On March 25, 2025, the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), together with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and represented by the Knight First Amendment Institute, sued the Trump administration for its policy of targeting noncitizen students and scholars for their pro-Palestinian speech. MESA is the largest scholarly association devoted to the study of the Middle East and North Africa with thousands of members across the world, including faculty, researchers and students. In the nearly 60 years since MESA was founded, it has fostered rigorous scholarship, responsible teaching, academic freedom and public understanding of a region that is often misunderstood beyond its borders, particularly in the United States.[1]

The field of Middle East studies has long been buffeted by external political pressures. In the era following the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, the government has sought expertise about the Middle East in connection with everything from military planning to counterinsurgency policies to interrogation strategies. A cottage industry of terrorism experts with little academic expertise on the region emerged to take up these positions. Scholarly concerns about ethics and professional responsibility in teaching and research were met with political scrutiny. Surveillance sometimes intruded on university and college campuses, whether in monitoring the activities of affinity-based student organizations associated with the Middle East or investigating faculty whose research raised red flags. In the same period, pro-Israel organizations in the United States increasingly turned their attention to campus politics, targeting students and faculty for speech or activities expressing criticism of Israel or dissent from US government policies in the so-called War on Terror. Organizations like Campus Watch and later Canary Mission proliferated, producing reports and websites focusing on faculty, students, departments and programs in Middle East Studies.

By the 2010s, these organizations were also innovating new legal strategies to bring federal complaints and lawsuits against universities and departments arguing that their curricula, programs and events reflected discriminatory biases. For example, in the mid-2000s, the Zionist Organization of America began filing Title VI (civil rights) complaints against universities alleging that campus events or speech related to the Middle East were producing a hostile environment for Jewish students. While those early complaints did not result in formal findings, they became the precursor for similar complaints that eventually contributed to a permanent change of federal policy in 2018 about how to define antisemitism for the purposes of civil rights law. Meanwhile, another organization—the Brandeis Center, founded in 2011—brought lawsuits on similar grounds against multiple universities, including Harvard, MIT, the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford. Even when these complaints or lawsuits failed, campuses were put on notice that speech about Israel-Palestine, and the Middle East Studies programs where these issues are studied, might become a source of costly legal challenges. The attendant pressure to avoid controversy in curricula and programming about the Middle East, and even individual scholarly research agendas, has long cast a chill over the field. The broader politicization of research funding and the retreat in support for the social sciences and humanities has exacerbated this sense of siege in a higher education climate that measures the worth of universities in terms of their returns-on-investment and compliance with government priorities.

The erosion of space on campuses for critical debate about Israel and Palestine intensified after the Hamas attacks against Israel of October 7, 2023, and Israel’s subsequent genocidal war on Gaza. Censorial pressure from outside advocacy groups also increased following October 2023, and alumni networks and donors were mobilized to influence college and university administrators to silence pro-Palestinian voices and block activism on campuses. Congressional hearings following October 7, with bipartisan support during President Joseph Biden’s administration, further escalated public and private pressure on universities and colleges, with university presidents forced out over their testimony.

The start of President Donald Trump’s second term in January 2025 exacerbated the risks to the field of Middle East Studies by orders of magnitude. His administration declared across-the-board investigations of universities and colleges, accelerating the dynamics of the preceding year. Once his administration announced a government-wide, multi-agency federal task force on antisemitism, the pressure to directly regulate and constrain teaching, research and scholarship about the Middle East, and especially about Israel-Palestine, reached a fever pitch.

The blueprint for the government’s approach had been prepared in advance—in October 2024—by pro-Israel activists and published under the title “Project Esther.” With the plan set in motion, the government made clear in February 2025 that it would use immigration authorities to engage in heightened scrutiny of foreign students and scholars, visa revocations, detentions and ultimately removal proceedings to deport noncitizens who had engaged in pro-Palestinian protest activity. MESA understood that this posture would disproportionately damage Middle East studies, as the field already operates under heightened political scrutiny. By early 2025, MESA was hearing from members across the country expressing unprecedented levels of fear. International graduate students stopped attending conferences and even classes. Faculty withdrew from panels, declined media interviews or erased years of public commentary from their social media accounts. Invitations to speak at teach-ins went unanswered. Collaborative projects stalled. The chill was not theoretical. It was palpable, measurable and pervasive, as MESA has documented.

Under these conditions, MESA concluded that the ordinary tools of academic self-governance were no longer sufficient responses. University statements, faculty resolutions and disciplinary norms could not counter a federal policy that threatened arrest, detention and deportation for protected speech. When immigration and antidiscrimination law is used as a weapon to suppress a viewpoint, academic freedom cannot be defended from within the academy alone. In a moment of crisis with the law being weaponized, MESA decided to meet the threat by exploring its own litigation strategy, based on the speech protections enshrined in the First Amendment and long held by the US Supreme Court to extend to academic freedom.

MESA Sues

Building on precedents from the Biden administration and a long history of campaigns against campus pro-Palestinian advocacy, the Trump administration’s policy blurred and then erased the line between unlawful activity and disfavored speech. Pro-Palestinian protest, criticism of Israel and advocacy for ceasefire or divestment were recast as indicators of antisemitism or support for terrorism. The government began monitoring student protests, teach-ins and campus events, reviewing social media and public statements and flagging individuals for immigration scrutiny based on pro-Palestinian advocacy. In one notable case, of Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, a visa revocation was based exclusively on having co-authored an op-ed in a campus newspaper that criticized the university administration’s policies in response to student calls for divestment from Israel. Öztürk was captured by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and detained for over six weeks. For international students and scholars, the message was unmistakable: Participation in these debates in any form could cost you your visa, your residency or your freedom. Once speech becomes a trigger for eliminating research funds and conducting deportations, academic freedom collapses into a privilege enjoyed only by citizens, and even then only conditionally.

Few at MESA could have anticipated that within a few years new immigration policies would target its members who were lawfully present in the United States.

MESA’s lawsuit was brought to stop the Trump administration from targeting noncitizens on the basis of constitutionally protected speech. It was not the first time MESA pursued litigation as an avenue to protect the interests of its members. During the first Trump presidency, MESA was one of a group of plaintiffs that sued the administration for adopting discriminatory travel restrictions under what was then termed the “Muslim Ban.” The unfair targeting of Muslim communities for immigration restrictions disrupted travel, research and free exchange of ideas by undermining academic collaborations in countries affected by the ban, many of them countries where MESA members reside or travel for research. MESA, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, litigated that case to the Supreme Court, where the travel ban was eventually upheld. Few at MESA could have anticipated that within a few years new immigration policies would target its members who were lawfully present in the United States.

MESA’s decision to litigate was the product of careful consideration rooted in institutional obligation. As the largest scholarly association dedicated to Middle East studies, MESA exists to protect the conditions under which its members can work. Initially MESA was alone among scholarly associations in raising the alarm as it contemplated how to respond to the first reports of students and scholars being detained in early March 2025. It was easy to present the problem as one limited to those studying the Middle East; other scholarly associations might avoid drawing the ire of the administration by staying out of the fray. Yet once MESA decided to litigate, the AAUP soon joined as a co-plaintiff, and the legal team at the Knight First Amendment Institute represented both associations together with trial attorneys from Sher Tremonte LLP.

Unlike most public interest cases, the case was not decided by the judge based exclusively on legal briefing. The judge presiding over the case, Judge William G. Young, decided that he would hold a bench trial, a full trial conducted without a jury, in which the judge hears live testimony, reviews exhibits and makes findings of fact under oath. Bench trials are relatively rare in constitutional litigation, but they are uniquely powerful: They create an evidentiary record grounded in sworn testimony and cross-examination, allowing the court to assess intent, credibility and real-world effects in a way that relying only on legal briefs cannot. MESA and its co-plaintiffs argued that the government was pursuing a coordinated policy that targeted people because of their constitutionally protected speech under the guise of antisemitism enforcement. Since these claims required proof of actual policies and facts, the judge concluded that developing a real evidentiary record was crucial to deciding the case. That record now permanently documents how the policy operated in practice, not just how it was defended in theory.

The litigation record in AAUP v. Rubio confirmed what MESA had been hearing anecdotally about the chilling effects of US government policy on students and faculty at US institutions. The evidence showed that government agencies had been tracking public statements, social media posts and participation in campus protests and using speech in these contexts as the sole trigger for government scrutiny. Speech critical of Israel or supportive of Palestinian causes was classified by the government as antisemitic without any further inquiry. Once an individual was flagged based on their speech, their case file would be directed into a pipeline for visa revocation and removal proceedings. Moreover, lists of individuals to be flagged for scrutiny were shown to have been provided, in part, by third parties outside of government.

The trial itself involved witness testimony from government officials as well as from MESA and AAUP members. In some of the most shocking testimony, government officials confirmed their reliance on lists of close to 5,000 tips provided by Canary Mission and Betar US, another pro-Israel group, that had compiled thousands of profiles of pro-Palestinian students. Peter Hatch, an assistant director of intelligence at ICE Homeland Security Investigations, testified that “most” of the names flagged for scrutiny came from Canary Mission.

Faculty testimony at the trial was deeply moving. Non-citizen academics described the fear they felt even when deciding to participate. They recounted avoiding publishing on topics that could be construed as controversial and declining conference invitations. They described their students stepping back from political organizations. Faculty themselves attested to withdrawing from public engagements, choosing not to sign letters or publish opinion pieces based on the chilling effect of Trump administration deportation policies. Scholars described self-censorship extending even to private communications. These effects are not marginal. They strike at the core of scholarly life.

Middle East studies depends on public engagement. Scholarship in the field intersects with ongoing conflicts, human rights crises and foreign policy debates. When scholars cannot speak openly without fear of state reprisal, the damage does not stop at the university. The public conversation is impoverished and policymaking becomes less informed.

Judge Young Decides

In his September 2025 findings, Judge Young clearly articulated what was at stake. His ruling is worth reading in its entirety. He rejected the administration’s claim that non-citizens inside the United States enjoy diminished First Amendment protection. He wrote a forthright defense of the free speech principle and made clear that constitutional guarantees do not hinge on passport status. That holding alone vindicated a central concern of MESA’s members, many of whom are non-citizens whose work sustains US universities.

Judge Young recognized that criticism of Israel, even in harsh terms, is protected political speech. Conflating it with terrorism or antisemitism was not a neutral mistake but rather a mechanism of government repression designed to “chill speech across campuses.”

Equally important was the court’s factual determination that senior officials acted intentionally and in concert to chill protected speech. The opinion did not accept the government’s characterization of its actions as routine immigration enforcement. It examined the evidence and concluded that viewpoint discrimination was the point, not the byproduct. In coming to this conclusion, Judge Young stated plainly: “This might be the most important case I have ever been called upon to decide.” In finding that the government “targeted individuals based on their speech,” he stated that officials at the highest levels had “misused the sweeping powers of their offices.” Judge Young recognized that criticism of Israel, even in harsh terms, is protected political speech. Conflating it with terrorism or antisemitism was not a neutral mistake but rather a mechanism of government repression designed to “chill speech across campuses.” Finally, he used categorical language about the scope of constitutional protections: “no law means no law,” quoting from the text of the First Amendment that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

The factual determinations that officials had abused their powers showed that antisemitism was being invoked pretextually in the service of repression. These findings created an authoritative public record. They named the harm. They validated what scholars had been experiencing in isolation. In creating this record, the court restored a measure of dignity to those who had been told, implicitly and explicitly, that their fear was exaggerated or their silence prudent.

Judge Young’s decision offered a measure of relief for those still facing immigration consequences for having engaged in constitutionally-protected speech, as well as broader protections for the tens of thousands of noncitizen scholars and students in the United States. Scholars in removal proceedings on the basis of their speech have been able to use the evidence revealed at trial to defend against removal. Rümeysa Öztürk, for example, drew on Judge Young’s opinion to challenge her detention and the legal basis for her removal. Beyond declaring that the government conduct was unconstitutional, the decision also offered injunctive relief, placing forward-looking constraints on the government’s use of immigration authority to target protected speech (in this case, pro-Palestinian advocacy). An appeal by the government is currently being litigated.

What Was Gained

Litigation is never a perfect instrument. It is slow, adversarial and limited to the parties involved and the constraints of existing law. MESA did not pursue this case because courts are ideal guardians of academic freedom but because the usual avenues for protecting academic freedom had been foreclosed as speech protections eroded on campuses across the country.

Measured against that reality, the strategy has served members’ interests in several concrete ways. First, it established that the Constitution protects non-citizen scholars and students against viewpoint-based immigration retaliation. That principle now stands in a detailed judicial opinion, not a press release. Second, trial testimony exposed the intricate machinery of repression. These findings are now legally recognized facts, part of a judicial record with legal and institutional weight. Third, the litigation created space for scholars to speak again. While fear has not evaporated, the existence of a judicial finding in favor of the rights of students and scholars now changes the calculus of risk.

Finally, in his remedial order on January 22, 2026, Judge Young declared the administration’s ideological deportation policy to be unconstitutional and imposed a sanction to allow individuals targeted based on protected speech to quickly challenge any adverse changes to their immigration status as presumptively retaliatory. While somewhat narrower than the relief plaintiffs sought, the order imposed a meaningful procedural barrier on future abuses and makes clear that constitutional violations carry consequences.

By illuminating the connection between immigration policy and academic freedom, the coverage reframed the issue from a niche dispute to a democratic concern.

The case, through the media attention it generated, also brought national and international focus to a phenomenon that had been unfolding quietly on campuses. Reporters documented not only the arrests and court rulings but the wider academic chill: students who stopped attending class discussions, faculty who declined invitations and departments struggling to reassure international colleagues. Government repression thrives when it is hidden. By illuminating the connection between immigration policy and academic freedom, the coverage reframed the issue from a niche dispute to a democratic concern.

Litigation alone, however, cannot resolve the challenges facing students and scholars, nor the broader threats to political freedom. Fear persists, and some damage cannot be undone. Universities across the country have been complicit in the chill on pro-Palestinian advocacy and by extension on the field of Middle East studies. Even with Judge Young’s order, many college and university administrators may continue to capitulate to unlawful demands by the Trump administration, whether to end investigations or settle lawsuits. And it is still possible that this or future administrations may pursue similar strategies through immigration measures, perhaps with greater subtlety.

Still, this case offers lessons worth carrying forward. One is the importance of collective action: Individual scholars, especially non-citizens, are poorly positioned to challenge state power alone. Associations can aggregate risk, resources and expertise. Another is the value of documentation. The evidentiary record assembled in AAUP v. Rubio was built through testimony, exhibits and the willingness of affected individuals to speak, even at personal cost. More broadly, the case highlights that academic freedom is not self-executing. When political authorities test the limits of their powers to overstep constitutional bounds and infringe on freedom of speech, silence invites impunity and an inevitable erosion of rights.

In this sense, MESA’s struggle is also a reminder to colleagues across higher education that government or private repression of speech related to the Middle East is not a parochial concern. It is a barometer of how seriously the First Amendment is taken in defending politically disfavored speech and protecting the academic freedoms that are essential to the scholarly endeavor. The challenge facing US higher education is whether the academy remains a place where ideas can be contested without fear and whether constitutional guarantees will be meaningfully enforced. For MESA and the organizations that partnered with it—AAUP and the Knight First Amendment Institute—rising to that challenge required suing the Trump administration. The case will likely continue to wind its way through the courts on appeal. For those wishing to follow it, the Knight Institute, MESA and the AAUP are issuing regular updates. The ultimate outcome in the case will depend on high-stakes choices made by the appellate court and perhaps even the Supreme Court. But MESA’s decision to raise its voice in solidarity with its members has already been vindicated.

[Aslı Bâli is the Howard M. Holtzmann Professor of Law at Yale Law School and the former president of the Middle East Studies Association.]

Endnotes

[1] Thanks to Darryl Li, Ussama Makdisi, Jeff Reger and George Wang for helpful suggestions.