In a significant legal development, a federal appeals court has maintained a lower court’s decision mandating the return of a Turkish student from a Louisiana immigration detention facility to New England. This move is aimed at determining whether her rights were breached and if she should be released. The ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals comes after arguments were presented regarding Rumeysa Ozturk’s case, sparking discussions about free speech and due process.
Ozturk, a student at Tufts University, has been held in Louisiana for more than six weeks following the joint publication of an editorial that critiqued the institution’s approach to the conflict in Gaza involving Israel. The court stipulated that Ozturk should be relocated to Vermont under the supervision of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by May 14. Separately, immigration proceedings in Louisiana will continue remotely, ensuring Ozturk’s participation.
Previously, a Vermont district court judge required the 30-year-old doctoral candidate to be brought for hearings addressing the legitimacy of her detention. Her legal representatives argue that her constitutional rights have been compromised, especially in terms of free speech. An initial deadline had been set for May 1, while a hearing regarding her bail was planned for Friday in Burlington, followed by another session on May 22.
The Justice Department challenged the transfer, asserting Louisiana’s jurisdiction over Ozturk’s immigration case. However, the appeals court did not favor further postponement, emphasizing the importance of her personal presence at the Vermont hearings over additional governmental expenditures. The court emphasized that remote participation in Louisiana’s immigration proceedings is both feasible and lawful.
Ozturk’s detention followed her apprehension in a Boston suburb on March 25, leading to her transfer through New Hampshire and Vermont before being flown to Louisiana. Her student visa had been revoked earlier, unbeknownst to her, and her legal team only contacted her more than a day after her detention. The case, initially filed in Massachusetts, was transferred to Vermont due to logistical reasons, a move criticized by the government but upheld by the appeals court.
The op-ed in question, co-authored by Ozturk and other students, critiqued the university’s reaction to activist demands regarding the Palestinian conflict and financial transparency related to Israel. Following this, a State Department memorandum claimed her visa was annulled due to activities potentially harmful to U.S. foreign policy and university environment. Allegations also surfaced suggesting her association with Hamas, a designated terrorist group, although evidence was not provided by a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson.
In response to her detention, attorney Esha Bhandari asserted, “No one should be arrested and locked up for their political views.” She expressed gratitude toward the court for countering the government’s effort to isolate Ozturk from her support network and attorney while seeking her release. This case continues to raise significant concerns over the balance of national security interests with constitutional rights in immigration enforcement.