A federal judge ruled Friday that the Trump administration’s policies used to deport legal immigrants based on their speech are unconstitutional. The decision came in a lawsuit filed by Stanford University’s independent student newspaper, which argued that the administration was unconstitutionally deporting students it deems to have “anti-American or anti-Israel” views.
The legal basis for the visa revocations
The Trump administration has revoked hundreds of student visas and sought to deport noncitizen students in the U.S. legally by invoking two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the act, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio can revoke student visas and deem a noncitizen eligible for deportation if their statements or associations “compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”
Early in President Donald Trump’s first year back in office, his administration began targeting noncitizens studying at U.S. colleges, citing the INA. Some of the most high-profile cases include students such as Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk who participated in pro-Palestinian campus protests or published commentary criticizing Israel in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war.
Related: Labor Department rolls back contractor affirmative action rules
In its complaint, The Stanford Daily said student visa holders at the publication have said no to covering stories related to the conflict out of concern that it would endanger their immigration status. Other international students asked to have their articles taken down or quit the newspaper altogether, while still others on campus largely stopped speaking to student reporters on the record or at all.
Students and journalists often walk a fine line when reporting on sensitive topics, especially when those topics involve international conflict or political figures. When the risk of legal action looms over a simple newsroom discussion, the entire educational environment can shift from one of open inquiry to one of guarded silence. This ruling attempts to stop that shift, ensuring that the university remains a space where difficult conversations happen openly rather than quietly.
A ruling that targets broad speech
In her decision, U.S. District Judge Noël Wise sided with the plaintiffs, writing that free speech is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility but evidence of its strength. “Free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility,” Wise said. “It is evidence of its strength. That strength is diminished when members of our society — citizens and noncitizens alike — must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation.”
The judge noted the government has targeted people over their speech related to Trump’s peace deal negotiations with Iran and regarding right-wing commentator and political organizer Charlie Kirk following his murder on Utah Valley University’s campus last year. “Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like,” she said. “This downward spiral is antithetical to our Constitution that recognizes our right to speak freely.”
Related: Software Rollouts Often Fail to Deliver
The administration’s policies are unconstitutionally vague and violate the Fifth Amendment, Wise ruled. The State Department left noncitizens to guess at what conduct could result in their deportation, resulting in self-censorship, she wrote in her decision.
George Porteous, editor-in-chief of the Stanford Daily, praised the decision on Saturday. “The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation,” Porteous said on social media. “The Court’s decision will enable our reporters to focus on what they do best: asking tough questions and reporting the truth.”
He thanked other student newsrooms that supported The Stanford Daily and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represented the publication.
