“This downward spiral is antithetical to our Constitution that recognizes our right to speak freely,” a San Francisco federal judge wrote in a case by international students who had their visas threatened.
(CN) — A federal judge in San Francisco warned on Friday that the Trump administration’s efforts to punish international students for speech critical of the government threaten the constitutional freedoms of anyone in the United States who dares to say something officials don’t like.
In a 90-page decision, U.S. District Judge Noël Wise ruled that federal immigration law cannot be used to retaliate against noncitizens for protected speech.
The Stanford Daily, a student newspaper, and two of its international students sued the Trump administration in August 2025, claiming the government had weaponized two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to revoke visas, arrest and deport noncitizens for expressing opinions it did not agree with.
Wise said the government’s enforcement of these provisions violated the First and Fifth Amendments.
“Foundational to America’s enduring democracy are our freedoms of speech and the press embodied in the First Amendment,” Wise wrote. “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.”
The government directed retaliatory punishment against people who were critical of Israel’s actions in Palestine, people who were critical of the conservative activist Charlie Kirk after his death, and even people who weighed in on an Iran peace deal this year, Wise noted.
“Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like,” she continued. “This downward spiral is antithetical to our Constitution that recognizes our right to speak freely. Here you can simultaneously hate the content of a person’s speech and love the country that cherishes the freedom to allow it. Zealous protection of our constitutional right to free speech is a provocative demonstration of our country’s powerful lack of fear.”
Wise, a Joe Biden appointee, was also critical of what she described as a “standardless” enforcement of visa revocation under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is a defendant.
“The record does reveal one clear pattern in the enforcement actions the government has taken to revoke noncitizens’ visas since March of 2025,” she wrote. “The secretary revokes visas when noncitizens are critical of the government or the causes or people it favors. This exemplifies ‘seriously discriminatory enforcement.’”
None of the cases the government cited support their position that visa holders have second-class First Amendment protections compared to other lawfully present noncitizens, Wise added in a footnote.
The judge’s ruling was welcome news for the plaintiffs and their attorneys who said that it affirms a bedrock constitutional principle.
“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said in a statement. “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”
George Porteous, the editor in chief of the Stanford Daily, also celebrated the decision.
“The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation,” he said. “Today’s victory means they won’t have to. The court’s decision will enable our reporters to focus on what they do best: asking tough questions and reporting the truth.”
The Trump administration relied on provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to initiate deportation proceedings for protected speech if the secretary of state personally deems that the speech compromises a compelling foreign policy interest, and to revoke the visa of any noncitizen at any time for any reason. But the plaintiffs say those provisions amounted to unchecked authority.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression said that the judge’s decision was the first in the country to rule on the constitutionality of these statutes.
The issue hit national headlines last year when federal agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student, and Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University student, for their pro-Palestinian speech.
A spokesperson for the Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing
trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world,
while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood,
sports, Big Tech and the arts.