27 Jul Federal Habeas Corpus Violations Under Trump Administration (2025)

Rümeysa Öztürk: PhD Student Detained for Protected Speech

In March 2025, Tufts University PhD student Rümeysa Öztürk – a Turkish national on a student visa – was abruptly detained by plainclothes federal agents for her political speech. She had co-authored a campus op-ed critical of Israel, after which the Trump administration issued a deportation order under a rarely used statute that lets the Secretary of State remove immigrants deemed harmful to U.S. foreign policy. Öztürk was bundled into an unmarked car and held in an ICE jail in Louisiana without a hearing, an action her lawyers argued violated her constitutional rights. She filed a habeas corpus petition challenging her detention. In May 2025, U.S. District Judge William K. Sessions ordered her immediately released on bail pending further proceedings, ruling that the process by which she was held “raises very significant due process concerns”. The judge noted that keeping Öztürk jailed for an opinion article flagrantly chilled her First Amendment rights, and that “her continued detention cannot stand”, emphasizing that bail was “necessary to make the habeas [petition] … effective”. He found no evidence of any wrongdoing beyond her protected speech and rebuked the administration’s actions as unconstitutional. Öztürk was released on May 9, 2025 and allowed to return home as her case proceeds.

Mahmoud Khalil: Activist Student Held Under Obscure Law

Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and lawful U.S. permanent resident, was similarly targeted in 2025 for his pro-Palestinian activism. Federal agents arrested Khalil at his campus apartment on March 8, 2025; the State Department then revoked his green card and he was sent to an immigration jail in Louisiana. The Trump administration sought to deport and detain Khalil using an obscure provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act – a Cold War-era law allowing removal of foreign nationals who cause “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”. Officials accused the student of anti-Semitism and support for Hamas without offering any evidence, leading observers to charge that the government was simply silencing pro-Palestine advocacy. Khalil filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court arguing that his imprisonment was unlawful and violated his civil liberties. In June 2025, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled that the government “cannot use [this] obscure law to detain [Khalil] for his pro-Palestine advocacy,” finding that his First Amendment rights were being violated. The judge wrote that Khalil’s detention for peaceful speech was causing irreparable harm – “his speech is being chilled” – and strongly suggested the law itself is unconstitutional if used in this manner. Although the court stopped short of immediate release, it undermined the government’s case and gave the administration a brief window to appeal, after which Khalil would be eligible for release on a token bail. Khalil’s challenge highlights how the courts intervened to uphold habeas rights, preventing the administration from jailing a resident indefinitely over unproven claims tied to his political views.

Venezuelan TPS Holders Labeled “Alien Enemies” and Detained Without Hearing

In early 2025, the Trump administration undertook an aggressive action to summarily detain and deport Venezuelan nationals by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law seldom used in modern times. On March 15, 2025, President Trump issued an executive proclamation declaring that a Venezuelan gang (Tren de Aragua) was “perpetrating an invasion” of the U.S., and ordered that any Venezuelan age 14 or older could be “apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed” as an enemy alien without the usual court process. For example, Luddis Norelia Sánchez Garcia and Julio César Sánchez Puentes, a married Venezuelan couple who had been living in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status (TPS), were swept up in this crackdown once TPS for Venezuelans was revoked in 2025. They were arrested and designated “alien enemies” based solely on alleged gang affiliation – an allegation they deny and for which no individualized evidence was provided. The couple was slated for rapid removal to a dangerous prison in El Salvador despite never receiving a hearing. They filed a habeas corpus petition on April 16, 2025, challenging their detention and the legality of the President’s proclamation, arguing that mass migration or criminal activity is not an “invasion” under the Act and that their due process rights were being violated. Federal courts moved quickly in response. On April 25, a judge in Texas granted a temporary restraining order and ordered the release of Sánchez and Puentes, also barring the government from deporting anyone under the proclamation without proper notice and process. By June 2025, Judge David Briones ruled the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act was unlawful, refusing to “stretch the AEA’s meaning so broadly” as to treat a non-military migrant group as an invasion. He granted the habeas petition in full, permanently enjoining these deportations in his district. In parallel, other courts – including the D.C. federal court – intervened to halt removals; one judge even ordered deportation flights turned around mid-air due to the “direct contravention” of detainees’ right to judicial review. Ultimately, the judiciary forced the administration to provide due process: the Supreme Court allowed Trump’s policy to proceed only with the condition that detainees receive notice and a real chance to seek habeas relief before any removal. These events show how attempts to bypass habeas corpus in 2025 – by labeling immigrants as enemy invaders – were checked by the courts, vindicating the rights of individuals like the Sánchez couple and others in similar situations.

Sources: The Guardian, Al Jazeera, Reuters, SCOTUSblog, and ACLU court filings. Each example above is documented with contemporary court rulings and news reports from 2025, highlighting specific individuals and the legal outcomes that affirmed their habeas corpus rights.