Since starting law school 50 years ago, I have read countless judicial decisions, but I never have read a more powerful opinion than Judge William Young’s declaring unconstitutional the Trump administration’s apprehending and deporting individuals because of their pro-Palestinian views. In American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, on September 30, Judge Young sounded an alarm for the country: If there is a path towards authoritarianism and an end to our constitutional democracy as we have known it, this is it.

Above the caption of the case at the top of the opinion, Judge Young has an image of a handwritten postcard that he received: “Trump has pardons and tanks. What do you have.”  Judge Young answers: “Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States – you and me – have our magnificent Constitution. Here’s how that works out in a specific case.”

The opinion follows a nine-day bench trial concerning the constitutionality of the Trump administration targeting to deport individuals because of their expressing pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel views. Neither the facts nor the law seem in dispute as to the case.

Judge Young details how President Trump in Executive Orders set out the goal of deporting individuals for their expression and how this was implemented by the Secretaries of State and of Homeland Security. He describes, with specific examples, the arrest, detention, and efforts to deport individuals solely for their speech. Judge Young explains: “It was never the Secretaries’ immediate intention to deport all pro-Palestinian non-citizens for that obvious First Amendment violation, that could have raised a major outcry. Rather, the intent of the Secretaries was more invidious – to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act (in ways it had never been used before) to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated non-citizen (and other) pro-Palestinians into silence because their views were unwelcome.”

The law is clear, as Judge Young explains, that this violates the First Amendment. The government never is allowed to act against people in the United States, citizen or non-citizen, because of the ideas they express.

This was the Supreme Court’s explicit holding in Bridges v. Wixon in 1945. The case involved an attempt by the United States government to deport Harry Bridges, a labor leader in San Francisco, for his alleged communist views. Bridges, who was from Australia, was not a United States citizen.

Justice William Douglas, in his majority opinion in favor of Bridges, spoke in words that are particularly important today: “Though deportation is not technically a criminal proceeding, it visits a great hardship on the individual and deprives him of the right to stay and live and work in this land of freedom. That deportation is a penalty – at times a most serious one – cannot be doubted. Meticulous care must be exercised lest the procedure by which he is deprived of that liberty not meet the essential standards of fairness.”

Justice Frank Murphy, in a concurring opinion, began by condemning the action against Bridges and saying, “The record in this case will stand forever as a monument to man’s intolerance of man.” Justice Murphy then explained how the First Amendment protected Bridges, as it does everyone in the country, citizen and non-citizen alike. “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. Such rights include those protected by the First and the Fifth Amendments and by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. None of these provisions acknowledges any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.”

The Trump administration obviously has never read this decision. Or perhaps it just doesn’t care about following the law. The revocation of visas, as the Supreme Court recognized, imposes great harms on the individuals who are subjected to this and their families.

Judge Young also describes how ICE agents in masks apprehended the individuals for detention and deportation. He writes: “This Court has listened carefully to the reasons given by Öztürk’s captors for masking. . . . It rejects this testimony as disingenuous, squalid and dishonorable.  ICE goes masked for a single reason – to terrorize Americans into quiescence.”

But Judge Young’s opinion does not stop there.  He concludes by addressing the unprecedented pattern of lawlessness by President Donald Trump since January 20. He describes Trump as “bullying” and writes: “The Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies – all of it; the President simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act.”

Should a judge write such an opinion? In answering this, it is important to remember that William Young has been a federal judge for 40 years, having been appointed by President Ronald Reagan. He is using the one pulpit he has to tell the country that President Trump’s actions are a grave threat to our constitutional democracy.

No president has shown such disregard for the laws and Constitution. President Trump issued an Executive Order to greatly restrict birthright citizenship in clear violation of the first sentence of section one of the Fourteenth Amendment. He has sought to deport people without a semblance of due process. He has violated the Posse Comitatus Act – and says he will do so more – in using the American military for domestic law enforcement. He has issued an executive order on flag burning that violates the First Amendment under two Supreme Court cases. He has attempted to regulate things beyond his power – such as voting and bail – that are left to the states. Trump has explicitly said that broadcast stations that criticize him should lose their licenses.

Trump’s assertions of presidential power are broader than any other president has claimed. No president before has ever claimed that he can fire everyone in the executive branch of government. No president has claimed the ability to eliminate agencies created by federal statute. No president has claimed the authority to massively cut off federal spending appropriated by Congress. (President Nixon impounded funds, but not nearly on this scale). No president has attempted to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 except in declared wars. No president has invoked “emergency powers” in non-emergency situations like this, such as for tariffs and ending collective bargaining for federal employees.

As Judge Young describes, President Trump has openly used power for retribution. The executive orders that imposed draconian sanctions on the law firms were explicit in stating this as their rationale. For example, the law firm Perkins Coie was subjected to severe punishment because it represented Hillary Clinton in 2016. Other law firms were punished because they employed Robert Mueller or members of his staff. The investigations of Letitia James and Adam Schiff and John Bolton and Lisa Cook are all about retribution. Those responsible for the January 6 insurrection were pardoned, while those who prosecuted the crimes were fired. 

In this context, I praise Judge Young’s courage in writing an opinion like no other. He concludes with a challenge for us all:

“I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected. Is he correct?”

The future of our democracy likely depends on the answer to Judge Young’s question.