Citing the importance of the First Amendment, a federal judge in California says the US government is unconstitutionally silencing critics of Israel's war in Gaza and others as part of the Trump administration’s quest to deport noncitizens who it says disrupted college campuses while expressing their views.
Judge Noël Wise, in a ruling Friday, delivered a victory for The Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at Stanford University, which has said some international students were afraid to speak out because of the deportation threat.
“Freedom of speech is illusory if we are only ‘free’ to express complementary views about the government and its leaders,” the judge wrote.
The decision largely piggybacks on findings from nearly a year ago by a US district judge in Boston, who ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution when it targeted people who are not citizens for deportation solely for supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel.
Wise wrote that the freedoms of speech and the press are “foundational to America’s enduring democracy.” The judge cited free-speech and vagueness flaws that violate the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment as she struck down portions of the provisions that the federal government follows regarding deportations.
Wise cited retaliation in March 2025 by US immigration authorities against people who engaged in speech supporting the Palestinians and against Israel's actions, which a growing number of experts, including those commissioned by a UN body, have said amount to genocide. The judge also cited retaliation against people who were critical of Charlie Kirk after the Turning Point USA co-founder was assassinated last September.
“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,” the judge in San Jose said.
“This downward spiral is antithetical to our Constitution that recognizes our right to speak freely,” she added. “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.”
The Justice Department did not respond Saturday to a message seeking comment on the decision.
George Porteous, the editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily, responded to the ruling by saying on X: “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.”
Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which brought the lawsuit, praised the ruling.
“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” Fitzpatrick said in a release.
In her decision, Wise said it was clear that the government's tactics has had an effect on college campuses.
“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. Noncitizen students heard the warning and heeded. And, as the idiom goes, the silence is deafening,” the judge wrote.
At The Stanford Daily, lawfully present noncitizens at the paper have quit, withheld articles, refused assignments, requested articles be taken down, and asked for anonymity due to fear of adverse immigration consequences, Wise noted.
She said noncitizens have the same First Amendment rights as citizens and yet were left to guess what the US foreign policy was at any given moment and on any given subject.
“This is an incomprehensible standard,” she said. “While the Court understands that the government has been granted considerable discretion on foreign policy and immigration matters, that discretion must nevertheless still ensure that ordinary people can understand what the law permits and prohibits.”
Wise added: “Our Constitutional right to freedom of speech guarantees people the right to express — through their words, actions, or assembly — opinions that may be repugnant, views that run counter to prevailing political norms, or beliefs that otherwise challenge the country’s domestic or foreign policy, military engagement, or war.”
