US court blocks Trump administration from using student visas to punish speech

A US federal court has ruled that the Trump administration cannot use immigration provisions to revoke student visas or pursue deportation against lawfully present noncitizens for speech protected by the First Amendment.

Judge Noël Wise of the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued the ruling on August 28 in a lawsuit filed by The Stanford Daily and Jane Doe, a noncitizen student on an F-1 visa.

The court held that the challenged portions of two Immigration and Nationality Act provisions violate the First Amendment and are unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment when applied to protected speech.


The case involved speech supporting Palestinians, criticising Israel or US foreign policy, and opposing the government’s position on the war in Gaza.

The ruling applies to protected speech. It does not invalidate the immigration provisions in all circumstances or prevent the government from taking action based on speech that falls outside First Amendment protection.

What the court struck down

The lawsuit challenged sections 1182(a)(3)(C)(iii) and 1227(a)(4)(C)(i) of the INA, which together form the deportation provision.

The provision allows the government to pursue deportation when the secretary of State believes that a noncitizen’s presence or activities could have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.

It includes an exception for lawful beliefs, statements or associations unless the secretary personally determines that the person’s presence would compromise a compelling US foreign policy interest.

The court found that this exception gave the secretary broad and effectively unreviewable discretion to decide which opinions could threaten US foreign policy.

“The Challenged Portion of the Deportation Provision provides unlimited (and, in the government’s view, unreviewable) discretion to the Secretary of State to decide which ‘beliefs, statements, or associations’ endanger foreign policy,” Wise wrote.

The court also said the government had failed to show that the provision was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.

It noted that the INA already allows the government to remove people involved in terrorism, espionage, sabotage or criminal activity that threatens national security. The government can also pursue foreign-policy-based removal as long as it does not rely on protected speech, the judge said.

Visa revocation provision also violates free speech rights

The court separately examined section 1201(i) of the INA. It allows the secretary of State or a consular officer to revoke a visa “at any time, in his discretion”.

The provision also says there is generally no judicial review of such a revocation.

The government conceded that applying the provision to protected speech was viewpoint- and content-based. Wise said such restrictions must satisfy strict scrutiny, requiring the government to show that they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

The government failed to meet that standard, the court held.

Wise also found the provision vague because it did not clearly tell noncitizens what conduct could lead to visa revocation.

The ruling cited visa actions linked to an op-ed criticising a university’s position on Israel, social media posts about political commentator Charlie Kirk and pro-Palestinian commentary.

The judge contrasted those actions with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statement that he would not revoke a visa for someone protesting “paper straws”.

According to Wise, the examples showed that the secretary’s power could extend to almost any content- or viewpoint-based restriction.

The court also rejected the government’s reliance on the Foreign Affairs Manual. It said the manual does not define “derogatory information” or explain when such information is sufficient to justify revoking a visa.

F-1 students and Stanford Daily journalists self-censored

The government argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because neither The Stanford Daily nor Jane Doe had faced direct immigration enforcement under the challenged provisions.

The court rejected that argument, saying plaintiffs do not have to wait until they are arrested, detained, deported or have their visas revoked to challenge a policy that chills protected speech.

The ruling found that Jane Doe had reduced or stopped several forms of political expression because of the government’s actions.

She stopped attending pro-Palestinian protests, wearing a keffiyeh, holding up the Palestinian flag and maintaining a social media account containing pro-Palestinian commentary.

The court also found that The Stanford Daily’s noncitizen members and contributors had changed their conduct because of fears over their immigration status.

Some writers declined assignments on pro-Palestinian protests and the Gaza conflict. Others quit the newspaper, asked for previously published articles to be removed or declined to edit stories involving Israel and Palestine.

One student decided against publishing an article about a vigil involving Jewish and Palestinian families who had gathered to honour those who died in Gaza. Other contributors and sources refused to speak to the newspaper on the record.

The court said the newspaper’s noncitizen members would resume such work if they no longer feared visa revocation or deportation.

Court grants declaratory relief but not permanent injunction

The court granted declaratory relief on the four claims challenging the provisions under the First and Fifth Amendments.

However, Wise did not issue the permanent injunctions requested by the plaintiffs.

The court said permanent injunctive relief was not appropriate at this stage for the visa-revocation claims. It also denied the requested injunctions concerning deportation proceedings, noting that only the US Supreme Court could provide that form of relief.

The ruling therefore establishes that the challenged provisions are unconstitutional when used against protected speech. It does not strike down the provisions for all immigration or national-security enforcement.

“Stated plainly, in the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people. It is not the government’s to take,” Wise wrote.