San Jose, Calif. – In a decisive ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge Noel Wise declared unconstitutional the Trump administration’s policy of canceling student visas and initiating deportation actions against non‑citizen college students who voiced pro‑Palestinian views. The decision underscores the constitutional protection of free speech for both citizens and non‑citizens.
Judge cites First and Fifth Amendment violations
Judge Wise, appointed by former President Joe Biden, found that the administration’s reliance on two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act – which allowed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to deem a non‑citizen’s actions a “compelling foreign policy interest” and to revoke visas at his discretion – directly targeted speech. She wrote that singling out individuals for deportation because of their viewpoint is a clear violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression and the Fifth Amendment’s due‑process protections.
Background of the policy
Beginning in March 2025, the Trump administration began revoking visas and detaining non‑citizens who participated in pro‑Palestinian advocacy on university campuses. One of the earliest cases involved Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who is currently fighting a separate deportation proceeding. The policy prompted a lawsuit filed in August 2025 by The Stanford Daily, Stanford University’s student newspaper, on behalf of several student journalists holding F‑1 visas. The newspaper alleged that its writers had begun to self‑censor, avoiding coverage of pro‑Palestinian protests and Middle‑East topics out of fear of visa revocation.
Legal arguments and ruling
The newspaper’s counsel, represented by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, argued that the two immigration provisions used by the administration were unconstitutional when applied to speech‑related visa cancellations. Judge Wise agreed, stating that when a non‑citizen’s speech is the sole reason for a visa revocation, the government is “singling out that speech for disfavored treatment based on its viewpoint or content.” She warned that such a practice could expand to target any individual who expresses opinions the government dislikes.
Reactions
Conor Fitzpatrick, a spokesperson for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, praised the decision, saying it “proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.” The State Department and Department of Homeland Security have not yet responded to requests for comment.
Implications for immigration policy
The ruling aligns with a similar decision issued last year by U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston, who also found the Trump administration’s visa‑revocation policy unconstitutional. Both decisions signal a judicial check on the use of immigration authority to suppress dissenting viewpoints, reinforcing the constitutional principle that the government may not punish speech it finds unpopular.
What’s next?
The administration may appeal the decision, but the ruling provides immediate relief to the students and journalists currently facing visa cancellations. It also serves as a reminder to federal agencies that immigration powers must be exercised in a manner consistent with the Constitution’s guarantees of free expression and due process.
Original reporting: Appleton, WI News Feed (HLL/CB) — read the source article.
