Judge William Young has had a distinguished career since his appointment by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, including serving as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. At 85, his career includes notable cases such as the Boston Strangler and the Shoe Bomber. However, his 161-page opinion declaring the Trump Administration in violation of the First Amendment over visa denials is nothing short of bizarre. It starts as a type of letter to an anonymous person who sent the judge a postcard.
Here is how the caption appeared in
Here is a closer image:
The opinion then ends with this conclusion:
With all due respect to Judge Young (who warrants considerable respect after his remarkable career), the captioning and conclusion are improvisational, impulsive, and injudicious. The court injected a political dialogic element in an opinion with sweeping implications for our constitutional system.
I have previously disagreed with some of these measures and agree with some points in this opinion. For those currently in this country, I have long supported free speech protections. That said, I expect that the Administration has the advantage on visa applicants outside of the country. The courts are already working to sort this out and it is likely to result in a split resolution. However, the tenor and odd elements of this opinion take away from these points.
It is an example of yielding to impulse, a problem that I have previously addressed with district court judges after the Trump inauguration. The trend has even reached the Supreme Court on occasion.
Take District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who had previously presided over Trump’s election interference case. Chutkan was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then, “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time and, when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.
Chutkan later decided to use the bench to amplify her own views of the pardons and Jan. 6. She proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”
Chutkan’s colleague Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump’s actions, writing, “[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.”
Other judges have engaged in extrajudicial commentary from the bench that undermines the integrity of the court system and their own authority.
The bizarre captioning and conclusion in this case is another such example. It only served to undermine the opinion itself and the legal points raised by the court. It may have been cathartic, but it was also tedious and prejudicial. It has a certain chest-pounding element that is neither necessary nor compelling for a court to insert into an opinion.
Judge Young would be wise to issue a corrected opinion without the novel captioning and conclusion . . . and simply send a postcard to this curious penpal.
Although not a lawyer I would like to address the issue at hand – freedom of speech for people here in America on a visa. The judge conflates the idea of free speech with some right of presence in America. No one is claiming that the government conspired to prevent anyone from expressing their views. In contrast, the Biden administration clearly went to great lengths to prevent American citizens from speaking unwanted opinions on YouTube and other social media platforms. What the Trump administration is doing is not suppressing speech by anyone. Instead it is taking note of the freely given speech and then asking the logical question, “If we knew that x was going to say or do this, would the United States have granted x a visa?” That is, should x continue to have his right of presence in America? If the answer to that question is no, then it seems that the administration has the right to revoke that visa.
This is analogous to the different reactions that one might have if someone insulted you within your house. You did not prevent the person from uttering the insult. If the person was a family member (citizen) you might react one way with a strong potential for some reconciliation but if the person was an invited guest (foreigner on a visa), you would likely throw them out of the house and never see them again. The formerly invited guest can still spew all of the venomous opinions that he has about you but not in your house.
The target of the revoked visa will still have access to the internet, social media, and be able to express their opinions per the laws of their native country. So their speech is not inhibited by the Trump administration. What is inhibited is their presence in America. Their presence in America is not guaranteed by the 1st amendment or any thing else in the Constitution.
Free speech rights are not limited to citizens. The Constitution does not include such a limitation.
As lawyers know, you cannot create coercive conditions to restrict speech. The NRA v. Vullo case is a prime example of this. Vullo was a NY Department of Financial Services (DFS) superintended who coerced DFC-regulated parties to suppress the NRA’s gun-promotion advocacy. The Supreme Court unanimously held in the NRA’s favor – that coercion such as the threat to remove the right to do business in NY – was an impermissible violation of free speech rights.
Government coercion of immigrant speech – i.e., shut up or be deported – is the same type of coercion that Vullo tried to suppress disfavored speech.
So no – your formulation that this is about the right of presence in America is inaccurate, based on very recent unanimous Supreme Court precedent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-842_6kg7.pdf
If you actually care about this issue, I encourage you to read NRA v. Vullo, which I linked to above.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights (original) do not apply to foreigners.
Foreign countries must be required to adopt the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights (original).
Any evidence for that ridiculous claim?
Per the Supreme Court: “once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.”
Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 n.5 (1953) (quoting Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161 (1945) (Murphy, J., concurring)); see also Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21, 32 (1982) ([O]nce an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence his constitutional status changes accordingly.); Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 770 (1950) (The alien, to whom the United States has been traditionally hospitable, has been accorded a generous and ascending scale of rights as he increases his identity with our society. Mere lawful presence in the country creates an implied assurance of safe conduct and gives him certain rights; they become more extensive and secure when he makes preliminary declaration of intention to become a citizen, and they expand to those of full citizenship upon naturalization.).
My apologies. Point taken. The recourse against nonimmigrants is deportation for cause.
Kahlil’s free speech is dependent upon a visa and not the visa is dependent upon free speech. It’s like my arm hurts when I do this, doc. Well don’t do that.
Removing the visa application prevents the disease. If that’s true it makes removing the visas true. Citizens do enjoy a greater level. They vote, too.
Ian Roberts Abagnale Roberts resigns!
Of course He did. He would not have been able to keep his benefits if he was fired. Obviously he spoke with an Employment Law Attorney and took the advice.
If the Board had the balls they would strip him of his retirement, but the School’s Attorney and the Board just want to make this go away ASAP.
They can’t the HR personnel that vetted him because the Board itself approved his Hiring.
Think of all the People that Applied for the position and didn’t get it because of his Lies and the Politics involved in his hire.
They should sue the School System for obvious discrimination, but that’s how it works, They find every way to disqualify you the applicant in order to Hire who they want, and they wanted this Guy. They are all ‘Caught in the Act’ now.
“Strip him of his retirement?”
Strip him of EVERYTHING with the sole exception of a jail cell for grand and egregious fraud against children, Iowa, and America.
GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT $200
OT Fascinating! The announcement was made in a pretty neutral tone avoiding any mention of firearms on school property or any culpability for this fiasco on the part of the school board. What I was most struck by is that half of the meeting was spent in a Spanish Language translation of the English language announcement. It turns out that in Des Moines Iowa, 12.3% of the city’s residents are Hispanic. According to Statistica.com the general English language proficiency of Hispanics in the English language has 15.9% speaking English “not well” or “not at all”. (Note that some 30% of Hispanics are only fluent in English). Assuming that the Hispanics in Des Moines Iowa reflect the national average in their English Language skills, then in Des Moines Iowa just less than 2% of the population speak English “not well” or “not at all” but can speak Spanish. So one can conclude that the Des Moines school board allocates about half of its time to a Spanish Language translation that might be useful for less than 2% of its population. Given the Des Moines School District board’s demonstrated priorities of time, is it any wonder that they blundered in their hiring?
Someone on the board sent that scratched out postcard. 🤔 a foreigner, the date. The day before the month? Is that common, Poirot?
The communists want the population replaced no matter by whom.
Dear God, she wanted him around children. He lied on every form. Was the gun and 3 thou a drug buy? These people deserve what they get.
I think Professor Turley is being obtuse or maybe the “postcard” in the opinion went over his head.
The first page is an example a threat made to the judge by an anonymous source.
“Trump has pardons and tanks … what do you have?”
Some Trump supporter sent this to the judge over the summer. Big surprise. What he did by putting this in his opinion and his response right after is set an example of the kind of threats used to silence dissent or intimidate others into silence. This isn’t about some Judge going senile. He was making a point that seems to have escaped Turley.
That is why the Professor needs to spend more time putting things in context instead of throwing in some off the cuff commentary to feed the rage and paranoia of his MAGA readers. Turley chose to make the judge look like some unhinged man instead of analyzing the ruling itself which was a scathing rebuke to Trump’s attacks on free speech.
Professor Turley should be discussing the attacks or if he’s inclined, mount a defense of Trump’s tactics and justify them by using his legal expertise. He won’t of course, because he would find himself criticizing Trump more and ultimately agree with the judge. MAGA would eat him alive if he even dared go that far and that is the point of this article. Focusing on the Judge instead of the merits of the ruling. Pretty cowardly of Turley to do so.
🤔 Yet another take on the postcard itself as a threat. That makes 3.
What ruling?! Merits? Chutklin’s ???
“Other judges have engaged in extrajudicial commentary from the bench that undermines the integrity of the court system and their own authority.”
What part of this valid observation don’t you understand. Over whose head?
“Turley chose to make the judge look like some unhinged man instead of analyzing the ruling itself which was a scathing rebuke to Trump’s attacks on free speech.”
Look in the mirror. You, George Svelaz X, are unhinged. Add to that, you have a multiple-personality disorder.
Also, judges are empowered to interpret the law and apply it to specific cases. They are not authorized to issue “scathing rebukes.” That’s what one of my law professors referred to as “moronic media talk.” Georgie/Svelaz has been drinking deeply at the well of moronic media language. She thinks it makes her look smart, but it has the opposite effect.
*. The first for date identifies a person of foreign born. The day, month year format is not used in the US. It’s used in Europe, Africa, South America. India uses day and lengthy month and full year. It’s postmarked PA. A foreign born person living in PA or a foreign person in another nation sent the card to a person in PA for anonymous postmark. The writing is shaky and caps further indicating a person not familiar with the alphabet.
It’s a threat. The judge used it as a type of alarm perhaps. It’s on the record for all to see but disguised.
Quite interesting. What does the front of the card reveal. 🤔.
Not Maga, nitwit.
G. M. Trevelyan; ‘English Social History’ ch. 18: “It education has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading, and easy prey to sensations and cheap appeals.”
What is Senility but another term for cognitive decline as illustrated herein today?
President Trump has baited the mouse trap with temptations so great the foolish left wants more cheese.
This used to be called “yellow journalism” along with “pulp fiction” (1800’s).
When in our nation’s history did we ever consider court opinions journalism?
READ THE COMMENT:
G. M. Trevelyan; ‘English Social History’ ch. 18: “It education has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading, and easy prey to sensations and cheap appeals.”
EASY PREY TO SENSATIONS AND CHEAP APPEALS — the drunken judge AND silly you.
Maybe Professor Turley is underestimating the Judge. Perhaps the Judge decided to put something President Trump would be more familiar with. After all Trump does write and read like a 5 year old. He may even be illiterate, who knows. But, this Judge may be speaking in a manner that Trump will immediately understand. It seems in the style only Trump would appreciate.
What is interesting is that the “postcard” may be a bit unorthodox, but so is Trump. He is setting the trend. Why should this Judge’s approach to writing an opinion be…odd in the Trump…”era”?
Get a grip! … Illiterates don’t build real estate empires.
“Unorthodox” is expected of plebeians from the population that might run for President, but not from judges with protocols to follow.
“Whiat is interesting is that the “postcard” may be a bit unorthodox, but so is Trump. “
In one sentence, George Svelaz demonstrates ignorance and a lack of common sense.
Trump is a politician. Politicians use rhetoric: fact and emotion to persuade. Judges are bound by law.
S. Meyer, Trump is a businessman, not a politician. He’s proven to be a poor decision-maker and under Trump the economy has not been doing very well. It’s flopping around like a fish out of water.
Trump has been proven a genius: seven wars ended, unmatched by any president. The economy held firm even under Biden’s deliberate sabotage. What others needed special legislation to do, Trump accomplished in days: border control, decisive and lawful. Perhaps that tells us something. The nation needs more businessmen, not career talkers.
You, George Svelaz, are a sick and ungrateful man. You might open the Torah. It teaches gratitude, decency, and humility. Try learning how to be a good person before lecturing those who’ve done more for peace and prosperity than you could ever comprehend.
“Why should this Judge’s approach to writing an opinion be…odd in the Trump…”era”?” BECAUSE, if you and your ilk claim the higher ground, it behooves you ALL to take a different tack than your constant TDS whining and retaliation points up.
Set the example, if you have that much integrity….oops, it’s not about integrity, is it.
@’X’
You are George, stop pretending. None of us are fooled. You yourself have likely forgotten your real name at this point. 🙄
Professor Turley,
You avoided the substance of his opinion, which addresses free speech, a topic you at least nominally still care about.
Why did you avoid it? Is it perhaps because it shows how destructive this administration’s policies are to freedom of speech and expression?
Dismantling Biden’s government-media censorship complex is “destructive to free speech”? Prohibiting Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth and Scary Poppins is “destructive to free speech”? Rescinding the FBI directive to treat moms who speak out at school board meetings as domestic terrorists is “”destructive to free speech”? Rescinding the FBI directive to treat pro-life dads who pray near abortion clinics as domestic terrorists is “destructive to free speech”? Rescinding the FBI directive to treat traditional Catholics who prefer the Latin Mass as domestic terrorists is “destructive to free speech”?
Ooooooo-kay.
So you didn’t read the opinion then? Cool.
None of that is remotely relevant to the case, which is exactly why Turley’s intentional omission of any substantive discussion of the case is so problematic.
The case pertained to free speech rights of noncitizens:
“Lastly,…. this Court observes that, on its face, the First Amendment does not distinguish between citizens and noncitizens; rather, it states simply, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech[.]” U.S. Const. amend. I. As the Supreme Court’s now frequently cited statement in Bridges v. Wixon confirmed, this text at least arguably implies that “[f]reedom of speech . . . is accorded aliens residing in this country.” 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945). It also suggests something a little less obvious, but still worth saying, which is that its chief concern is with the character and quality of the “speech” that occurs on American soil, in what Justice Holmes called “free trade in ideas,” which is “the best test of truth,” Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919), and ensuring that Congress may not twist that speech in the federal government’s preferred direction….”
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. 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.
Maybe read the case first next time.
As stated to George Svelaz, this requires your effort to show why the laws are wrong and you are right.
The law governing visa revocations is clear, even if the underlying evidence is not.
INA §221(i), 8 U.S.C. §1201(i): grants the Secretary of State broad discretion to revoke a visa after issuance.
22 C.F.R. §41.122: implements that discretion, allowing revocation “at any time,” including provisional or silent revocations.yer
9 FAM 403.11: outlines procedures (notice “when practicable,” physical cancellation, etc.).
8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(4)(C)(i) and §1227(a)(1)(B): cover grounds of deportability, including associations or activities that ICE may determine inconsistent with U.S. foreign policy.
Thus, associations or speech that ICE determined could undermine U.S. foreign policy were cited as the reason under the statutes above, not claimed “op-ed” theories.
The broad discretion under INA 221(i) does not supersede the First Amendment. Hopefully, you understand that. If Congress passed a law tomorrow that said Secretary Rubio may deport US citizens if he determines, in his sole discretion, that their opinions suck, this law would clearly be unconstitutional. This is pretty much the same situation. No President or Secretary of State has been dumb enough to interpret these laws in this ridiculous manner.
Furthermore, as INA 221(i) does not contain a provision with respect to revocations of visas based upon past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, such as appears in INA 237(a)(3)(C) and INA 237(a)(4)(C)’s exceptions.
I have no idea what you mean by “op-ed” theories – there is an abundance of case law that clarifies that (a) nonimmigrants have free speech rights; and (b) the government may not infringe on those speech rights by threatening to (or in fact) removing immigrants based on disfavored speech.
“The broad discretion under INA 221(i) does not supersede the First Amendment.”
Thank you for letting us know that America doesn’t have the right to pass immigration laws for those who have not yet entered the country.
“Furthermore, as INA 221(i) does not contain”
Before opening your mouth, exposing a gaping hole in your head, read the INA.
“The case pertained to free speech rights of noncitizens: “Lastly,…. this Court observes that, on its face, the First Amendment does not distinguish between citizens and noncitizens…”
Is that before or after the judge takes pages and pages to offer his wife’s opinion on Trump as what this cases pertains to?
Yes… some of us DID read the opinion. Including the pages and pages the judge uses to indulge his fantasies about Trump and “Trumpism”.
Under Trump the social media companies such as YouTube and FaceBook now allow dissenting voices to be heard on topics such as Covid vaccine safety, the efficacy of masks and social distancing, and biological men in women’s sports. Because of Trump the social media companies are changing their policies so that people can express their views on these topics and many more without being blocked, banned, or deplatformed. Of course, the Leftist cult preferred it when no dissent was allowed from their authoritarian viewpoints. Now that dissent is allowed, the Leftist cult describes the situation as “destructive to freedom of speech and expression.”
Whatever these Leftist cult members say, you can be sure it is the opposite of the truth. (Notice how they always post their garbage anonymously, too.)
indulge me. How is a US POLICY regarding visa applications which remains completely inside the law and the power of the President to impose, a violation of the first amendment.
just so we are clear, you remark that Turley doesn’t touch the subject (1A), and yet, you offer no opinion yourself on this issue. What say YOU?
lets have it.
and since we LIKE to stay on topic, as this subject isn’t about any particular case before this judge, no case in fact has been presented to this judge, can you explain how this should not be recognized for what it really is? I concur with Turley, this is a judge who has decided (uncreatively, and suspiciously acting like a aged dotard), to “chime in” and whom makes not one single legal basis upon which to develop his suggestions.
where is the body?
I am not even sure this is a political screed; it looks to me like a judge that just had too much to drink and forgot that when you press the enter key, you just hung your dirty laundry out there for everyone to notice what a complete fool you are.
Turley seems to believe that this judge deserves some kind of respect for his long career and a few cases that are high profile. I don’t see it that way. How does the saying go? You are only as good as your last game. And even judges are subject to this axiom. Sometimes age is to blame. Sometimes it’s liquor. It could be both.
Anyway, back to you. You are frustrated Turley doesn’t entertain the 1A issue. So it’s your turn. In what parallel bassackwards universe of clowns is a reformed visa application policy related to 1A protections?
your turn
!!! EXCELLENT analysis, regitiger !!!
It likely does not “remain completely inside the law” though.
The statutes authorizing H-1B fees only allow for fees to recoup administrative costs and some other types of expenses. They certainly don’t authorize anything remotely resembling a $100,000 fee.
Trump is trying to get around these constraints by relying on 8 U.S.C. Section 1182(f), which gives the president the authority to “bar the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States” whose admission he finds “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” This is the same provision used to impose the anti-Muslim “travel ban” upheld by the Supreme Court in its badly flawed ruling in Trump v. Hawaii (2018).
But it is far from clear that Section 1182(f) and Trump v. Hawaii give the president a blank check to exclude any potential immigrants for any reasons he wants, or to impose any fees he wants. In 2020, Trump tried to impose a similar ban on new H-1B visas, but a federal district court ruled against the ban. As the court pointed out, ” there must be some measure of constraint on Presidential authority in the domestic sphere in order not to render the executive an entirely monarchical power in the immigration context, an area within clear legislative prerogative.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly indicated that immigration is an area of legislative power. If so, there must be at least some constraint on how far it can be delegated to the executive.
Turley didn’t mention “free speech” because the judge’s drunken screed was about Visa denials, an issue of the 14th Amendment, dingdong.
Whaaat?
While the 14th Amendment does not address Visas, it speaks to the ongoing question/debate concerning current “immigrants,” those “not born or naturalized in the United States,” (Section 1), who deny and further fail to observe U.S. code, flouting our founding principles and laws without any proper right or sanction, this offshoot is comparable to the judge’s mis-identification of a first amendment violation. That’s what.
I have no idea what you are trying to say with this drivel, but it isn’t intelligible enough to allow for a response.
“The 14th Amendment does not address Visas.” It also doesn’t address the Miami Dolphins. That doesn’t mean the Dolphins exist in a world outside of the Bill of Rights.
There is no limitation on application of free speech rights to noncitizens in the Constitution/Bill of Rights. Full stop. It doesn’t exist. And a whole cannon of case law supports that basic fact. Whatever you are trying to say about visas and the 14th Amendment – it does not change that fact.
Turley: However, his [Judge Young’s] 161-page opinion declaring the Trump Administration in violation of the First Amendment over visa denials is nothing short of bizarre. BIZARRE.
14th-Anon: Rights of CITIZENS exist in a world/construct inside the Bill of Rights, border-jumpers do not.
You: No limitations on application of free-speech—not so,
and doesn’t change the fact that illegals can speak all they want and still be legally subject to deportation, or Visas denied. All good and proper.
It’s the idea of “directions”. Ideas such as how to fry an egg. The egg must be cracked before depositing in pan.
The first direction is national security. As these orders were given did anyone in the judiciary know that bunker buster bombs would be dropped in Iran?
The next consideration is anti Semitic on campus and students being threatened. Any Jewish person would feel afraid and leave school. That’s a risk no one enters college and expects.
Freedom of speech may be somewhere down the road. NO ONE is so foolish, without pragmatism, to think there aren’t hamas and others within the US. Perhaps during WWII young German men should have applied for student visas, Stalag 17?
This is the Mahmood Kahlil case. Harvard and faculty organizations with the middle eastern global group filed this. We know how much the Ivy leagues like Jewish people. Huh?
Out-of-line judge– national security. Let’s give some kudos on the otherhand, to the take down of Twin Towers and the upcoming new mayor. There should be big celebrations on 911, huh? Lost territory to the enemy. The big Satan lost territory and NY 🗽 no less.
Johnathan, You made a very good point about this at yesterdays debate. How Justice Keagan stated that They (SCOTUS) can not have Judicial Order if Lower Courts are allowed to opine their individual sentiment (political motivation) in cases outside of judicious norms (no injudicious opinions).
As for the 85 year old Judge William Young. I give him credit for actually responding an answer in earnest to a ‘Post Card’. His response may be skewed but his heart was in the right place. I’m just surprised that he had the time to respond to it.
Finally,
I have to say that last night’s Debate with Professor Daniel Farbman was very intriguing. The Venue and all the technical support was seamless and excellently executed. My compliments to your Host and the Steamboat Institute Campus Liberty Tour for facilitating the event.
I would like to here more of what you had slightly mentioned about James Madison’s interest in Planetary Object. His fascination between Large Object and Small Object may have been calculated in his summation of Large States and Small States and the Bicameral invention of political factions, and how those gravitational forces of ambition vs ambition would interact. It’s kind of like Russia (the Big State) and Finland (the Small State) in the current situation, don’t you think?
So there maybe a Madisonian Solution in there somewhere in between, perhaps like a new House of structured reason between them.
Kudos Jonathan
At 85, one has to ask if he’s not senile or if he’s relying on his clerks to do the work for him.
There is enough precedence to show that the deference on visas will go towards the government.
Along w the fact that not all speech is protected speech.
It’s not about speech. This judge is saying- I’m now so low I’m responding to scratched out messages on postcards.
He’s publishing an alarm.
Judge Young should re-issue the opinion without the bizarre postcard and note? That recalls the punchline to the old joke about 100 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean.
Professor, we know you’re trying to be civil, but reissuing the opinion without the judge’s addenda isn’t even a good start.
The Judge’s actions raise serious doubt about the impartiality of the judicial system and his ability to rule fairly on the cases in front of him. These aren’t the “get off my lawn” ramblings of a cranky 85 year old neighbor. These are the official statements of a district court judge that carry the force of law.
Moreover, the judge’s actions need to be considered in the context of numerous rulings of so-called “activist” judges and the recent admonitions by the Supreme Court. Stated more plainly, naked partisanship of this sort is an embarrassment to the judiciary and to his colleagues on the bench.
It is doubly unfortunate that the judge’s actions caused harm, not only the judicial system, but to the litigants in this case. One can only imagine the time, money and energy that the litigants poured into it. Not to mention the judicial resources expended on hearing the case and generating a nearly 200-page opinion.
Unfortunately, the entire ruling is now suspect. The well is poisoned. Removing the judge’s nakedly partisan addenda is a form of censorship that removes essential context for evaluating the ruling.
One can remove the addenda, but it doesn’t remove the taint. The addenda are part of the formal, written record in this case. They need to stand.
What is the remedy? To ensure fairness (not to mention the perception of fairness) in our legal system, it is incumbent on the Chief Judge or the First Circuit to vacate the order with immediate effect, and to reassign the case to a different judge. Sua sponte, if need be.
What exactly what do Canons 1 (A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary), 2 (A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities), and 3 (A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently) of the Judicial Code of Ethics have to say about any of this?
It also makes reasonable people wonder about the process that led to this being filed. Wouldn’t his law clerks, or someone else in his office, have the sense (or is it courage?) to say something along the lines of “you know, your honor, maybe this isn’t the best idea.” At minimum, the judge’s actions placed every one of them in an untenable position.
One would hope that this formerly distinguished jurist might reflect on this incident and realize that the time has come to call it a career. One would also hope that his colleagues would privately encourage him to do so, although one suspects that many of them are in secret agreement with him.
If Judge Young doesn’t resign, a formal review of the Judge’s conduct and his possible removal from office should be initiated post haste.
That would be a good start.
However, his 161-page opinion declaring the Trump Administration in violation of the First Amendment over visa denials is nothing short of bizarre.
This is the same Judge who violated SCOTUS legal precedent just a few months ago and was rebuked by SCOTUS.
Mass Judge Apologizes to Supreme Court’s Conservative Justices After Failing to Follow Precedent
Timeline of events:
January 2025, the Trump Administration issued executive orders ending federal NIH research grants for studies on “racial disparities” and LGBTQ+ “health equity.”
April 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the executive orders.
June 2025, U.S. District Court Judge William G. Young, accusing the Trump Administration of discrimination, found the orders “void and illegal.”
August 2025, the Supreme Judicial Court stayed Young’s order, reminding him that “judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.”
September 2025, Judge Young publicly apologized to the Supreme Court.
Yesterday U.S. Distrct Court Judge William G. Young, who sits in Boston, apologized to Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for failing to follow legal precedent.
Judge Young quotes include:
“I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this…Is it true of our society as a whole? Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?…..I am hesitant to draw this conclusion–but I have an unflinching obligation to draw it–that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community…That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.”
SCOTUS replies:
“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them. When this court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lowers court.
https://jrmccarthy-law.com/2025/09/03/🧑⚖%EF%B8%8F-mass-judge-apologizes-to-supreme-courts-conservative-justices-after-failing-to-follow-precedent/
The duty of a Judge is to interpret the law, not ….have an unflinching obligation to draw it–that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community…That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.”
Resolved: Judge Wm G. Young is blind and should exchange his black robe for a straitjacket
And now it turns out that that Iowa illegal-alien school superintended lied about getting a PhD.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2025/09/30/dmps-superintendent-ian-roberts-claimed-doctoral-degree-morgan-state-university/86431683007/
Old man
Did these foolish libs not check anything on this guy?
They checked his skin color! Oh, and they made sure that he was a registered Democrat!
I am surprised that he does not have a CDL, too.
Dustoff: “Did these foolish libs not check anything on this guy?”
+++
Yes!
They checked that he was black.
They checked that he was foreign born.
They checked that “Nothing else matters.”
“Did these foolish libs not check anything on this guy?”
They were intent on NOT finding anything that would disqualify him.
Their bank accounts?
You know, Ian Roberts is about as bad as this guy, who convinced Mr. Drysdale that he was an illiterate hillbilly from Bug Tussle, Tennessee!
Is that telling us that a lot of degrees that are not STEM-related are BS?
Dr. Roberts? Dr. Robert’s didn’t have a PhD? Dr. Roberts, calling Dr. Roberts…he voted, too.
What’s going on in Des Moines ?
LOL nice.
Fox News contributor Liz Peek joins ‘Varney & Co.’ to discuss President Donald Trump’s approval rating increasing despite a government shutdown.
Look out lib/dems
First thought that comes to mind is “where were that judge’s clerks that day and the other days where this judge worked on this ruling”? Law clerks provide many functions in the work they do for the judges who support them. One of those functions would be at the very least giving rulings a quick once-over for obvious errors before the ruling is published. They missed this?
And have his law clerks been hiding his cognitive decline for years? The other judges and staff in the building – he stayed in his chambers in solitude, or they stayed quiet as and hid the fact he had slide into dementia. As the Democrats hid Biden’s dementia for years – while telling us he was working his brilliant young aids into the ground every day.
My second thought is that these judges with their naked partisanship and virulent hatred of Trump (dementia addled or not) are not helping Democrats get more voters to support them in the coming election.
They are doing completely the opposite. Voters like George/X are already slavering to vote Democrat, for any Democrat, whether it’s Biden running once again, the DEI Hire once again, or Another Odd Communist. Those voters that are wildly cheering and defending decisions like this are already in the bag for Democrats. But not the independent and undecided voters.
If this judge with decisions like this, and other judges doing similar things want to be the face that represents the Democrat version of law to American voters, I am more than happy to sit and watch them continuing to do that for every election.
I agree with you there is probably some cognitive decline going on here, in addition to Trump derangement. The clerks might be on the ball, and might have advised him against this, but the judge has the final say (I worked for a US district judge as an intern during law school).
This era will go down in history as deranged. TDS has infected even the judiciary. Men in women’s sports and locker rooms, erasing women and depriving them of scholarships, all cheered on by those who think of themselves (falsely) as “liberal.” And covid authoritarianism and fascism under Biden, again cheered on by those who think of themselves (falsely) as “liberal.” Although there is more, that three-ring circus needs nothing else to prove complete societal dementia.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is real, and it infects judges as well as non-judges. Let’s see if the First Circuit judges have also been infected to the point it overrides their reason.
All these Opinions, coming at ya, in a cross-fire hell storm. You can imagine what Donald Trump (The President) feelin like:
Sometimes I feel
Like I’ve been tied
To the whipping post
Tied to the whipping post
Tied to the whipping post
Good Lord, I feel like I’m dyin’
Trump’s been winning everything at SCOTUS, pity you haven’t noticed.
“Where a jury sits, there burns the light of liberty”
Yeah, tell that to Derek Chauvin. Tell that to Trump, in the E. Jean Carroll case. Tell that to those two poor guys in Georgia who shot the “innocent jogger” after he attacked them.
Lay off the drugs…
That might be a good idea. Maybe what I need is a good dose of North African Lesbian Poetry???
Would that George Floyd had done so.
Free Derek Chauvin.
Floyd, the light of liberty shines brightly when the justice system protects the rights of the accused, but dims when it forgets the lives of the innocents.
Hey Turley throw these animals some more meat.
If you post your mail address, we will start a Go Fund Me to buy you the necessities from Tampon Tim Walsh and a lifetime supply of Midol for this moment you’re having, Karen Of A Thousand Anonymous Faces.
Oh oh sumone big big mad. Here have a chuck of cooked liberal. Taste good huh? A bowl of blood perhaps? And porn to fulfill your hearts desire. But you’ll have to come out of that bunker you built. And a cheery AllahuTrump!
We dont eat junk food. We are all on board with MAHA. Eating healthy. Exercise. Getting together with friends and family and talking face to face on a regular basis.
Total opposite of leftists who spend most of their time in their parents basement, gaming, or on Discord becoming radicalized to the point they think it is okay to commit murder.
Definitely NOT MAHA!! We are much more stable, normal and balanced. We love life and enjoy living it!
MAHA… oh oh watch out for food dyes you might become a liberal.
You spend 15 hours a day, M – F, you have no family or friends, except for the nuts here.
Just like YOU do too…..
ooops
I never said anything about food dyes causing one to become a liberal. What I do think is healthy is getting petroleum based dyes out of food. You do not need a college degree to know getting petroleum based dyes out of food products is a good idea. I also know washing fruit like apples before consumption is a good idea, just as washing lettuce or spinach is. Eating whole foods, limiting highly processed foods is also healthy.
Compare the time hacks of our comments. As you can see, my comments can do have time gaps from a few to several hours.
Yours on the other hand, do in fact span over “. . . 15 hours a day, M – F . . . ” It is almost as if you do not have any family or friends.
@Upstate
This used to be what we called ‘living’. I grew up with technology, in its nascent stages, and you were certainly around then, and probably encountered it to a larger extent than the rest of us with aspects of your service. This is a failure of another kind. it is on the people involved, not the gadgets. The gadgets just sit there, inert, doing nothing, not unlike drugs or alcohol, until someone picks them up. that we put this stuff into the hands of babies now is pretty bloody insane. I cannot express how sad it is to me to see, at this point, quite literally very nearly every single person, child or adult, even very young children, bowed over a piece of glass and plastic connected to a server somewhere, in public.
James,
Well said!!
The wife and I were on a “date night” last year IIRC at a local bistro. We noted how some of the younger patrons sitting there did not even talk to each other, heads down staring into their phones. We try to get together with friends for Sunday dinner every week. We make it a point to leave our phones in the truck, or turn them off. Before and after dinner, we play board or card games. Just the other weekend we did discuss the Charlie Kirk assassination, the responses by the leftists and the down fall of society in that regard.
When I was in the Marines, I always carried a pack of water proof playing cards. Nothing more dangerous than a bored Marine. I still have that pack.
Here’s a chunk of prime rib!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6ukCrVK-ZL0
floyd.
OMG what is that???????????????
That is six seconds of eye-splat! Part of that came from a longer video, where some SJW women with nose-rings, pink hair, green hair, etc., were discussed in all their glory. This is worth watching:
The obvious conclusion is that he wrote the postcard to himself. It seems to be written by someone using their left hand to avoid handwriting ID which, in a country of 350 million people plus illegals with an FBI that can’t even find their own hind end in the dark let alone an anonymous postcard writer, seems to point straight back to the judge.
TDS is a sad phenomenon. I believe (I’ve thought about it a lot) it has to do with ego. Men cannot stand to see someone they consider to be their inferior doing so much winning. They would secretly love to be billionaires with a supermodel wife (who clearly adores her husband) and instead they’re just seething in their own inadequacies. Women would love to HAVE a billionaire President husband who clearly adores them but they don’t. The fox who couldn’t reach the grapes said they were sour.
Someday historians will study this phenomenon. Now we just have to tolerate it and hope the TDSers don’t manage to completely destroy the country just to heal their bruised egos.
The judge is unhinged. Novel take on it, anon. Could be.
I just scanned through the opinion. 161 pages sounds long, but the analysis doesn’t start until p.85 and doesn’t get interesting until around 92.
The judge determines that ICE masks purely to terrorize. Given the environment, and the fact that ICE agents have been followed home and openly doxxed, I have no clue how the Court came to such a definitive conclusion.
But what is interesting is the idea that the government utilizing immigration laws, a creation of statute and not within the constitution, would be a violation of the first amendment. The challenge would need to be on the statute itself, that the portion of the statute enforced is unconstitutional. The decision states that the actions were “insidious” with a predetermined outcome which violates the first amendment.
That’s not how challenges in federal court work. The first amendment does not allow for criminal punishment by the government against speech. But how would the civil process of deportation to your own country in any way qualify?
The Judge may be well respected. But there are statements in here that are bizarre. “ICE has successfully persuaded the public that it is our principal criminal law enforcement agency.” WHAT?! Even better, “Americans have an abiding faith in our criminal justice system.” HUH?!
Either this judge is waaaay over the hill, or he has terrible TDS. The entire order is just painting a tapestry to a conclusion that doesn’t appear to fit juris prudence.
But I think we’re accustomed to that by now. I want to become a federal district court judge. It’d be almost like being a deity. No accountability. No limits on me at all. I can declare whatever I please and reality be damned!
Thank you for the summary. I was too lazy to read the decision.
I liked the other anons idea of postcard sent to self but I like yours, too. Yes, he may be channeling the Boston strangler or some other demon.
“The First Amendment does not allow for criminal punishment by the government against speech.”
That is the whole point in a nutshell. That is exactly what the Trump administration is doing and using the threat of deportation (the punishment) to silence speech that the Constitution protects. Legal immigrants, students, green card holders, etc. do have free speech rights while they are here.
The Constitution does not exempt them from the right to speak freely and be free from government retribution and punishment because the government doesn’t like what they are saying. Rumeyza Oztruk’s visa was revoked because she co-wrote an op-ed about a foreign government’s horrible policies against Palestinians. The government sought to punish her for contributing to a critical opinion piece on Israel and use her treatment as an example to others. The Trump administration wants to chill speech and silence dissent through intimidation and outright punishment (deportation).
Where was Professor Turley in all of this? For such a big champion of free speech and countless articles on attacks on free speech, he sure is very quiet about this administration’s blatant attacks on free speech. I’ve said this before, the Professor is essentially self-censoring out of fear he will be targeted by the Trump administration and MAGA crazies for daring to openly criticize Trump’s naked attacks on free speech.
Not only has Trump’s administration sought to punish foreign students and legal immigrants through threats of deportations and visa revocations, even denaturalization for voicing criticism of Trump, Israel, and even Charlie Kirk it has also gone after late-night TV hosts by threatening broadcasters’ licenses and mergers. These are the same tactics the right was raging about when Biden merely put pressure on social media companies to follow their own rules. The right is very comfortable with its hypocrisy. Seems Professor Turley is too.
“Rumeyza Oztruk’s visa was revoked because she co-wrote an op-ed about a foreign government’s horrible policies against Palestinians.”
Once again, George Svelaz, you’ve drawn a conclusion without reference to law or evidence. You wrote: “was revoked because”, a definitive claim implying that it is the official reason. It is not. You have no verified source, and under U.S. immigration law, some revocation grounds are classified and not publicly released.
The law governing visa revocations is clear, even if the underlying evidence is not.
INA §221(i), 8 U.S.C. §1201(i): grants the Secretary of State broad discretion to revoke a visa after issuance.
22 C.F.R. §41.122: implements that discretion, allowing revocation “at any time,” including provisional or silent revocations.
9 FAM 403.11: outlines procedures (notice “when practicable,” physical cancellation, etc.).
8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(4)(C)(i) and §1227(a)(1)(B): cover grounds of deportability, including associations or activities that ICE may determine inconsistent with U.S. foreign policy.
Thus, associations or speech that ICE determined could undermine U.S. foreign policy were cited as the reason under the statutes above, not your claimed “op-ed” theory.
You have been told this before, yet you continue substituting emotion for evidence. Opinions without law are not arguments. They are misrepresentations, and when repeated despite correction, they become lies.
Remember libs. You wanted this.
____________________________________
President Trump on Democrats: “We can do things during the shutdown that are irreversible that are bad for them and irreversible by them, like cutting vast numbers of people out, cutting things they that they like, cutting programs that they like.”
Department of Health & Human Services expects to furlough 41% of its workforce. Will this lead to cuts in the workforce? Trump has indicated yes, here and elsewhere. Of course, the same is happening to other departments. The CBO estimates that 750,000 could be furloughed. One guess is that 50,000 will not be returning. Who will those jobless people, their families, and friends blame?
So do them already!
Judge Young’s *published* opinion includes this: “It is here . . .”
Peacocks preen for mating.
He’s preening for posterity.