Last updated 2 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
Thousands of students have been arrested at pro-Palestinian protests on U.S. college campuses. For American citizens, an arrest at a demonstration might mean a fine or a misdemeanor charge. For international students legally studying here on visas, the same arrest can trigger visa revocation, detention, and deportation.
International students have the same First Amendment rights as citizens to protest, as affirmed by recent court rulings. But the immigration consequences of exercising those rights are so severe that many can’t afford to use them.
The arrests reflect a complex intersection of constitutional law, immigration enforcement, university policies, and what a federal judge called a “truly scandalous and unconstitutional suppression of free speech” by the Trump administration.
Do Foreign Students Have Free Speech Rights?
At the heart of the controversy lies a constitutional question: Do non-U.S. citizens legally residing in the country share the same First Amendment rights as American citizens?
According to a forceful federal court ruling in September 2025, the answer is yes.
The Constitutional Foundation
The First Amendment begins: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The language doesn’t specify that this right belongs only to citizens. For decades, U.S. courts have interpreted this to mean that “persons” within U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship, are protected.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this principle. As Justice Francis W. Murphy wrote in his 1945 concurring opinion in Bridges v. Wixon, “once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.”
This means international students on F-1 or J-1 visas, as lawful residents, have a constitutional right to participate in political protests, marches, and demonstrations.
The Landmark Ruling
This principle faced an urgent test amid the federal crackdown on pro-Palestinian student activists. In a case brought by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association against the Trump administration, U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston was asked whether the government could legally target non-citizens for deportation based on their political speech.
In a sweeping 161-page ruling issued in September 2025, Judge Young, a Reagan appointee, delivered an unequivocal answer. He framed the central issue directly: “This case squarely presents the issue whether non-citizens lawfully present here in United States actually have the same free speech rights as the rest of us.”
His answer: “The Court answers this Constitutional question unequivocally ‘yes, they do.'”
In a pointed reference to the First Amendment’s text, Judge Young wrote that “‘No law’ means ‘no law,'” adding that while no one’s speech is unlimited, “these limits are the same for both citizens and non-citizens alike.” The ruling stands as a judicial rebuke of government policy, calling it a “truly scandalous and unconstitutional suppression of free speech.”
The Practical Vulnerability
Despite robust legal protection, a critical distinction places non-citizen students in a uniquely dangerous position. While the right to protest is universal for everyone on U.S. soil, the consequences for exercising that right differ vastly based on citizenship status.
An American student arrested for minor civil disobedience—trespassing during a peaceful sit-in—might face a small fine or misdemeanor charge. For an international student, the exact same act can trigger life-altering immigration consequences, including visa revocation and potential deportation.
This disparity creates a chilling effect on non-citizen speech. The fear of jeopardizing education, future career prospects, and ability to remain in the United States effectively discourages many from participating in legally protected political expression.
This establishes a de facto two-tiered system. In theory, the right to speak is equal for all. In practice, the prohibitive cost of exercising that right for non-citizens makes it something they engage in at immense personal risk. This vulnerability stems not from a lack of constitutional rights, but from how immigration law can be leveraged to punish the exercise of those rights.
Where Protest Becomes Crime
The arrests aren’t arbitrary. They occur when law enforcement determines that a line has been crossed from legally protected expression into unlawful conduct. Understanding this distinction is crucial to comprehending the legal jeopardy students face.
Protected Speech vs. Unlawful Conduct
The First Amendment provides robust protection for peaceful protest, especially in “traditional public forums” like public parks, streets, and sidewalks. But this protection isn’t absolute. Both government authorities and university administrations can impose reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions on expressive activities.
These restrictions must be content-neutral. A university can prohibit loud amplification outside a library during final exams, but it can’t prohibit a protest simply because it’s pro-Palestinian and administrators disagree with the message.
Activities not protected by the First Amendment that can lead to arrest include:
Incitement of Imminent Violence: Speech directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action isn’t protected. This is a high legal standard to meet.
Trespassing: Protesters don’t have a right to demonstrate on private property without the owner’s consent. On campus, this can include occupying buildings after hours, refusing to leave closed areas, or setting up encampments in violation of university rules.
Disruption of Operations: While protests are often inherently disruptive, conduct that “materially and substantially” disrupts the university’s functioning—blocking building entrances or preventing classes—can be restricted.
Targeted Harassment: Speech or conduct targeted at a specific individual that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies equal access to educational opportunities can constitute discriminatory harassment and isn’t protected.
Common Charges
When police disperse protests, arrests typically involve a few common charges:
Criminal Trespass: One of the most frequent charges, applied when students refuse to leave a building or campus area after being ordered to do so. The occupation of Hamilton Hall at Columbia University, which led to over 100 arrests, is a prominent example.
Unlawful Assembly and Failure to Disperse: If a protest is peaceful, it’s generally a lawful assembly. However, if participants become violent or destructive, police may declare the gathering “unlawful” and issue an order to disperse. Anyone who remains is subject to arrest.
Disorderly Conduct: Often a catch-all charge for behavior deemed disruptive, threatening, or creating a public nuisance. Its broad definition gives law enforcement considerable discretion during chaotic protest situations.
University Codes of Conduct
Separate from criminal charges, students are bound by their university’s internal code of conduct. These codes establish specific rules for campus life, including demonstrations.
Columbia University’s Rules of University Conduct affirm the right to protest but prohibit demonstrations that “substantially disrupt” academic activities or claim exclusive use of a space for extended periods. Vanderbilt University’s student handbook prohibits “failure to comply with authorized directives of a University official.”
Violation of these internal rules can lead to university-level disciplinary proceedings operating independently of the criminal justice system. Sanctions range from warnings and probation to suspension or expulsion. For international students, a suspension can be as devastating as a criminal conviction, leading directly to termination of their legal status.
Navigating Protest Rights
The following table breaks down common campus protest scenarios into generally protected activities and those that may lead to legal or disciplinary action:
| Generally Protected Activity | Potentially Unlawful/Prohibited Activity | Relevant Legal/Policy Concepts |
|---|---|---|
| Handing out flyers on a campus green | Blocking entrances or exits to a library or classroom building | Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions; Trespass |
| Participating in a peaceful march on a public sidewalk | Occupying an administrative building after it has closed | Civil Disobedience; Trespass |
| Wearing expressive clothing or armbands | Creating an encampment that violates university rules on overnight stays | University Code of Conduct; Trespass |
| Chanting political slogans, even controversial ones | Speech that incites imminent violence or constitutes targeted harassment | “Fighting Words”; Title VI (Harassment) |
| Staging a walkout from class | Refusing a lawful order from police to disperse an unlawful assembly | Truancy (for K-12); Failure to Disperse |
How an Arrest Can Lead to Deportation
For international students, consequences of an arrest extend far beyond the criminal justice system. An encounter with law enforcement can trigger administrative actions within the U.S. immigration system that threaten their ability to continue education and remain in the country. This process operates on logic entirely separate from criminal guilt or innocence.
The Fragility of Student Visas
Most international students hold either an F-1 or J-1 non-immigrant visa. These visas are granted for the specific purpose of pursuing a full course of study at an approved academic institution. Maintaining legal status requires meeting strict requirements, including continuous full-time enrollment and adherence to all federal, state, and local laws.
Any action that disrupts these conditions can jeopardize status. A criminal arrest, regardless of outcome, can be deemed a law violation. Similarly, a university-imposed suspension for violating student conduct codes can interrupt required full-time enrollment, leading to loss of legal status.
Visa Revocation
A U.S. visa is fundamentally an entry document allowing a foreign national to travel to a U.S. port of entry and request admission. The Department of State holds broad authority to revoke a visa at any time, often without prior notice.
As immigration attorney Cyrus Mehta has explained, revocation of the visa stamp in a student’s passport doesn’t automatically terminate their legal status to remain in the United States if they’re already in the country. A student whose visa is revoked while in the U.S. can legally continue studies as long as they maintain their underlying F-1 status.
However, visa revocation makes that individual deportable under the Immigration and Nationality Act. It creates a legal basis for the Department of Homeland Security to initiate removal proceedings. If the student leaves the U.S., they won’t be able to re-enter without obtaining a new visa—a process severely complicated by the previous revocation.
The Impact of Arrest Without Conviction
One of the most critical and often misunderstood aspects: a formal conviction isn’t necessary to trigger severe immigration consequences. An arrest alone, particularly if it involves being fingerprinted, is often sufficient.
When a person is arrested and fingerprinted, that information enters federal law enforcement databases like the National Crime Information Center. The State Department can and does use these arrest records as a basis for visa revocation, even if criminal charges are later dropped, the student is acquitted, or the record is expunged.
The mere existence of an “alert” indicating an arrest can be deemed sufficient grounds by a consular officer to determine the individual may no longer be eligible for the visa. The simple act of being arrested at a protest, regardless of legal outcome, can set in motion the process leading to deportation.
SEVIS Termination
All international students are tracked through the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS), a federal database managed by DHS. Universities are legally required to report any changes to a student’s enrollment status in SEVIS.
If a student is suspended or expelled for protest-related activities, the university must report they’re no longer enrolled full-time. This terminates the student’s F-1 status in the SEVIS system.
Once a student’s SEVIS record is terminated, their legal basis for remaining in the U.S. evaporates. Unlike students who complete their program and receive a grace period to depart, a student whose status is terminated for failing to maintain enrollment is legally required to leave the United States immediately.
In an unprecedented move, the Trump administration also had Immigration and Customs Enforcement directly terminate the SEVIS status of some student protesters, usurping the traditional role of university officials and further weaponizing the system against them.
This reveals how the administrative machinery of the state can become a tool of political control. The mechanisms for visa revocation and SEVIS termination aren’t new—they’re standard bureaucratic processes designed to manage the non-immigrant student population. The innovation of the recent crackdown was to repurpose these mundane tools for political ends. DHS personnel who normally track transnational criminal organizations were reassigned to monitor student protesters and compile reports on their activities. This represents strategic weaponization of the administrative state, where existing, seemingly neutral processes are leveraged to suppress dissent and punish individuals for political expression.
The Federal Crackdown
The arrests and deportation threats weren’t isolated incidents or routine immigration enforcement. They were the product of a deliberate and coordinated federal policy, initiated at the highest levels of the Trump administration, to target non-citizen students for pro-Palestinian activism. This campaign, described by critics as “ideological deportation,” was swiftly implemented and just as swiftly challenged in federal court.
The Executive Orders
The crackdown began in January 2025, when President Donald Trump signed executive orders directing federal agencies to combat antisemitism and act against non-citizens who “espouse hateful ideology.” The administration’s intent was explicit. An executive order fact sheet declared: “to all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you.”
President Trump pledged to “quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses.” This language established the clear political motivation behind subsequent arrests and detentions.
High-Profile Cases
The policy’s implementation was most vividly illustrated in the cases of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student, and Rumeysa Ozturk, a doctoral student at Tufts University.
Mahmoud Khalil: A Palestinian activist and legal permanent resident (green card holder), Khalil was a lead negotiator for protesters at Columbia. In March 2025, he was arrested at his university apartment by plainclothes ICE agents who didn’t have a warrant. When his lawyer informed agents he was a lawful permanent resident, they reportedly stated his green card status would be revoked as well.
Khalil was detained for 104 days, hundreds of miles from his home and pregnant wife. His case became a national symbol of the crackdown, amplified by a taunting White House social media post featuring his picture with the caption “SHALOM, MAHMOUD.”
Rumeysa Ozturk: A Turkish citizen and PhD student, Ozturk was arrested outside her home near Boston. The basis for her arrest and visa revocation wasn’t any unlawful act but an opinion piece she had co-written for the Tufts student newspaper more than a year earlier, criticizing the university’s response to the war in Gaza.
Despite a lack of evidence, DHS issued a public statement accusing her of having “engaged in activities in support of Hamas.” Testimony at trial later revealed this allegation was unsubstantiated. She was held in an ICE detention facility in Louisiana for over six weeks before a federal judge ordered her release.
Inside the Strategy
The trial in the AAUP case exposed the inner workings of the administration’s strategy. It was a coordinated effort between the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department to use the immigration enforcement apparatus in unprecedented ways.
Senior administration officials tasked DHS’s Homeland Security Investigations unit—which normally analyzes transnational criminal networks—to instead produce intelligence reports on students involved in pro-Palestinian protests. DHS then referred dozens of these reports to the State Department, recommending visa and green card revocations for the individuals named, paving the way for their arrest and removal.
Testimony revealed that some government reports relied on information compiled by right-wing, pro-Israel doxing websites like Canary Mission, which publicly lists names and personal information of pro-Palestinian students and scholars. A senior ICE official testified that until this campaign began, he couldn’t recall a single instance of a student protester being referred for visa revocation.
The Court Ruling
The administration’s campaign was ultimately halted by the judiciary. In his September 2025 ruling, Judge William Young found that the government’s actions were illegal and unconstitutional on multiple fronts. He concluded that officials from DHS and the State Department “acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech.”
The judge determined that the administration’s goal wasn’t legitimate immigration enforcement but rather to “strike fear into similarly situated” students, thereby “tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests.” He called the crackdown a “truly scandalous and unconstitutional suppression of free speech.”
The ruling served as a powerful judicial check on the executive branch’s attempt to use immigration law as a tool to silence political dissent.
How Universities Are Responding
Caught between protesting students, external political pressure, and their own institutional missions, university administrations have become central actors in this drama. Their responses have varied dramatically, from negotiation and concession to swift disciplinary action and deployment of militarized police forces.
The Difficult Position
University leaders find themselves in an exceptionally difficult position. Public universities are bound by the First Amendment to protect free expression. Both public and private institutions receiving federal funds are obligated under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to ensure a campus environment free from discriminatory harassment. This requires walking a fine line between allowing controversial speech and protecting students from targeted harassment.
They also face immense external pressure. Wealthy donors, alumni, and politicians have demanded universities take a harder line against pro-Palestinian protests, which they often characterize as antisemitic and disruptive. The Trump administration weaponized this pressure by leveraging federal funding. It canceled $400 million in federal contracts and grants to Columbia University and froze over $2 billion in research funding for Harvard, citing alleged failure to combat antisemitism on campus.
This financial coercion placed university leaders in a position where tolerating certain forms of protest could mean jeopardizing their institution’s financial stability.
From Negotiation to Police Action
The intense pressures have led to a wide spectrum of administrative responses.
Negotiation: Some universities initially attempted to de-escalate through negotiation. At Northwestern University, administrators reached an agreement with protesters to dismantle their encampment in exchange for concessions, including re-establishing an advisory committee on university investments. This approach drew sharp criticism from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which condemned it as an “astounding concession” to rule-breakers.
Police Action: Many other universities opted for a more forceful approach, calling in local and state police, sometimes in riot gear, to clear encampments and occupied buildings. This strategy was employed at Columbia University, Vanderbilt University, Emory University, and UCLA, resulting in thousands of arrests nationwide and accusations of excessive force.
Disciplinary Measures
Following arrests, universities have initiated their own internal disciplinary processes, often with severe consequences. Columbia University announced in July 2025 that it had suspended or expelled nearly 80 students for their roles in the protests. Vanderbilt University became the first known institution to expel students for participating in pro-Palestinian protests earlier in the year.
These sanctions, which also include degree revocations and multi-year suspensions, have profound implications for all students. For international students, a suspension directly leads to termination of visa status and a legal requirement to leave the country.
Case Studies
Columbia University: As the epicenter of the spring 2024 protest movement, Columbia’s administration, led by President Minouche Shafik, twice called the New York Police Department onto campus to clear protesters, leading to mass arrests. The university was the subject of a high-profile congressional hearing on antisemitism and the target of the Trump administration’s $400 million funding cut.
Critics argue that this immense political and financial pressure directly influenced the university’s decision to pursue harsh disciplinary measures, viewing it as necessary to appease the administration and restore funding.
Vanderbilt University: This private university in Tennessee adopted a particularly hard-line stance from the outset. After students occupied an administrative building to protest the university’s cancellation of a student government referendum on divesting from Israel, the administration expelled three students and suspended others. Subsequently, Vanderbilt updated its student handbook to implement more restrictive policies on demonstrations, including an explicit ban on camping or sleeping outdoors on campus as part of a protest.
The actions at universities like Vanderbilt and Columbia demonstrate that protest movements are serving as a catalyst for permanent policy changes. Faced with unprecedented and sustained encampments, administrations aren’t simply managing a temporary crisis but are actively rewriting their rules of conduct. These new, more restrictive regulations are being codified in response to pro-Palestinian protests but will likely remain in place to constrain all forms of student activism in the future.
The Broader Debate
The arrests of international students and the broader crackdown on campus protests aren’t happening in a vacuum. They’re a response to a deeply contentious debate over the nature of the protests themselves. To provide balanced understanding, it’s essential to examine the core demands of protesters as well as the serious concerns raised by critics regarding campus safety and antisemitism.
What Protesters Are Demanding
The student protests are largely organized around the goals of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, a global campaign aimed at pressuring Israel to comply with international law. Specific demands vary from campus to campus but generally include:
Divestment: The central demand is that universities disclose all financial investments and divest their endowments from companies protesters allege are complicit in Israel’s military occupation of Palestinian territories. This includes weapons manufacturers, defense contractors, and technology companies.
Academic Boycott: Some groups call for universities to end academic partnerships with Israeli institutions, such as study abroad programs and dual-degree partnerships.
Amnesty: Protesters consistently demand that universities grant amnesty to all students and faculty members who have been arrested or are facing disciplinary action for their participation in demonstrations.
Criticisms and Concerns
The most forceful criticism of the protests has come from the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. In October 2024, the committee released a 325-page report concluding a nearly year-long investigation into several elite universities. The report presents a starkly different narrative, alleging:
An “Epidemic of Antisemitic Hate”: The report claims that since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, American universities have been engulfed by an “epidemic of hate, violence, and harassment targeting Jewish students.”
Failure of Leadership: It accuses university presidents and administrators of “stunning failures of leadership,” alleging they intentionally withheld support from Jewish students, equivocated in their condemnation of antisemitism, and failed to enforce their own rules.
Hostile Environments and Title VI Violations: The committee argues that by allowing “unlawful antisemitic encampments” to persist, universities created hostile environments for Jewish students that violated their civil rights under Title VI. The report documents incidents where Jewish students were allegedly subjected to intimidation, harassment, and physical obstruction, such as being blocked from accessing parts of campus.
Antisemitic Rhetoric: Critics point to specific chants and slogans used by protesters, such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and calls for “intifada,” as being inherently antisemitic and calls for the destruction of Israel.
The “Palestine Exception” to Free Speech
In response to these criticisms, protesters and civil liberties advocates argue that legitimate political speech critical of the state of Israel is being deliberately conflated with antisemitism to silence dissent. They contend that there’s a “Palestine exception” to free speech on campus, where advocacy for Palestinian rights is uniquely scrutinized and punished in a way that other political movements aren’t.
Proponents of this view emphasize that many protesters are themselves Jewish and that student groups like Jewish Voice for Peace have been central to organizing encampments. They argue that the protests are fundamentally anti-war and pro-human rights, not antisemitic, and that the vast majority of demonstrations remained nonviolent. From this perspective, violence and danger that occurred on some campuses were primarily introduced by militarized police forces or aggressive right-wing counter-protesters.
Perspectives from Student Groups
The student body itself is deeply divided. A survey conducted by Hillel International found that a majority of Jewish students at universities with encampments felt unsafe because of them, with 72% wanting the encampments dismantled and 61% considering the language used there to be antisemitic. These students report feeling targeted and isolated on their own campuses.
At the same time, Jewish students participating in the protests offer a different perspective. At the Columbia encampment, members of Jewish Voice for Peace organized a Passover Seder, holding banners that read, “Another Jew for a free Palestine.” They, along with Palestinian student groups, argue that their movement is being intentionally smeared to distract from its core message about Palestinian rights and to justify brutal crackdowns by university administrations and police.
The arrests of foreign students and the broader conflict on campus are inseparable from this battle over narrative. The government and university actions—from visa revocations and funding cuts to police raids and expulsions—require powerful public justification. The narrative that protests are fundamentally antisemitic and create a dangerous, hostile environment provides this justification, reframing the issue from protected political speech to unprotected harassment that universities have a legal duty to stop.
Conversely, the narrative of the protests as peaceful, multi-ethnic, anti-war movements frames the same official actions as unconstitutional repression. The legal fate and personal futures of students like Mahmoud Khalil and Rumeysa Ozturk depend heavily on which of these competing narratives prevails in the courts and in the court of public opinion.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
