Judge Weighs Ordering Detained Tufts Student’s Return to Vermont

A federal judge signaled on April 14 that he may order the return of Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk to Vermont as he weighs her petition for release from the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Ozturk, 30, is a Turkish national and Tufts doctoral student who was detained by federal immigration authorities in Somerville, Massachusetts, on March 25 after her student visa was revoked. She was subsequently moved to New Hampshire, then to Vermont, and finally to Louisiana, where she is currently being held.

“I’m throwing out this possibility of having her coming back here to address her constitutional claims for habeas, with an order, of course, that they would have no impact on the removal proceedings,” District Judge William K. Sessions said after hearing arguments for and against the case’s dismissal.

Sessions said Ozturk’s presence in the Vermont court would be necessary “because we’d be addressing issues about release,” and she would be able to assist her attorneys with her case. He asked how that course of action would harm the federal government.

Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Drescher said he was not prepared to answer that question. He did note, however, that there could be issues concerning where Ozturk would be held and by whom.

The judge later indicated that if he assumed jurisdiction in the case, he would likely schedule the next hearing for May.

Related Stories

Ozturk holds that she was unconstitutionally targeted for deportation in retaliation for a pro-Palestinian op-ed she co-authored in the Tufts student newspaper.

The Justice Department says the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Ozturk’s attorneys blame federal authorities for those discrepancies, noting that ICE refused to share her location until after she had reached her final destination.

While Drescher acknowledged that fact in court, he argued that it was for “legitimate security reasons” and that it should not change how the court rules on jurisdiction.

He noted that in Padilla v. Kentucky, another immigration case, “the Supreme Court specifically said habeas jurisdiction does not attach under those circumstances, and the fact that counsel didn’t know does not affect that analysis.”

Ozturk’s attorneys further argued that there was no need for her to remain detained as her removal proceedings move forward.

“If the court grants release here, her removal proceedings will proceed as they are, and there would be no impact on that. So, the detention claim is really collateral to and independent of the removal proceedings that are happening,” attorney Noor Zafar argued on Ozturk’s behalf.

The judge countered by asking how ordering Ozturk’s release would not conflict with the discretionary authority that the Immigration and Nationality Act bestows on the federal government on immigration matters.

“There’s no discretion to violate the Constitution. So again, we’re not talking about a discretionary decision here,” Zafar said.

The judge wrapped up the hearing by noting his appreciation for the professionalism displayed on both sides.

“This was very well-argued, and I’ll take the matter under advisement,” Sessions said.

Bill Pan contributed to this report.