A federal judge has ordered the release of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement for more than six weeks following her co-authorship of a campus newspaper opinion piece.
U.S. District Judge William Sessions found that the government presented no evidence beyond the op-ed itself to justify her detention, ruling that Öztürk’s First Amendment rights had likely been violated. The case has significant implications for free expression rights of international students in America.
Table of Contents
The Controversial Opinion Piece
In March 2024, Öztürk, a 30-year-old PhD candidate researching children in conflict zones, contributed to an editorial in The Tufts Daily student newspaper. The piece, titled “Try again, President Kumar,” criticized Tufts University’s response to campus debates surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The editorial called for several specific actions from the university administration:
- Acknowledging what the authors termed a “Palestinian genocide”
- An apology from University President Sunil Kumar
- Disclosure of university investments
- Divestment from companies with ties to Israel
The piece received endorsements from 32 graduate students and expressed alignment with several campus groups, including Students for Justice in Palestine.
Silent Visa Revocation and Arrest
Nearly a year later, in March 2025, the State Department revoked Öztürk’s F1 student visa without notifying her, a practice referred to in government documents as a “silent revocation.”
On March 25, 2025, six plainclothes ICE agents arrested Öztürk near her residence in Somerville, Massachusetts. Court records show she was quickly transferred across multiple states, first to New Hampshire, then Vermont, before being flown to an ICE detention facility in Louisiana.
For more than 24 hours after her detention, her legal representatives could not determine her whereabouts.
In court filings, Öztürk described the terror of her arrest: “I felt very scared and concerned as the men surrounded me and grabbed my phone from me… I felt sure they were going to kill me.”
Health Crisis During Detention
While detained at the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center, Öztürk’s pre-existing asthma condition deteriorated significantly. In a sworn declaration filed with the court on May 2, 2025, she detailed her struggles:
“Since my arrest, in the span of five weeks, I have had at least eight asthma attacks where I have felt unable to control my coughing. Prior to my arrest, in the span of 2-3 years, I had approximately 9 such asthma attacks.”
The severity and duration of these attacks worsened in detention. “Before my arrest and detention, these asthma attacks would last anywhere from 5-15 minutes. Since being arrested and in detention, my asthma attacks now last anywhere from 5-45 minutes.”
Her declaration documented multiple concerning interactions with medical staff, including an incident where a nurse told her an asthma attack was “all in your head.”
A doctor testified that her condition could deteriorate further if she remained in detention, potentially requiring emergency medical intervention. During one court hearing conducted remotely, proceedings were interrupted when Öztürk experienced an asthma attack.
The Legal Arguments
The central legal question in the case became whether Öztürk’s expression in the op-ed constituted protected speech under the First Amendment.
Her legal team, including attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, argued two main constitutional violations:
- First Amendment right to freedom of speech
- Fifth Amendment right to due process
Attorney Mahsa Khanbabai, representing Öztürk, questioned the detention’s motivation: “When did speaking up against oppression become a crime? When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?”
Government attorneys maintained the op-ed undermined U.S. foreign policy by “creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and indicating support for a designated terrorist organization.”
While Department of Homeland Security spokespersons publicly alleged Öztürk had engaged in activities supporting Hamas, Judge Sessions noted in his ruling that during court proceedings, the government presented no evidence beyond the op-ed itself.
Judge Sessions’ Decisive Ruling
On May 9, 2025, Judge Sessions ordered Öztürk’s immediate release from the bench. His ruling emphasized several key findings:
“There is no evidence here as to the motivation absent consideration of the op-ed,” the judge stated. “That literally is the case.”
Sessions found that Öztürk had raised “very substantial” claims that her First Amendment rights were violated. He expressed concern that her “continued detention potentially chills the speech of millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens.”
The judge determined she posed no danger to the community nor flight risk, noting her lack of criminal record and strong academic ties.
He ordered her release on her own recognizance with no travel restrictions, explicitly stating that electronic monitoring would be inappropriate.
Institutional Support
Throughout the ordeal, Tufts University provided consistent support for Öztürk. University President Sunil Kumar submitted a formal declaration to the court stating that Tufts “has no information to support the allegations that she was engaged in activities at Tufts that warrant her arrest and detention.”
The university offered housing upon her release and maintained her academic standing during the detention period.
Notably, 27 Jewish organizations filed a legal brief supporting Öztürk, directly challenging government claims that her op-ed created a “hostile environment for Jewish students.”
Academic Disruption and Personal Impact
In her court declaration, Öztürk detailed the significant academic disruptions caused by her detention:
“I am the first woman in my family to pursue a PhD,” she stated. Her family includes “multiple academics, including teachers and professors, but I would be the first woman to complete a PhD.”
The detention forced her to miss critical academic milestones: “I was scheduled to attend and present at another conference, the biannual meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, in Minneapolis, starting on May 1, 2025.”
She expressed concern about delaying her graduation: “Unfortunately, because of my detention, I have lost so much time, and I am being kept away from my studies and training. I am confident that if I am released in May, I will be able to complete all of these steps in collaboration with my advisor. But if I stay in detention past May, I am not sure whether I will be able to complete all these steps before November 2025, which would delay my completion of the PhD.”
Return to Academic Life
On May 10, 2025, Öztürk was released from the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center. Massachusetts Senators Ed Markey and Representative Ayanna Pressley greeted her at Boston’s Logan International Airport upon her return to Massachusetts.
“Freedom feels amazing,” Öztürk told reporters. “I want to go back to campus, back to my lab, back to my studies. I want to finish my PhD.”
While Judge Sessions secured her release from detention, separate deportation proceedings continue through immigration courts. Her student visa has not been automatically reinstated.
Implications for Campus Speech
The case raises significant questions about the scope of First Amendment protections for international students on American campuses.
The Trump administration reportedly argued that visa holders do not enjoy the same constitutional protections as citizens. Judge Sessions’ ruling challenges this position, affirming that detention based solely on protected political expression violates constitutional principles.
This occurs amid reports that hundreds of student visas were revoked during this period for pro-Palestinian activism, creating concerns about potential chilling effects on international student expression.
Dr. Anthony Sanders, director of FIRE’s Center for Academic Freedom, stated: “When international students fear government reprisal for their campus speech, academic freedom for everyone is damaged. This case demonstrates why robust First Amendment protections must extend to all students regardless of citizenship status.”
Questions for International Students
For the million international students at American universities, the Öztürk case highlights several important considerations:
- Constitutional protections may apply differently to non-citizens, particularly when national security claims are involved
- University support for students facing external pressure can significantly impact outcomes
- Legal resources like the ACLU provide crucial expertise in constitutional challenges
- Awareness of potential immigration consequences of political expression is essential
- Building campus advocacy networks before issues arise can provide critical support
According to the National Immigration Law Center, such high-profile cases can create both awareness and fear among international student communities: “When international students see one of their peers detained for expressing political opinions, it sends a powerful message about the precarity of their own status.”
Frequently Asked Questions
What evidence did the government present against Öztürk?
According to Judge Sessions’ ruling, the government presented no evidence beyond the op-ed itself. During the bail hearing, when given the opportunity to present witnesses or evidence supporting allegations that Öztürk supported Hamas or posed a security threat, the government offered none.
Why was Öztürk’s visa revoked without her knowledge?
Court documents revealed her visa revocation was designated as “silent,” meaning she would receive no advance notice. This practice prevented her from understanding the allegations, seeking legal counsel, or arranging voluntary departure before arrest.
Did the judge find that First Amendment protections extend to non-citizens?
Judge Sessions determined that Öztürk raised “very substantial” claims that her First Amendment rights were violated. His ruling warned that her detention “potentially chills the speech of millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens,” suggesting constitutional protections extend to non-citizens engaging in political expression.
What is the current status of Öztürk’s immigration case?
While Judge Sessions secured her release from detention, separate removal proceedings continue in immigration court. Her student visa has not been automatically reinstated. Political representatives have stated they will work toward getting her visa restored.
How did Tufts University respond to her detention?
Tufts University consistently supported Öztürk throughout the ordeal. President Kumar submitted a court declaration stating the university had no information supporting allegations against her. The university offered her housing upon release and welcomed her back to continue her studies.
The Rümeysa Öztürk case underscores the tension between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections for political expression by non-citizens. As Judge Sessions declared, her “detention cannot stand” if constitutional principles are to have meaningful application for international students studying in America.
