Trump’s Student Visa Speech Policy Is Retaliatory, Judge Says

Stanford University’s student-run newspaper prevailed in its lawsuit alleging the Trump administration was targeting and deporting students on F-1 visas for criticizing Israel

Although the federal government has significant authority on foreign policy and national security matters, that authority is still “constrained by First Amendment rights,” Judge Noël Wise of the US District Court for the Northern District of California said Aug. 28. Wise’s order granted judgment to Stanford Daily Publishing Corp. and a student on an F-1 visa

Stanford Daily sued the US Department of Homeland Security and federal officials last year, alleging the Trump administration was unconstitutionally using two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to target and deport students on F-1 visas who criticized US support for Israel or expressed support for Palestine

The challenged deportation provision provides that an individual can’t be deported based on lawful statements or associations unless the secretary of State personally determines their presence would compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest

But that provision “is an intentionally broad delegation providing the Secretary of State leeway to suppress opinions that he deems harmful to foreign policy,” and can’t “be squared with First Amendment protections” providing individuals the right to express opinions that challenge the country’s policy or war, Wise said

The provision is also unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment because it fails to provide noncitizens notice of what conduct is prohibited, which will inevitably cause self-censorship, Wise said. Because the provision also allows deportation based on the secretary’s personal determination, it will require noncitizens to guess what the secretary will decide and what constitutes a compelling foreign policy interest, the judge said.

The judge also struck down the government’s use of a separate INA provision to revoke student visas based on their protected speech. The government “provided no indication” for how that provision — which doesn’t include any exception for lawful statements or associations — is narrowly tailored to accomplish a state interest, and it’s void for vagueness as applied to protected speech because it gives the secretary limitless power to enforce it based on protected speech, she said.

Van Der Hout LLP and Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression represent the newspaper and student

The case is Stanford Daily Publ’g Corp. v. Rubio, N.D. Cal., No. 5:25-cv-06618, 8/28/26

Source: news.bloomberglaw.com