Boston, Massachusetts - A federal judge on Wednesday denied the Trump administration's attempt to stay a sanctions order he issued in a case involving the targeting of pro-Palestine protesters for deportation.

In his 30-page ruling, US District Judge William G. Young said evidence pointed to "an executive using its narrow, but deep, statutory immigration authority as a sword unconstitutionally to chill lawfully present noncitizens' protected speech under the First Amendment, and simultaneously use that delegation as a shield to evade judicial review of its unconstitutional conduct."

He called the Trump administration's actions against those acting in solidarity with Palestinians "unconstitutional, abhorrent to a society that cherishes free speech," insisting that the "conduct must never happen again."

The American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association brought the lawsuit in March of last year amid a series of high-profile arrests of noncitizen students and academics who had taken a stand for Palestine.

World Iran-linked hackers attack US medical company in retaliation for deadly strikes

In January, Young issued an order which stated that the Trump administration's policy of detaining and deporting noncitizen students and faculty for their pro-Palestine political speech violates the US Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Ronald Reagan-appointee also issued a remedial sanction stating that any adverse change in immigration status of a person who was an AAUP or MESA member during the litigation will be presumed to be retaliatory, unless the government shows otherwise.

The decision followed a September ruling in which Young found the administration had violated the First Amendment by targeting international students for deportation based on their Palestine solidarity activism.

The judge's latest decision shot down a government attempt to throw out entirely the process allowing members of the plaintiff organizations to challenge changes to their immigration status.

"Contrary to assertions by Public Officials, this Court has no interest in interfering with the Executive's enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States, and does not do so by this Sanction," Young wrote.