“This Court finds by clear and convincing evidence,” Young wrote in his 55-page opinion, “that the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and the Secretary of State Marco Rubio … did so concert their actions and those of their two departments intentionally to chill the rights to freedom of speech and peacefully to assemble of the non-citizen plaintiff members of the plaintiff associations.”

The ruling follows a bench trial brought by multiple college faculty associations who argued that the Trump administration’s pattern of visa revocations, detentions, and deportations amounted to unlawful retaliation against protected political speech. The judge agreed, finding that the evidence showed a “deliberate and purposeful” effort by the department heads to silence dissent.

Young said he would determine what remedies to impose at a later stage of the case. Attorneys for the plaintiffs have requested a court order prohibiting federal officials from continuing the policy or threatening similar reprisals in the future.

The lawsuit challenged part of President Donald Trump’s broader hard-line immigration agenda, which included numerous enforcement actions against foreign nationals on U.S. soil, especially in the case of students on college campuses.

Notably, the case sought to answer whether noncitizens enjoy the “same free speech rights as the rest of us,” the judge wrote, referring to legal citizens. He wrote the answer is “unequivocally ‘yes, they do.’”

“‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction and it is not to be found in our history or jurisprudence,” Young added.

Rubio has argued that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the statute invoked to carry out Trump’s deportation efforts, carries a carveout for the deportation of noncitizens if their presence has “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Now, the case appears on track for a potentially landmark review by higher courts and perhaps the Supreme Court, assuming the Trump administration decides to appeal.

Spokespeople for DHS and the Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.

The ruling follows months of legal challenges brought by groups representing affected students, including several high-profile cases. While targeting these noncitizen activists based on protests has proven difficult, the administration has found success using other means, such as accusations that they improperly filled out green card applications.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CAN’T AVOID ‘FREE SPEECH’ TRIAL ON STUDENT PROTESTS: JUDGE

Among figures initially targeted over extremist views on the Gaza war was Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate who was detained for more than three months after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents revoked his visa following his participation in campus protests. Earlier this month, an immigration judge found Khalil could soon be deported on the grounds that he “willfully misrepresented” himself on his green card application.

In another case, Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts, was arrested and held in federal custody after immigration officials accused her of supporting extremist speech — claims her attorneys deny. A three-judge federal appellate court panel heard arguments Tuesday over the federal government’s bid to overturn a district judge’s decision that ordered her release on bail earlier this year.