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.
Sell them guns and see who comes to visit you, Milhouse.
Selling guns is not speech, and is not protected by the first amendment. As for whether aliens have second amendment rights, this is being litigated now. The latest decision has been that no, they don’t, because our “history and traditions” supposedly say so.
First Amendment < Second Amendment?
Thanks for saying it out loud.
(Aaargh, that should be “First Amendment > Second Amendment.”)
¡ꓠꓳꓕꓕꓵꓭ ꓕꓲꓷꓱ
It’s not a matter of “>” or “<", but a question of whether, when people in the late 18th century thought of the RKBA, did they think aliens had it. Did they think that disarming aliens infringed the RKBA, but they just didn't care, or did they think it wasn't an infringement, that they wouldn't expect to be allowed to go armed in someone else's country, and foreigners shouldn't expect to be allowed to go armed here?
It seems far more likely to me that they did think aliens had a RKBA, even if they were OK with infringing it, and that they would object if they were to be disarmed abroad, and would consider that an infringement of their rights. And that would mean that the 2A does protect aliens. But the question is being litigated.
There's no question, however, that the freedom of speech has always been thought of by Americans, and certainly those of the late 18th century, as one that belongs naturally to all human beings, and that any regime, anywhere, that deprives someone of it is violating their rights. No one disputes that, and therefore it's clear that the 1A does protect aliens.
No, Milhouse, it isn’t contrary to the Constitution.
Yes, it definitely is. The constitution makes no distinction between citizen and alien, and says it protects “any person”.
Judge Noël Wise, another one thanks to idiot Brandon.
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.
There is no question that the government may take action against people for unlawful conduct. The only issue here is that these people have not engaged in any unlawful conduct, so the government couldn’t go after them for that, and so it decided to go after them anyway because they exercised their undisputed constitutional right to express the vilest opinions imaginable.
Rubio let the cat out of the bag when he explicitly stated to Congress that he didn’t understand why he could deny someone a visa for having expressed opinions he doesn’t like, but can’t cancel someone’s visa for the same reason.
The issue isn’t that they’ve engaged in political speech and are having their rights violated for doing so. NO. Absolutely wrong.
They are here UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. They don’t have to be violating the law to be violating those conditions.
A pertinent condition:
Section 212(a)(3)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act:
any activity a purpose of which is the opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the Government of the United States by force, violence, or other unlawful means, is inadmissible.
(3)(B)(i)
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of–
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(C)(iii) Exception for other aliens.-An alien, not described in clause (ii), shall not be excludable or subject to restrictions or conditions on entry into the United States under clause (i) because of the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations, if such beliefs, statements, or associations would be lawful within the United States, unless the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien’s admission would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.
(8) Ineligible for citizenship.
(A) In general.-Any immigrant who is permanently ineligible to citizenship is inadmissible.
GWB, you are completely misrepresenting what you read, and are making the same fallacy as Rubio did.
Those are the criteria for admitting foreigners to the USA. When a foreigner is outside the USA, and is petitioning for permission to enter, he may be excluded for things he said outside US jurisdiction. The reason is because although he had the unalienable Creator-endowed right to say those things, the US constitution doesn’t protect him while he’s not under its jurisdiction, so the US government can get away with violating his rights and he has no recourse. Congress may have been wrong to make that legislation, but there’s nothing anyone can do about it except persuade them to change their minds.
But once someone is in the USA he is protected by the first amendment, and any action taken against him in retaliation for exercising his constitutional right is unconstitutional. So canceling his visa for things he said in the USA is unconstitutional. Congress hasn’t authorized that, and can’t.
As for your suggestion that they were admitted in the first place and are here on condition that they waive their constitutional rights and censor their speech, that is unconstitutional too. It is unlawful for the government to impose unconstitutional conditions on benefits it grants people. Look up “unconstitutional conditions”.
Only tangentially related, but no better place to hang it today:
First of all the Spaniards are not “protesting”, they’re rioting, just like the “mostly peaceful” riots we had in 2020.
Second, this report says the police used tear gas and rubber bullets against the illegal migrants, who were also rioting.
As for using rubber bullets at people crossing the border, the Spanish did that in 2014 and got in trouble for it, they were condemned by the EU and the courts, and their government admitted that it was wrong and would not happen again. I haven’t see any report from then explaining why it was wrong; everyone seems to have just taken it for granted, including the Spaniards..
Leave a Comment