Judge Rules Trump Admin Cannot Deport Noncitizen Students Over Political Speech
“Foundational to America’s enduring democracy are our freedoms of speech and the press embodied in the First Amendment”
This isn’t just about political speech. It’s about foreign students who come to America and behave like campus radicals.
The College Fix reports:
Federal judge blocks Trump admin efforts to deport noncitizen students over political speech
The Trump administration cannot deport noncitizen students over political speech, a federal judge ruled Friday.
“Foundational to America’s enduring democracy are our freedoms of speech and the press embodied in the First Amendment,” Judge Noël Wise wrote in the decision.
“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,” she wrote.
In August 2025, Stanford University student journalists and an anonymous international student sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio after the federal government began revoking visas of noncitizen students engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy.
The Stanford Daily alleged that these actions created a severe “chilling effect” on its student newsroom.
The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of two provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act. One allows the secretary of state to begin deportation proceedings against any noncitizen over protected speech that harms a compelling foreign policy interest. The other permits the secretary to revoke noncitizens’ visas at any time for any reason, The College Fix previously reported.
“The First Amendment cements America’s promise that the government may not subject a speaker to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message,” the lawsuit reads.
It also states that noncitizen student reporters withdrew from political reporting, pulled bylines, asked to unpublish commentary, or resigned from the newsroom altogether out of fear of deportation.
Judge Noël Wise ruled in the students’ favor.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represented the students, applauded the ruling as a win for free speech.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The First Amendment cements America’s promise to its citizens that the government may not subject a citizen to disfavored treatment because those in power do not like his or her message, Everyone who speaks here other than a citizen does so knowing that his or her permission to be here may be revoked at any time for any reason.
That is completely wrong and contrary to everything in the constitution. The rights the constitution protects are for everyone, not just US citizens. The constitution itself says so, so your attempt to restrict these rights to citizens is not only un-American and contrary to the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that the Creator endowed all men with certain inalienable rights, but also contrary to the constitution itself, which says it protects “any person”.
The only people not protected by the constitution are people who are outside its jurisdiction, i.e. they are neither in US-held territory, nor US citizens or residents. It’s not that they don’t have the same rights, it’s merely that the constitution has no claim on them, so the US government can get away with violating their rights. It shouldn’t, but it can. But the moment they step onto US territory, and thus come under the constitution’s jurisdiction, it protects them.
Translation: Our enemies can finance people to come here and spread seditious lies of all kinds and we’re not allowed to do anything about it.
There’s nothing in the decision about acting as paid agents of our enemies. Agents of foreign governments, whether enemy or ally, must register, and failure to do so is a crime. Though yes, once they do register they are indeed entitled to spread seditious lies of all kinds, exactly as US citizens and residents are entitled to. You surely don’t dispute that.
This decision is obviously correct, and isn’t in any way controversial. It’s completely settled law, and shame on the administration for imagining it could ignore it.
It’s settled law that any government action taken for an unconstitutional motive is unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter what it is, or how legitimate it would be if it were taken for any other motive. Even actions that the government can take entirely on a whim, may not be taken for unconstitutional reasons.
This decision is 90 pages and more likely than not, DOJ will appeal.
I suspect the government may lose this case.
Perhaps, the government would have won the case if it targeted clearly unwelcomed conduct.
For example, refusing lawful orders by law enforcement, trespassing, disorderly conduct.
Leave a Comment