A federal court in San Jose, California, ruled that the provisions used by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to target legal immigrants for deportation based on their speech are unconstitutional and violate the First Amendment, according to FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. U.S. District Judge Noël Wise issued the 90-page decision, declaring that the Trump administration unconstitutionally attempted to suppress the free speech of noncitizen students who spoke out against Israel’s actions in the war in Gaza, as reported by The Mercury News.
Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration Deportation Scheme Unconstitutional
The ruling marks the first time in the country that a court has squarely ruled on the constitutionality of the specific statutes weaponized by the administration, according to FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. In her decision, Judge Wise wrote, Stated plainly, in the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people. It is not the government’s to take.
Chilling Effect on Student Journalists and Activists
The lawsuit was filed last August by The Stanford Daily student newspaper alongside an unnamed student plaintiff, after staff members at the publication were forced to self-censor, quit, or withhold articles due to fears of government retaliation. International students associated with the paper also requested to be removed from previous articles or asked for anonymity, according to AP News.
Judge Wise noted that the administration’s actions sent a chilling message
regarding protected speech across college campuses. Noncitizen students heard the warning and heeded. And, as the idiom goes, the silence is deafening,
the judge wrote, according to AP News. George Porteous, the editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily, celebrated the outcome, stating that reporters in the newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation,
as reported by FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Immigration Provisions and Targeted Individuals
The legal challenge centered on two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The first provision allows the secretary of state to initiate deportation proceedings against any noncitizen if the secretary personally determines
the speech compromises a compelling foreign policy interest.
The second enables the secretary to revoke a visa at any time
for any reason, according to FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
The administration used these powers to target high-profile individuals, including Columbia University graduate students Mahmoud Khalil and Moshen Mahdawi for pro-Palestinian speech, and Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk for coauthoring an op-ed, according to FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and The Mercury News. Khalil, who was detained for three months following his arrest in March 2025, praised the ruling on social media by writing, No one should fear speaking up for Palestine,
according to Al Jazeera.
Broader Legal Precedent and Reactions
Attorneys and advocates lauded the decision as a critical defense of constitutional rights. Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney with FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, stated that today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman and child.
The decision builds upon similar findings from a federal judge in Massachusetts who ruled in September 2025 that U.S. officials violated the First Amendment by attempting to detain and deport noncitizen students and academics for pro-Palestinian advocacy, as reported by Al Jazeera. Representatives for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice could not immediately be reached for comment regarding the San Jose federal court’s ruling, according to The Mercury News.
Ещё по этой теме
