Trump Can't Deport Legal Immigrants for Protected Speech, Judge Rules

Since President Donald Trump's return to the White House, the federal government has repeatedly used immigration law to stifle speech. Legal noncitizens have been threatened with deportation for criticizing Israel and American foreign policy, but a federal judge says this is unconstitutional. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Noël Wise of the Northern District of California held that Secretary of State Marco Rubio's use of two provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 to target legal noncitizens violates the First and Fifth Amendments. Under the first provision of the law invoked by Rubio, the secretary of state may begin deportation proceedings against a noncitizen for protected speech if the secretary "personally determines" that the speech "compromises a compelling foreign policy interest." The second provision allows the secretary to "at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation." It was under these two provisions that the administration went after noncitizens it deemed to be radical, including Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil—a green card holder who was arrested by U.S. immigration agents in 2025 after engaging in pro-Palestine protests on campus. In 2025, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) challenged Rubio's use of the two INA provisions to deport lawful noncitizens. The lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of The Stanford Daily, an independent, student-run newspaper at Stanford University, and Jane Doe, a legal noncitizen who engaged in pro-Palestine speech, argued that Rubio and the Trump administration are "trying to turn the inalienable human right of free speech into a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering deportation proceedings against noncitizens residing lawfully in this country for their protected political speech regarding American and Israeli foreign policy." As the lawsuit details, the threat of visa revocation silenced students at The Stanford Daily. Contributors self-censored by declining to cover Stanford's pro-Palestine protests, avoiding topics related to the conflict in the Middle East, and seeking to remove their articles on the topic for fear of repercussions by the government. One Stanford Daily editorial board member, fearing "adverse immigration consequences," asked for an article about the Israeli Defense Forces to be removed from the website. Another staff writer, who had written about Israeli and Palestinian officials, asked the outlet to remove her articles from the website for the same reason. Had it not been for the "threat of visa revocation…and deportation…Stanford Daily noncitizen contributors would resume contributing articles to Stanford Daily," reads FIRE's complaint. Wise sided with the plaintiffs, writing, "Stated plainly, in the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people. It is not the government's to take." "The government has offered a chilling message regarding protected speech," she continued. "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." The ruling reaffirms that First Amendment rights are not conditional on a person's immigration status, and the government cannot use the immigration system to silence protected speech it does not like. This is not the first time the courts have ruled in favor of immigrants' free speech rights. In Bridges v. Wixon (1945), the Supreme Court overturned the deportation of an Australian labor leader, Harry Bridges, who was first accused of having communist affiliations by the Roosevelt administration. "Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country," the Court ruled. Crucially, in a concurring opinion to Bridges, Justice Frank Murphy emphasized that the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments do not distinguish "between citizens and resident aliens." It states that "once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country, he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders," and that these "inalienable privileges" are extended to all "persons" and "guard against any encroachment on those rights by federal or state authority." The rising threat to freedom of expression is worrying. While the Trump administration's deportation campaign is unlikely to be halted, Friday's decision certainly brings a sense of comfort to legal noncitizens. The Constitution is clear. Freedom of speech is a right afforded to everyone on American soil, regardless of immigration status.