80-Day ICE Detention: Judge Orders Release, Cites Free Speech

For legal practitioners, the court's finding that a 'substantial' free speech claim can override the government's national security assertions marks a pivotal moment in constitutional and immigration law jurisprudence. The decision, authored by a Trump-appointed judge, provides a blueprint for challenging ICE's use of vague 'foreign policy threat' designations to silence political dissent among lawful permanent residents. It underscores that the First Amendment imposes real limits on immigration enforcement, even when the executive branch invokes foreign affairs.

On June 18, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon ordered the immediate release of Salah Sarsour, a Palestinian-born lawful permanent resident who had spent 80 days in immigration detention. Sarsour, president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, argued that his arrest and detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was retaliation for his outspoken advocacy for Palestinian rights, in violation of his First Amendment free speech protections. Judge Hanlon found that Sarsour had raised a “substantial” claim that he was targeted for constitutionally protected speech, a claim that the government failed to adequately rebut. The court explicitly rejected the Trump administration’s position that pro-Palestinian speech inherently threatens U.S. foreign policy interests, stating that “the mere invocation of foreign relations concerns does not automatically trump First Amendment rights.” This ruling represents a significant development in the ongoing legal battle over the government’s expanded use of national security justifications to detain and deport foreign nationals perceived as politically undesirable.

“

District Judge James Patrick Hanlon ordered the immediate release of Salah Sarsour, a Palestinian-born lawful permanent resident who had spent 80 days in immigration detention.

The case arose from a broader pattern of aggressive enforcement actions by the Trump administration against individuals, particularly those of Palestinian origin or Muslim faith, who have voiced criticism of U.S. foreign policy. Since early 2026, civil liberties organizations have documented dozens of arrests of lawful permanent residents and visa holders based on vague allegations of being a “foreign policy threat.” Sarsour’s detention became emblematic of this crackdown. On March 30, 2026, ICE agents pulled over his car in a traffic stop and transferred him to an Indiana county jail, where he remained until the court’s ruling. During his confinement, Sarsour, who has type 2 diabetes, lost over 30 pounds and received inadequate medical care, with blood sugar checks only once a month, creating a serious risk of organ failure or death.

From a constitutional standpoint, the court’s analysis hinged on the intersection of immigration enforcement powers and First Amendment rights. Lawful permanent residents enjoy robust constitutional protections, including free speech, and the government cannot target an individual for removal based solely on the content of their political expression. Judge Hanlon’s ruling indicates that when a non-citizen raises a credible claim of retaliation, the government must produce specific evidence of a separate, non-speech-related basis for detention. Here, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security argued that Sarsour’s activism undermined foreign policy objectives, but Hanlon found this justification insufficient, noting the lack of any explanation as to why Sarsour, who had lived lawfully in the U.S. for 32 years, suddenly constituted a threat. The decision aligns with a line of Supreme Court precedent, including Bridges v. Wixon (1945), which held that the First Amendment limits the deportation power when speech is targeted.