegraphing his intent to act as a left-wing activist against a democratically elected president and said Trump’s priority remains protecting Americans, including by removing national security threats from the country.
Young went even further, accusing Trump’s cabinet officials of failing to uphold their constitutional duties. Citing evidence presented in the case, he said he was compelled to conclude that senior officials conspired to infringe on First Amendment rights. According to Politico, Young described it as “breathtaking” that cabinet secretaries would engage in such conduct.
The judge’s remarks quickly drew attention from critics. Mike Davis noted on X that despite being appointed during the Reagan era, Young was selected in 1985 with backing from Democratic Sens. Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, a point conservatives seized on to argue the judge’s leanings are hardly neutral.
The Trump administration has argued in court that opposition to its policy rests on a flawed reading of the Constitution. Government lawyers contend that under binding Supreme Court precedent, First Amendment protections apply differently in the immigration context than they do for U.S. citizens domestically, particularly when national security and immigration enforcement are involved.
Young has previously taken an expansive view of free speech rights for noncitizens. In October, he ruled that noncitizens lawfully present in the United States possess the same free speech protections as American citizens. In the current case, he accused Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of misusing their authority to target noncitizen pro-Palestinian activists for deportation based primarily on their political speech.
Young wrote that the officials acted to strike fear into other similarly situated noncitizens and to chill lawful pro-Palestinian expression. He argued that their actions effectively denied those individuals speech rights he says they are entitled to under the Constitution.
The case underscores the deep divide between the Trump administration and parts of the federal judiciary over immigration enforcement, national security, and the limits of executive power — a clash that continues to play out as the administration presses forward with its agenda and courts weigh in on how far it can go.
