A federal judge has kept alive a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of violating the First Amendment by using immigration law to threaten deportation of international student journalists. The complaint argues foreign students working for The Stanford Daily should not fear losing visas for expressing viewpoints the government finds objectionable.
The Stanford University student newspaper and two noncitizen students, represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), filed suit in September challenging two provisions of federal immigration law used by Secretary of State Marco Rubio to revoke visas or initiate deportation proceedings based on protected speech. On January 16, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the case, paving the way for merits briefing.
The lawsuit contends that the First Amendment protects free speech, even for noncitizens legally present in the United States, and that deporting or threatening deportation over political expression undermines constitutional rights. According to the complaint, international students on The Stanford Daily have turned down assignments or removed their names from articles about the Israel-Gaza conflict out of fear their immigration status could be jeopardized.
FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said deporting lawfully present noncitizens “because of their opinions violates the First Amendment and betrays America’s commitment to freedom of speech.” The complaint asserts one statute gives the Secretary of State authority to initiate deportation for protected speech deemed to “compromise a compelling foreign policy interest,” and another allows visa revocation “at any time” for any reason.
The Trump administration argued the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the statutes are lawful tools to enforce immigration policy. The judge’s decision to allow the case to proceed means both sides will propose schedules for briefing and hearings on the merits. The government has declined to comment publicly on the ongoing litigation.
This case reflects broader debate over the intersection of immigration authority and constitutional free speech protections. Numerous student newspapers, including The Harvard Crimson and others, have filed amicus briefs supporting Stanford’s challenge, arguing that the federal policy has chilled coverage and reporting by noncitizen student journalists nationwide.
Critics of the administration’s policy argue that threatening deportation for protest or commentary chills open discourse and hurts academic freedom. Supporters of stronger immigration enforcement maintain that noncitizens do not enjoy the same constitutional protections as citizens when their speech conflicts with national security or foreign policy objectives. The legal outcome could have wide implications for how immigration laws are applied to speech activities on U.S. campuses.
