Rümeysa Öztürk will be moved back to Vermont and a judge will consider her temporary release at a bail hearing May 9 and her permanent release May 22.
In a 74-page opinion posted just after 5 p.m. Friday, judge William K. Sessions III found in Öztürk’s favor on nearly all the difficult legal questions: that he has jurisdiction to hear her habeas corpus petition; that she raised “significant constitutional concerns with her arrest and detention which merit full and fair consideration”; and that she is entitled to a bail hearing before him.
Öztürk was taken off the street in Somerville on March 25 by federal agents in apparent retaliation for co-authoring a 2024 opinion essay for the Tufts Daily student newspaper.
“We are grateful to judge Sessions for understanding the urgency of Rümeysa’s circumstances,” said Lia Ernst, legal director of the ACLU of Vermont. “Today’s ruling rightfully affirms that the government cannot undermine the justice system and attempt to manipulate a case’s jurisdiction by secretly transporting and imprisoning someone over a thousand miles from home.”
Sessions laid out a timeline in his ruling, allowing four days, until Tuesday, to permit an appeal, though the orders don’t require action for two weeks:
• Oztürk must be transferred to Vermont by May 1;
• Written briefs for Öztürk’s release on bail are due by May 2;
• A bail hearing in Burlington, Vermont, is set for May 9; and
• A hearing on the merits of the case – whether she was unconstitutionally arrested and should be fully released – is set for May 22.
Why delay her release?
Öztürk’s attorneys said repeatedly that she was detained solely in retaliation for first amendment protected speech: the Tufts Daily article.
Sessions agreed: “The government has presented little evidence to rebut Ms. Öztürk’s constitutional violation claims.”
But the court appears to be bending over backward to allow the government to make a case to continue to hold Öztürk, and Sessions’ opinion repeatedly stressed that he was missing information from the government’s side:
“[U.S. secretary of state Marco] Rubio has argued publicly that there are additional justifications for the government’s actions adverse to Ms. Öztürk and that these justifications may be filed in court if necessary. The Court invites an immediate submission any such evidence in this case. In the absence of additional information from the government, the Court’s habeas review is likely to conclude that Ms. Öztürk has presented a substantial claim.”
Sessions said that the record “is not sufficiently developed” to permit him to decide fully in Öztürk’s favor at this point, “given the overarching deference towards the executive branch’s authority in the area of immigration enforcement.”
Sessions also noted that “new evidence has been emerging regularly” in the case, and he cited the Department of State memo justifying Öztürk’s arrest, made available to him one day after the deadline for briefing was over; and also a Washington Post article, published the night before the hearing.
“The Court seeks additional evidence of the connection between Ms. Öztürk’s speech and her detention,” he wrote.
He also noted that “an immigration judge found ‘Danger and Flight Risk,’ but the Court has not seen the evidence that supported that determination, and Ms. Öztürk has submitted evidence to support the opposite conclusion.” So he “will allow the government to present evidence to rebut claims that her detention is improperly motivated.”
Awareness of national context
Sessions is also clearly aware and paying attention to the national context of immigration cases, including that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man accidentally deported to a Salvadoran prison whose case went up to the Supreme Court last week.
“This Court follows clear instruction of the Supreme Court on this matter,” Sessions wrote, “and has ‘due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs,’” quoting from the Supreme Court’s April 10 decision in the case of Abrego Garcia.
Jurisdictional issues
The bulk of Sessions’ opinion is devoted to resolving the “threshold” questions of whether he is allowed to decide Öztürk’s fate. They fall into three categories.
Was the court case transferred properly from Massachusetts to Vermont, after it became clear Öztürk’s lawyer had filed the case in Massachusetts when she had been transported through New Hampshire and into Vermont? Sessions found yes, because the case “could have been brought” in Vermont at the time it was filed, and that’s what the law allowing transfers requires. The government had argued otherwise, because at the time of transfer Öztürk was in Louisiana. Sessions did not agree.
Did Öztürk name the proper custodian in her habeas petition? Sessions found yes, because her actual immediate custodian is “unknown,” and “the government thus admits that from the time ICE agents arrested Ms. Öztürk to the time she arrived at the Louisiana detention facility, it was keeping her location a secret. And the identity of Ms. Öztürk’s actual custodian at the time of filing, if it is not one of the Respondents, appears to still be unknown to the government.”
Does the Immigration and Nationality Act prevent a district court from reviewing these claims? Many of the government’s arguments, Sessions said, apply to removal and mandatory detention cases. But Öztürk’s case is a discretionary detention case, a different category, and review of those claims is not stripped from the district courts in the same way. Even when there’s discretion given to the government, “there’s no discretion to violate the Constitution,” he said.
Massachusetts Court’s order to not remove Öztürk
Sessions was clearly troubled by the fact that the government ignored the order issued by the Massachusetts court at 10:55 p.m. on the night of Öztürk’s arrest requiring Öztürk not be moved out of Massachusetts “to preserve the status quo.”
But by that time, she was already gone.
“The government apparently did not take any immediate steps to comply with the order or to communicate with the court to ascertain the court’s intent,” Sessions noted.
“At minimum,” Sessions said, “the government should have informed the issuing court in a timely fashion that compliance with the order was not literally possible and sought out clarification.”
“The remedy for the government ignoring the March 25, 2025, order is simple. Ms. Öztürk should be returned to the status quo at the time of issuance when she was in custody in the District of Vermont.”
“The Court declines to abet a slide into mockery in this case.”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)3 nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.
