The case of Tufts graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk took center stage in a courthouse in Burlington, Vermont, Monday, as her lawyers argued that Öztürk should be immediately released or at least returned to Vermont from where she is currently being held in Louisiana. Meanwhile, a Justice Department lawyer argued that Öztürk’s case belongs in immigration court. The petition requesting her release was filed in the wrong state and should therefore be dismissed, he argued. After a few hours, Judge William K. Sessions III took the matter under advisement, but indicated that he is considering assuming jurisdiction and scheduling a hearing on Öztürk’s petition for release in Vermont. Öztürk, a Fulbright scholar from Turkey who is pursuing her PhD at Tufts, was detained last month by plainclothes ICE officers on a Somerville sidewalk as she went to break her Ramadan fast with friends. Video of the arrest went viral, spurring outrage from the Tufts community and immigration advocates. The federal government has said that it revoked Öztürk’s student visa because she allegedly engaged in activities that supported the terrorist organization Hamas. But the government has produced no evidence to back up its claims aside from an op-ed Öztürk co-authored last year where she identified as a “graduate student for Palestine” and advocated for the university to divest from Israel and take a stronger stance against the war in Gaza. In fact, Monday’s court proceedings came against the backdrop of new reporting that State Department officials found no evidence of Öztürk engaging in antisemitic activities or the terrorist-sympathizing that the government alleged. The State Department first received a Department of Homeland Security recommendation that cited Öztürk’s op-ed and her “anti-Israel activism” as grounds for her visa to be revoked. But State Department officials then determined that neither DHS nor ICE produced evidence showing that Öztürk actually engaged in antisemitic activity or made public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization. No information linking Öztürk to terrorist groups was found in a search of government databases either, the State Department memo found. As a result, Secretary of State Marco Rubio had to use a different authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act that allows him to revoke a visa at his discretion, without requiring explanation and evidence, according to the reporting, which first appeared in The Washington Post. Protesters in Burlington, Vermont, rallied outside of a hearing in federal court on the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss a petition for release of Tufts graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk, who was taken into custody by ICE agents last month in Somerville. – Jessica Rinaldi/Boston Globe Öztürk has not been charged with any crime. While the Tufts campus was home to significant pro-Palestine demonstrations last year, there are no indications that Öztürk led protests or engaged in the disruptive activity described by Rubio after her arrest, such as vandalism and harassment. The Post article was filed in court by Öztürk’s lawyers, who say that her arrest, transfer, and detention violate her constitutional rights under the First and Fifth amendments. After Öztürk was put into an unmarked vehicle in Somerville, she was quickly moved first to Methuen, then to New Hampshire, then to Vermont, and ultimately flown to an ICE detention center in Louisiana. She described fearing for her life during the process. Öztürk’s lawyers did not know her location for close to 24 hours after her initial detainment. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael P. Drescher said in court that Öztürk was detained because of her lapsed student visa status. That student visa was terminated days before her arrest, but the government did not inform her of its termination, according to court documents. Drescher argued that the proper venue for Öztürk to seek bond is in the immigration court system. Her removal proceedings are pending in that system. Öztürk’s lawyers said in court that the government’s sole basis for her arrest was the op-ed, but that it represents the “highest form” of protected speech. “It’s an eerie comparison to some of what the government was attempting to do during the Red Scare in the 1950s,” Jessie Rossman, one of Öztürk’s lawyers and legal director for the ACLU of Massachusetts, told Sessions. Rossman also argued that the revocation of Öztürk’s visa does not require her arrest or detention. The ongoing removal proceedings do not require her continued detention, she added. Sessions later floated the possibility of having Öztürk brought back to Vermont for a habeas hearing where she can challenge the legality of her detention. This would likely be scheduled for sometime in May, he said. In this scenario, Öztürk’s removal proceedings would carry on in immigration court. Early in the hearing, Sessions said that the “fundamental” question for him is, “What if there was a constitutional violation in her arrest?” Sessions raised a hypothetical scenario where he finds that Öztürk’s arrest was unconstitutional and orders her release, only for the government to say “oh no, she can’t be released because we have a detention order in immigration [court], which is inviolate, and she’s not going to be released.” “Then we’re in a constitutional crisis,” he said of that possibility. Drescher insisted that the federal government would abide by any court orders. Öztürk is also seeking release on bond in immigration court, and a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday. Ross Cristantiello, a general assignment news reporter for Boston.com since 2022, covers local politics, crime, the environment, and more. Sign up for the Today newsletter Get everything you need to know to start your day, delivered right to your inbox every morning.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR