John Hawkinson
LightNews LightNews
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
John Hawkinson
@johnhawkinson.bsky.social
3.6K followers 500 following 7.6K posts
Cambridge, MA freelance reporter, usually for @CambridgeDay.
MIT; public recs; data; legal news
Lately: immigration.
[email protected]
617.797.0250
Posts Replies Media Videos
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
It was docketed this evening (Tuesday), but it was filed on Friday. Appeals courts are slow, exhibit N.

As for why it doesn't show up in CourtListener, that's a separate matter, but perhaps as simple as "nobody bought it using the RECAP extension."
February 18, 2026 at 3:41 AM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
Oh, I guess they link to it from their general case page
knightcolumbia.org/cases/united...
United States v. Trump
knightcolumbia.org
February 18, 2026 at 3:33 AM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
err, that's the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, not the Knight Foundation, whoops.
February 18, 2026 at 3:31 AM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
bsky.app/profile/john...
johnhawkinson.bsky.social John Hawkinson @johnhawkinson.bsky.social · Dec 24
In a 9pm Tuesday message to @cambridgeday.com contributors, editor Michael Fitzgerald announces that founder Marc Levy @mhlevy.bsky.social "has resigned effective immediately."

I don't know any of the details nor the backstory.
February 17, 2026 at 8:24 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
If, like I was, you were wondering at -ie versus -y, it appears CS Indy was taken by Colorado Springs Independent, now absorbed into the SoCo Insider but retaining the domain name as a redirect.
February 16, 2026 at 10:27 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
Also, Wilkie Farr comes to the plate (presumably their pro bono practice).
February 14, 2026 at 12:27 AM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
"Respondents are ORDERED and DIRECTED to facilitate Any’s return to the United States no later than fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order (i.e., no later than February 27, 2026)."
February 13, 2026 at 6:26 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
Judge Stearns really did not like the Government's answer that the Secretary of State wasn't responsible for consular officer decisions.

"Now it is time for the government to make amends."
"Respondents have confused the prerogatives of the Executive with those of the Judiciary."
February 13, 2026 at 6:25 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
Huh. Judge Young sets a hearing on the motion for a stay pending appeal? I would not have expected that, it's pretty unusual.

Remote public access for everyone, tho!

Feb 26, 2pm.
February 11, 2026 at 7:16 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
A person could read the clerk's writeup and have a very different idea of what happened at yesterday's Petrova hearing.
February 11, 2026 at 7:11 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
Why is that significant?

What is public is different from what the Trump administration seeks, by request by subpoena or by litigation.

[ relatably? you mean...relatedly? but why? ]
February 11, 2026 at 9:04 AM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
Öztürk IJ decision from Jan. 29.
The IJ is Roopal Patel
IN THE MATTER OF: IN REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS Ozturk, Rumeysa NON-DETAINED RESPONDENTS )))))) w CHARGE S: Section § 237(a)(1)(B) Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States, or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 221(i) is deportable MOTION: Respondent's Motion to Terminate ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS: ON BEHALF OF DHS: Mahsa Khanbabai, Esq. Khanbabai Immigration Law 115 Main St. Ste 1B North Easton, MA 02356 Kerry E. Doyle, Esq. Green & Spiegel 88 Broad Street, Suite 101 Boston, MA 02110 Ronald Seely, Chief Counsel OPLA, Boston Vanessa Woodman de Lazo, Deputy Chief Counsel OPLA Boston Adam Mattei, Assistant Chief Counsel U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement U.S. Department of Homeland Security AA Ribicoff Federal Building 450 Main Street, Room # 483 Hartford, CT 06103 DECISION OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE The Respondent's Motion to Terminate is granted. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is removable. INA 240(c)(3)(A); 8 § C.F.R. l240.8(a). I. SEVIS Reinstatement It is undisputed that Respondent's Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) registration has been reinstated per an order from The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dated December 8, 2025. Ozturk v. Trump,No. 25-cv-12334 (DJC), 2025 WL 3514320 (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2025). Respondent entered on an F-l visa. On March 25, 2025, her registration with SEVIS was terminated. SEVIS maintains the definitive record of the student status and visa eligibility. 9 FAM 402.5-4 B. After Respondent had been detained, the DHS served her a Notice to Appear which alleged that Respondent's visa had been revoked. Respondent did not receive notice of the revocation prior to her detention. Respondent denied the allegation of visa revocation through amended Written Pleadings. On April 16, 2025 an Immigration Judge found Respondent removable. It is undisputed that Respondent's SEVIS record has been reinstated per an order from The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dated December 8, 2025. Ozturk, 2025 WL 3514320, at * l l. The Massachusetts District Court correctly stated that the constitutional challenges Respondent is raising in her federal cases are distinct from the process of determining removability. Id. at *5. Removability remains within the jurisdiction of the Immigration Court. INA § 240. Given the reinstatement of the SEVIS record by the district court, the Court is reconsidering the removability determination previously made and finding the Respondent not removable. The Court does not need to reach the issue of whether the visa was properly revoked or not in order to terminate, though this is further discussed infra.Assuming arguendo the visa was properly revoked, the reinstatement of the SEVIS registration by the district court binds this Court and prevents a finding of removability. A student present in the United States under an F-1 visa may remain lawfully present in the United Status even if their F-l visa is revoked SO long as they maintain status because the visa is an entry document to the United States. Respondent's SEVIS registration is reinstated and she is lawfully maintaining status. Based on the district court's order reinstating Respondent's SEVIS registration, the Court finds that the DHS has failed to meet its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is removable. II. Visa Revocation In the alternative, even if the Court were to not rely on the SEVIS reinstatement to terminate the proceedings, the Court finds the government cannot meet its burden to sustain a charge of removability based on the purported visa revocation. As stated supra, the Court need not reach question about proper revocation of the visa in order to determine that Respondent is not removable due to Respondent's SEVIS reinstatement. However, in as much as the government contends that the basis of removability is not related to the SEVIS reinstatement, but rather visa revocation, the Court finds the Government has not met its burden by clear and convincing evidence of demonstrating the alleged visa revocation can support a finding of removability. A. Jurisdiction As a threshold matter the INA allows the Immigration Judge to determine whether visa revocation can sustain removability. The Immigration Judge has sole jurisdiction in a removal proceeding. INA § 240(a)(l). The Respondent was charged under INA § 237(a)(l)(B) which states, Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States or whose nonimmigrant visa (or other documentation authorizing admission into the United States as a nonimmigrant) has been revoked under section 221(i) is deportable. made the Respondent removable the judicial review carve out in INA § 22l(i) would have no legal effect. Because the visa revocation is subject to review in a removal proceeding and the Immigration Judge has the sole jurisdiction in the removal proceeding, the Immigration Judge can review the alleged revocation of a visa to determine if it can sustain the charge of removability. B. Constitutional Claims The Immigration Court has the authority to rule on constitutional claims that are directly relevant to the removal charge. Owens, Sirce E., "Consideration of Constitutional Arguments in Agency Adjudications" PM 25-45 Sept. 5, 2025. Respondent states that two separate federal district Courts have raised that her First Amendment rights were implicated in the purported visa revocation. The District of Massachusetts has held that the government violated the First Amendment rights of a number of individuals including Ms. Ozturk. American ASS 'n of Univ. Professors V Rubio, 802 F.Supp.3d 120,156-184 (D. Mass. 2025). The District of Vermont has also found that Ms. Ozturk substantially demonstrated her visa revocation was based on a First Amendment violation. Ozturk v. Trump, 779 F. Supp. 3d 462, 490-492 (D. Vt. 2025). The Court is not opining on whether the purported visa revocation was constitutional, rather the Court must determine whether the revocation legally supports removal where such revocation would violate the Constitution. The DHS has not met its burden by proving removability by clear and convincing evidence because the DHS may not rely on language of a purported visa revocation if such revocation exceeds statutory or constitutional limits.
February 10, 2026 at 11:10 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
UPDATE (that was quick!): We have the Öztürk immigration decision, by way of another 28(j) letter filing in the 2nd Circuit.

Decision in next post…
Dear Ms. Wolfe, Undersigned counsel for Petitioner-Appellee Rümeysa Öztürk consulted with the government and the parties agree that the immigration court’s January 29, 2026, decision can be filed on the public docket with minimal redactions to protect Petitioner’s privacy. A redacted copy of the immigration court’s decision is attached. Petitioner will file an unredacted copy under seal in compliance with this Court’s February 10, 2026, Order. Respectfully, /s/ Monica H. Allard United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Notice of Docket Activity The following transaction was entered on 02/10/2026 5:39:29 PM EST and filed on 02/10/2026 Case Name: Ozturk v. Hyde Case Number: 25-1019 Docket Text: LETTER, dated 02/10/2026, regarding___(edit by Clerk's Office), on behalf of Appellee Rumeysa Ozturk, RECEIVED. Service date 02/10/2026 by ACMS. Document: Letter RECEIVED Document: Letter RECEIVED
February 10, 2026 at 11:08 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
(This reminds me of some immigration practitioners who would refer to IJs as "hearing officers" but could not make themselves say "judges."

And that was eight years ago, I can't imagine how it is now.)
February 10, 2026 at 7:26 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
As for why immigration court proceedings (of which rulings are only a tiny part) are not public, I think that's a lot more complicated and relates to the nature of executive branch adjudicatory tribunals as distinct from courts.

aka "because they can."
February 10, 2026 at 7:25 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
Not even that (protesting). For signing her name to to an op-ed piece published in the Tufts Daily.
February 10, 2026 at 7:23 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
Minor update: the Second Circuit asks Öztürk's attorneys to file a copy of the immigration court decision, and also to file a public copy (w/ any necessary redactions) as well.
February 10, 2026 at 4:57 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
The court is in recess. 11:30am. 90 minutes.
February 10, 2026 at 4:30 PM
johnhawkinson.bsky.social
"I'm going to set it as a final status but we'll see what we come up with. We may deal with further discovery issues"
and the scheduling of dispositive motions.
February 10, 2026 at 4:29 PM