A federal judge ruled in favor of The Stanford Daily, the student paper of Stanford University, on Aug. 28 in its lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s use of immigration laws to punish noncitizens for protected speech, including reporting and commentary about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Noël Wise, a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of California, ruled that two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act are unconstitutional as applied to protected speech, finding violations of the First and Fifth amendments. The court ruled for The Daily on six of the eight claims.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, along with the law firm Van Der Hout LLP, filed the suit on Aug. 6, 2025, on behalf of the student newspaper and two noncitizen students. The lawsuit challenged provisions allowing the U.S. secretary of state to revoke a noncitizen’s visa and to initiate deportation proceedings when the person’s speech is determined to “compromise a compelling foreign policy interest.”
The case was filed after international students at The Daily reportedly began declining assignments, withholding articles and avoiding interviews and other participation because they feared that coverage of the Israel-Palestinian conflict or other political issues could jeopardize their immigration status.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin are the defendants. Mullin was automatically substituted for former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem after she left the position in March. (JNS sought comment from the U.S. State Department and U.S. Department of Homeland Security.)
Wise wrote that “freedom of speech belongs to the people” and that the government cannot take it away from citizens or noncitizens. She said the government’s actions had created a chilling effect by signaling to noncitizens that they could face immigration consequences for expressing views officials disliked.
“In March 2025, that retaliation was directed at those engaged in pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speech,” Wise wrote. “In September 2025, caught in the government’s net were people critical of Charlie Kirk. In May 2026, it potentially included ‘weighing in on a peace deal that’s being negotiated’ in Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz.”
“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 wrote, adding that “this downward spiral is antithetical to our Constitution that recognizes our right to speak freely.”
The ruling does not grant all of the injunctive relief sought by The Daily. Wise said the court did not need to reach the issue of particularized injunctive relief after finding the challenged provisions unconstitutional as applied to protected speech.
