On March 25, 2025, federal agents descended on Somerville, Massachusetts, and arrested Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish Ph.D. student at Tufts University. The agents, dressed in masks and black uniforms, detained her without any public warning. The reason? Her student visa had been revoked by the U.S. government, reportedly in response to a pro-Palestinian op-ed she co-authored in a campus publication. Ozturk was whisked away to an ICE detention center in Louisiana, where she remained for six weeks as growing concerns emerged over her deteriorating health and the reportedly harsh conditions of her confinement. The federal government argued that her writings were sympathetic to Hamas and posed a threat to U.S. interests. But on May 9, federal Judge William Sessions III ordered her immediate release, stating that her First Amendment rights and right to due process had been violated.

This case hits a nerve in American society, especially among conservatives who deeply value both national security and constitutional freedoms. So, what’s the right verdict when liberty and law seem to collide?

Constitutional Bedrock: Why the Judge Got It Right

When weighing the judge’s decision to order the release of Rumeysa Ozturk, we’re not just talking about a single case—we’re talking about the soul of our legal system. At the heart of it lies the First Amendment, a pillar of American liberty that guarantees freedom of speech and expression. This freedom doesn’t vanish the moment you’re born outside our borders. Whether you’re a small-town farmer in Iowa, a blue-collar worker in Ohio, or a foreign graduate student researching in Boston, the moment you step onto U.S. soil, our Constitution shields you from government overreach. That’s not just American exceptionalism—that’s American principle.

Judge William Sessions didn’t release Ozturk on a whim. He recognized that her arrest, detention, and visa revocation were directly tied to her participation in a pro-Palestinian op-ed—an act of speech, not violence. If the government can start revoking visas and detaining people because their words ruffle political feathers, we’ve got a problem that goes way beyond one student from Turkey. That’s not security; that’s suppression. And if conservatives want to defend the First Amendment when it comes to religious liberty and gun rights, we’ve got to defend it across the board—even when the speaker’s views are unpopular or foreign.

Beyond free speech, this case shines a spotlight on due process—or, more accurately, the lack of it. Ozturk was detained without a hearing, without a clear explanation, and without the opportunity to defend herself. That’s not how the American justice system is supposed to work. No knock, no notice, no day in court—just a sudden vanishing act by federal agents in masks. That sounds more like something out of a police state than the land of the free. Due process is not a luxury reserved for citizens—it’s a cornerstone of any free society.

And then there’s the moral dimension. Ozturk’s reported health issues—specifically her asthma attacks and mental distress—remind us that behind every headline is a human being. Even if someone breaks the law, even if they hold views we find deeply disagreeable, our faith and our national character demand humane treatment. We are not animals, and we don’t treat people like cargo. If the reports of substandard medical care and harsh detention conditions are true, then we have some serious housecleaning to do.

At the end of the day, Judge Sessions didn’t just uphold the law—he reminded America of what kind of country we claim to be. One that values liberty, justice, and yes, even mercy.

The Case for Caution in the Ozturk Ruling

While the judge’s decision to release Rumeysa Ozturk has been praised by civil liberties advocates, there’s another side of the coin that deserves thoughtful consideration—one rooted in national security, executive authority, and the necessity of preventative action in an age of ideological extremism.

First, from a national security standpoint, the federal government’s concerns cannot be written off as paranoid overreach. Ozturk co-authored an op-ed that, depending on one’s reading, may appear to support or justify the actions of Hamas—a group officially designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Now, whether that was her intent or just poorly chosen language is open to debate, but intent is notoriously difficult to prove, and the government’s job is to assess risk, not just evidence of criminal acts. In a world where lone-wolf attacks and digital radicalization are real threats, it’s not unreasonable for officials to act swiftly when red flags appear—especially when dealing with foreign nationals who are here on temporary visas.

That brings us to the legal authority of the executive branch. The president and the Department of Homeland Security are constitutionally empowered to manage immigration and national entry policies. Visa issuance and revocation are matters of executive discretion—designed that way precisely because threats can emerge suddenly and in ways that don’t fit neatly into courtroom procedures. If the judiciary begins to overturn those decisions based on nuanced interpretations of speech, we risk blurring the line between judicial oversight and executive paralysis. Immigration law isn’t just about protecting the rights of the individual—it’s about safeguarding the collective interests of the nation.

Critics of the judge’s ruling also raise legitimate concerns about precedent. If this case becomes a model, it could make it more difficult for ICE and DHS to act promptly when ideological threats are perceived. In other words, by tying the government’s hands with stringent legal standards in cases involving controversial speech, we might create loopholes that bad actors can exploit. Foreign nationals sympathetic to hostile causes could see America as a soft target for ideological infiltration, knowing that our courts might shield them from accountability if they couch dangerous ideas in academic or political language.

Now, let’s be clear—I’m not advocating for a surveillance state or mass arrests over unpopular opinions. But prudence and caution in the immigration system are not just wise, they’re essential. America is, and always should be, a nation of freedom. But it must also remain a nation that prioritizes the safety of its citizens. That balance isn’t always easy, and in Ozturk’s case, many believe the court tipped the scale too far in favor of idealism, at the expense of precaution.

After all, as Proverbs 27:12 wisely warns, “A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself; but the simple pass on, and are punished.”

Liberty and Law: Walking the Tightrope of Justice

The Rumeysa Ozturk case puts us right in the middle of one of the oldest American tensions—the delicate balance between law and liberty. These two values are not enemies. In fact, they’re supposed to walk hand-in-hand. But when one starts dragging the other behind, we risk losing the very soul of what makes this country exceptional.

We conservatives cherish law and order. It’s foundational to any functioning society, and Scripture backs it up—Romans 13 speaks clearly about the importance of authority. The government is tasked with guarding our borders and protecting its people from real threats. That duty isn’t optional, it’s sacred. But crucially, that authority is supposed to operate within the bounds of truth, fairness, and due process. Our identity as Americans isn’t just about strength; it’s about justice.

In Ozturk’s case, the government acted not with evidence, but seemingly with suspicion. There was no clear demonstration that she posed an imminent danger—just a controversial op-ed. That’s not enough to justify locking someone up for six weeks without a fair hearing. Acting preemptively without proof opens the door to dangerous abuse. History has shown what happens when governments start detaining people based on ideology rather than action, and it doesn’t end well. We criticize authoritarian regimes for doing exactly that. So, if we start mimicking their playbook in the name of security, we’re surrendering more than we’re saving.

As Christians, we’re not called to choose between justice and mercy—we’re called to practice both. Proverbs 31:9 commands, “Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.” That’s not a suggestion, it’s a mandate. We must defend those who are being treated unfairly, even if we disagree with their opinions or find them politically inconvenient.

At the end of the day, we don’t protect our freedoms by abandoning them when they’re tested. We preserve them by applying them—even when it’s hard. Especially when it’s hard. Because that’s what separates a free society from a fearful one. And as followers of Christ and defenders of the Constitution, we should always aim to be the former.

Truth, Liberty, and the Courage to Stand Firm

In the final analysis, the decision to release Rumeysa Ozturk was the right call—both from a constitutional standpoint and a Christian moral lens. The line between protecting national security and trampling individual rights must remain crystal clear. Once we start using government power to muzzle unpopular opinions or silence dissent, we’re no longer guarding liberty—we’re gutting it.

No one disputes the importance of vigilance in an age of terrorism and global unrest. But that vigilance must be anchored in truth and justice, not fear and secrecy. If the government had hard evidence that Ozturk posed a legitimate threat, they had every opportunity to present it through due process. Instead, they acted behind closed doors, bypassing the very checks and balances that make our system work.

As conservatives, we believe deeply in the need for order—but that order must never come at the cost of liberty. Liberty without order might lead to chaos, yes—but order without liberty? That’s the breeding ground of tyranny. And tyranny doesn’t announce itself with a bang. It creeps in quietly, often under the guise of protection.

This case serves as a sober reminder that the battle to uphold our founding principles never ends. It demands courage—courage to question power, to defend principle, and to apply the same standard of justice to friend and stranger alike.

So let us stand guard not just over our borders, but over our values. Let’s remain vigilant, not only in defense of our nation, but in defense of the truth. Because in the end, true patriotism is not blind loyalty to the state, it’s faithful obedience to the principles that make this nation worth defending in the first place.