Politico reports:

At least five times in recent weeks, federal judges have forcefully rejected President Donald Trump’s efforts to deport pro-Palestinian student activists, issuing one stinging ruling after another to declare the efforts unconstitutional — with one judge comparing the deportation drive to the Red Scare.

The five foreign-born academics, Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi, Yunseo Chung, Rumeysa Ozturk and Badar Khan Suri, were all targeted by the Trump administration after Secretary of State Marco Rubio declared their presence in the United States detrimental to U.S. foreign policy goals. But in every case, judges found the determination to be a flagrant attack on free speech; all were protected or freed from immigration detention by the courts.

Now, the entire policy undergirding those attempted deportations will be on trial after academic groups brought a broad lawsuit challenging the effort. The venue: a federal courtroom in Boston, where U.S. District Judge William Young — a Reagan-appointee with a sharp-elbowed wit — is set to preside Monday.

The case marks the first significant trial of Trump 2.0, a challenge to the president’s agenda before a judge who has made no secret of his alarm over the administration’s immigration tactics and who recently rebuked the administration’s efforts to slash grant funding on the basis of race and gender.

Young, an 84-year-old jurist confirmed to the federal bench four decades ago, has set aside two weeks for the trial. Trials in civil lawsuits challenging federal government policies are relatively rare. Typically, judges resolve the cases based on filings submitted by both sides. However, Young is known to prefer live testimony and the interplay between attorneys. While there won’t be a jury, Young is expected to hear testimony from more than 20 witnesses before ultimately ruling on whether the administration’s targeted deportations violate the First Amendment. [Continue reading…]