Judge orders detained Tufts student Rumeysa Öztürk to be transferred back to Vermont
A federal judge on Friday ordered that the Tufts University student who wrote an essay about Israel and the war in Gaza and is now fighting deportation must be transferred back to Vermont.
Judge William K. Sessions III stayed his order for four days to give the government a chance to appeal.
Rumeysa Öztürk, a 30-year-old Turkish national in the United States on a visa, is being held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Louisiana.
In Friday's ruling, the judge refused efforts by the government to dismiss her habeas petition.
He found that Öztürk 'has raised significant constitutional concerns with her arrest and detention.'
The Tufts doctoral student was arrested March 25 in Somerville, Massachusetts, and the Department of Homeland Security has accused her of engaging 'in activities in support of Hamas.'
She co-wrote an opinion essay in 2024 for the student newspaper that called on Tufts to 'acknowledge the Palestinian genocide,' which the undergraduate student government had demanded in a resolution.
The essay criticized university leadership for its response to the student government's resolutions that it 'disclose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.'
'A university op-ed advocating for human rights and freedom for the Palestinian people should not lead to imprisonment,' one of her attorneys, Mahsa Khanbabai, said Friday. 'Our immigration laws should not be manipulated to rip people away from their homes and their loved ones.'
Öztürk's attorneys called Friday's ruling a victory, and said that the federal government was trying to manipulate where her case would be heard so that it could try for its preferred outcome.
Friday's ruling allows Öztürk to remain in ICE custody in Vermont while her habeas petition, which challenges her detainment, proceeds in federal court, as well as her removal case in immigration court in Louisiana.
The Department of Justice declined to comment Friday.
Öztürk is one of a number of international students in the U.S. on visas who the Trump administration is trying to deport for their actions protesting the conduct of Israel in its war against Hamas in Gaza, which it launched after the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
Tufts University has defended Öztürk and has petitioned that she be released from custody. The university said the opinion essay did not violate its policies and was in accordance with its position on free speech.
"The University has no further information suggesting that she has acted in a manner that would constitute a violation of the University's understanding of the Immigration and Naturalization Act," the university leadership said in a declaration earlier this month.This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Labour MPs push front bench for ‘crackdown' on ‘dodgy' vape and barber shops
Labour MPs have called for a 'crackdown' on 'dodgy' vape, barber and souvenir shops, which a minister warned 'undermine the legitimate' firms on Britain's high streets. Melanie Onn said she 'really must press' the Government for long-term action to tackle these shops, which MPs heard had links to tax evasion and money laundering, and Joe Powell said well-known London streets such as Portobello Road and Notting Hill Gate are 'blighted'. Business and trade minister Gareth Thomas told MPs that the National Economic Crime Centre (NECC) had visited almost 400 premises during a three-week operation in March, freezing several bank accounts. Mr Powell, the MP for Kensington and Bayswater, told the Commons: 'Small businesses across my constituency on our high streets from Earls Court Road to Queensway, Notting Hill Gate and Portobello Road are fed up of being blighted by candy shops, low-grade souvenir shops, Harry Potter shops and, yes, even barber shops, with accusations of VAT and business rates evasion, and even links to money laundering and serious organised crime.' He urged Mr Thomas to say 'what steps' the Government is taking 'to crack down on these operations and create a legitimate level playing field for our small businesses'. The minister replied: 'We've been working with colleagues in the Home Office and the National Crime Agency (NCA) to take action to crackdown on illegitimate businesses that threaten to undermine the legitimate ones that are on all of our high streets. 'In March, the NECC co-ordinated a three-week crackdown against barber shops and other cash-intensive businesses where there were concerns, visiting almost 400 premises, securing freezing orders over a series of bank accounts totalling more than £1 million.' In response, Ms Onn said: 'I really do need to press him because my constituents in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes are equally as fed up as (Mr Powell) of seeing high streets dominated by dodgy vape shops, unlicensed barbers.' She said 'some of them are legitimate' but asked: 'Is he working closely with the Home Office to try and tackle this blight because I think we probably need a national strategy, not a three-week operation?' Mr Thomas said he recognised 'a concern up and down the country' and added the NCA and Home Office 'are seeking to take action against illegitimate business'. He said a Government commitment to bolster police forces with 13,000 extra officers and special constables, backed by an uplift to forces' 'spending power' of 2.3% per year unveiled in Wednesday's spending review, 'will help'. In a viral video, Conservative shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick claimed 'weird Turkish barber shops' were 'chipping away at society', along with fare evasion, when he caught passengers allegedly 'bumping' London Underground ticket barriers on camera. 'The state needs to reassert itself and go after lawbreakers,' he said. Conservative MP Graham Stuart said that if a book which Labour MP for Central Ayrshire Alan Gemmell is writing were a 'political thriller about fighting for small business', then he was 'sure it features five heroes on the front bench opposite, doing everything they can to promote small business'. Ministers laughed and pointed at Tory MPs when Mr Stuart added: 'Readers will ask 'who is the villain of the piece?'' The Beverley and Holderness MP suggested the villain would be Rachel Reeves, 'the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is doing everything possible to undermine business – 276,000 people having lost work since the autumn statement'. He asked: 'When will the ministers, the heroes of this story, fight against the Chancellor who's getting so much so wrong?' Mr Thomas said: 'It's a little while since I've been called a hero by (Mr Stuart) but I'm glad that I've finally had some recognition from him in that regard. 'I don't think the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a villain at all. 'Indeed, I think the spending review that she announced yesterday will help to unlock investment in our high streets and in our small businesses up and down the country – the record investment in research and development, the record investment in infrastructure, and the additional capacity to the British Business Bank will help to unlock billions of pounds of new investment and many more job opportunities across the country.' Labour former minister Liam Byrne later called for 'a plan to cut industrial energy costs now'. The Commons Business and Trade Committee chairman said: 'As our committee pointed out on Friday, the success of the industrial strategy will depend on a plan to cut industrial energy costs now. 'When the industrial strategy is published, will the Secretary of State reassure us that there will be a plan to ensure that UK energy prices are internationally competitive?' Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds replied: 'The very significant increase in industrial energy prices under the terms of the last government are a significant issue for our competitiveness, and yes, that is something we're seeking to address.'
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Ald. Brendan Reilly: You can't separate anti-Zionism from antisemitism — and we must stop pretending you can
Our Jewish brothers and sisters are under siege in America. That's not hyperbole — that's fact. In recent months, the escalation of antisemitic violence has been horrifying. These are not online threats or symbolic protests — they are physical, targeted and fueled by a vicious ideology masquerading as activism. During Passover this year, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro — one of the most prominent Jewish governors in America — sat down with his family for Seder in the governor's mansion. Outside, someone threw a firebomb into the house. Just weeks later, a Chicagoan yelled, 'Free Palestine,' as he gunned down two Israeli nationals in broad daylight outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., authorities say. In Boulder, Colorado, a man shouting 'Free Palestine' hurled Molotov cocktails into a crowd of Jewish seniors — including a Holocaust survivor — who were participating in a peaceful event to raise awareness for hostages held by Hamas. Eight people were injured. This is not a coincidence. This is a pattern. And the common thread is this: These victims were not targeted based on their political views. They were targeted simply because they are Jews. Let's be clear: There has never been a meaningful distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Anti-Zionism claims to oppose a government, but victims of hate crimes are never screened for their opinion of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or the Likud party. No one asked those seniors in Boulder what they thought of Israeli settlement policy. No one asked Shapiro's children whether they support a two-state solution. They were simply Jewish — and therefore, in the eyes of the attackers, legitimate targets. This is not geopolitics. It is bigotry. And it's now being mainstreamed by far-left activists and social media echo chambers that treat Jewish identity as interchangeable with state power — a grotesque and dangerous lie. Worse yet, the Democratic Party has lurched ever leftward in recent years. It has become home to a growing number of far-left extremists who excuse these hateful acts of violence as a 'noble cause.' The violence is rising. Roughly 23 million Americans — about 9% of adults — believe force is justified against government officials, a 2023 survey by the University of Chicago's Project on Security reported. While that number is alarming across the board, what's even more concerning is that support for political violence now spans the ideological spectrum. Of the 23 million, 7.6 million identify as Democrats and 4.8 million as independents. Political violence is no longer a uniquely right-wing threat. The Boulder firebombing wasn't an outlier. It's part of a growing wave of violent extremism dressed in the language of 'resistance.' Jewish students at the University of California-Los Angeles have been physically prevented from attending class. Across college campuses, mobs shout, 'From the river to the sea,' and post lists of 'Zionists' for public harassment. Now is a moment that demands moral clarity — especially from Democratic Party leaders. If we believe in equality, dignity and pluralism, then we must also believe that violence against Jews — under any banner — has no place in American life. That means speaking up. That means drawing the line. That means saying, without euphemism or apology, that antisemitism cloaked as anti-Zionism is still antisemitism. When someone chants 'Free Palestine' while lighting Jewish people on fire, this is not a misunderstanding of policy — it's an embrace of hate. There is no such thing as anti-Zionism without antisemitism. In the real world — not in theory, but in practice — the two are indistinguishable. When anti-Zionism licenses dehumanization, mob intimidation, firebombings and terror, then it is not opposition to a government. It is a campaign of hate against a people. The mask has slipped. And it's time my fellow leaders in the Democratic Party stopped pretending otherwise.
Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.
