Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Targeted Foreign Students Who Criticized Israel

A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration violated the U.S. Constitution when it targeted foreign students for deportation based on their pro-Palestinian advocacy and criticism of Israel, delivering a significant legal setback to the administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

U.S. District Judge Noël Wise of the Northern District of California issued a 90-page ruling on Friday finding that two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act used by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to cancel visas and initiate deportation proceedings were unconstitutional as applied to constitutionally protected speech, violating both the First and Fifth Amendments. The ruling is the first in the country to squarely rule on the constitutionality of these specific statutes.

“Stated plainly, in the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people. It is not the government’s to take,” Wise wrote in her decision.

The Case and Its Origins

The lawsuit was filed in August 2025 by The Stanford Daily, Stanford University’s independent student newspaper, with representation from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). The plaintiffs included The Stanford Daily, along with two anonymous noncitizen plaintiffs identified as Jane Doe and John Doe.

The case challenged two specific provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act: one that allows the Secretary of State to initiate deportation proceedings against any noncitizen for protected speech if the secretary personally determines the speech compromises a compelling foreign policy interest, and another that enables the Secretary of State to revoke the visa of any noncitizen at any time for any reason.

The lawsuit named Secretary of State Marco Rubio and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem (later replaced by Markwayne Mullin) as defendants.

Chilling Effect on Student Journalism

The Stanford Daily alleged that the administration’s actions had a severe chilling effect on its newsroom. According to the lawsuit details, noncitizen writers declined assignments related to the Middle East conflict, requested removal of their articles, and even quit the newspaper out of fear of deportation. One editor resigned, and international students largely stopped talking to Stanford Daily journalists.

“The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation,” said George Porteous, editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily. “Today’s victory means they won’t have to. The Court’s decision will enable our reporters to focus on what they do best: asking tough questions and reporting the truth.”

Key Individuals Targeted

The ruling cited numerous examples of immigration officials detaining students who wrote stories critical of Israel, including Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian activist arrested in March 2025 and held in a Louisiana jail for 104 days; Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University doctoral student detained for writing an op-ed critical of the university’s handling of Gaza; and Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia student targeted for deportation for participation in campus protests.

“When a noncitizen’s speech is the but-for factor in a visa revocation and subsequent deportation determination, the government is singling out that speech for disfavored treatment based on its viewpoint or content,” Wise wrote.

A Landmark Constitutional Ruling

Judge Wise, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, found that the government’s actions violated the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and the press, as well as the Fifth Amendment’s due process guarantees. The ruling follows a similar decision by Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, who in September 2025 found the administration had acted unconstitutionally by adopting a policy of revoking visas, arresting, detaining, and deporting foreign students and faculty engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy, as reported by the Knight First Amendment Institute.

But the Stanford Daily case goes further by challenging the specific statutory provisions themselves rather than just their enforcement, meaning the government cannot simply change its enforcement approach—the legal authority itself is now in question.

“Foundational to America’s enduring democracy are our freedoms of speech and the press embodied in the First Amendment,” Wise wrote. “In the United States, free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. 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.”

Reactions and Implications

Conor Fitzpatrick, chief supervising attorney at FIRE who represented The Stanford Daily, said the ruling affirms a bedrock constitutional principle. “In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” Fitzpatrick said. “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

The ruling will have reverberations in similar proceedings around the country, including the pending deportation cases of Khalil and Mahdawi, according to Newsweek. It establishes precedent that the specific provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act used to target noncitizens for speech are unconstitutional, which could affect how other courts handle similar challenges.

Wise also expressed concern about the broader implications of the administration’s approach, writing: “Tomorrow, or perhaps every today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like.”

What’s Next

The Trump administration is widely expected to appeal the ruling, which could potentially reach the Supreme Court given its constitutional significance and the broader questions it raises about the intersection of immigration enforcement and First Amendment rights. The government previously argued that visa revocations are largely immune from court challenges under federal law.

The ruling comes amid broader tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary over immigration enforcement policies, and reflects the ongoing national debate about free speech on college campuses, the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the limits of executive power in immigration matters.

As Reuters reported via India Today, the judge’s message was clear: “This downward spiral is antithetical to our Constitution that recognizes our right to speak freely. Here you can simultaneously hate the content of a person’s speech and love the country that cherishes the freedom to allow it.”

For student journalists and noncitizen students across the country, the ruling offers a measure of reassurance that their voices—and their right to speak truth to power—remain protected under the Constitution.