Judge Considers Releasing Detained Tufts Student Back to Vermont

On April 14, a federal judge suggested the possibility of returning Tufts University doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk to Vermont while he considers her petition for release from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody.

The 30-year-old Ozturk was apprehended by federal immigration officials in Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25, following the revocation of her student visa. Following her detention, she was transferred to New Hampshire, then Vermont, and is now in Louisiana, where she remains held.

District Judge William K. Sessions remarked, “I’m proposing the possibility of having her return here to address her constitutional claims for habeas corpus, with an order ensuring this would not affect the removal proceedings.” This statement followed a hearing where arguments for and against dismissing the case were presented.

Judge Sessions emphasized that her presence in the Vermont court was essential “to discuss release issues,” allowing her to assist her legal team effectively. He inquired about how this approach might adversely affect the federal government.

Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Drescher admitted he was unprepared to answer that but pointed out potential issues regarding where and by whom Ozturk would be detained.

The judge also implied that should he assume jurisdiction, the next hearing would likely be set for May.

Related Stories

Ozturk argues that her deportation was unconstitutionally motivated, asserting that it was retribution for a pro-Palestinian op-ed she co-wrote in the student newspaper at Tufts.

The Justice Department contends that the case lacks the necessary jurisdiction to proceed.

Ozturk’s legal team blames federal authorities for these jurisdictional discrepancies, pointing out that ICE withheld information about her location until after she was moved to her final detention site.

While Drescher acknowledged this issue in court, he argued that it was based on “legitimate security reasons” and should not alter the court’s jurisdiction ruling.

He further noted that in the case of Padilla v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court stated that habeas jurisdiction does not apply under similar circumstances, and the lack of knowledge by counsel does not influence that determination.

Ozturk’s representatives further claimed that it was unnecessary for her to remain in detention while her removal proceedings continued.

“Should the court decide in favor of her release, her removal proceedings will advance as planned without any effect on them,” attorney Noor Zafar stated on Ozturk’s behalf. “Thus, the detention issue is truly separate from the ongoing removal proceedings.”

The judge responded by asking how ordering Ozturk’s release would not clash with the discretionary powers given to the federal government under the Immigration and Nationality Act regarding immigration matters.

“There is no discretion to violate the Constitution. Therefore, we are not discussing a discretionary matter here,” Zafar replied.

In concluding the hearing, the judge expressed gratitude for the professionalism shown by both parties.

“This was exceptionally well-argued, and I will take the matter under advisement,” Sessions stated.

Bill Pan contributed to this report.