10
Loading video...
By Khaleda Rahman
National Correspondent
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A federal judge has dealt the Trump administration a significant legal blow, ruling that the administration’s effort to cancel visas and deport noncitizen college students for their pro-Palestinian advocacy and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Noel Wise said in her ruling on Friday that the two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that the administration cited to initiate deportation proceedings violated the First Amendment.
“Stated plainly, in the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people. It is not the government’s to take,” she wrote.
Read More on News
...
The ruling came in a case brought by The Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which argued the administration used the provisions to target noncitizen students for deportation based on protected speech, including writing op-eds and attending protests.
It alleged that the administration’s actions had suppressed the speech of noncitizen students who feared that expressing their views could lead to them being targeted for deportation.
Campus Protests
Amid a wider immigration crackdown, the Trump administration started revoking visas and pursuing deportation proceedings against noncitizen students involved in campus protests and political activism last year. The efforts garnered increased attention following the arrests of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk.
Newsweek has contacted the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, and the White House for comment via emails sent outside regular business hours.
...
Wise’s ruling echoed a similar decision issued by U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston last year. Young, who was appointed by a Republican president, ruled in a case brought by academic groups that the Trump administration had violated the Constitution when it targeted foreign students for deportation solely for their pro-Palestinian activism and that the policy had chilled political speech.
What The Ruling Said
The lawsuit agreed that Secretary of State Marco Rubio used two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to target noncitizens for expressing views. One of the provisions allows Rubio to initiate deportation proceedings against a noncitizen if he personally determines the speech “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest,” while another allows him to revoke the visa of any noncitizen at his discretion.
Attorneys for the student newspaper argued that the provisions violate the U.S. Constitution’s First and Fifth Amendments when applied to constitutionally protected speech.
Wise, an appointee of former Democratic president Joe Biden, agreed.
“When a noncitizen's speech is the but-for factor in a visa revocation and subsequent deportation determination, the government is singling out that speech for disfavored treatment based on its viewpoint or content,” she wrote.
In her ruling, she also wrote that free speech is evidence of a country’s strength.
“Foundational to America’s enduring democracy are our freedoms of speech and the press embodied in the First Amendment,” she wrote.
Free Speech Is Evidence Of Democratic Strength
“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 also agreed that the Trump administration’s actions had a chilling effect.
...
“The government has offered a chilling message regarding protected speech—speak out against Israel or in support of Palestinians and we will revoke your visa and deport you. Behave,” she said. “Noncitizen students heard the warning and heeded. And, as the idiom goes, the silence is deafening.”
She also raised concern that the Trump administration had targeted people for passing on views it wanted to suppress, including those who were critical of Charlie Kirk.
“Tomorrow, or perhaps every today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like,” Wise wrote.
"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."
Plaintiffs Cheer Decision
Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represented The Stanford Daily, said the judge’s ruling reiterates that free speech is a fundamental right rather than a privilege.
“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” Fitzpatrick 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, said: “The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation.
“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.”
Contact Newsweek editor on this story: Edward Pearcey.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines