Invoking the core protections of the First Amendment, a federal judge in California has ruled that the U.S. government is unlawfully muzzling critics of Israel’s war in Gaza and other speakers as the Trump administration pursues deportations of noncitizens it accuses of disrupting college campuses through political expression.
The Friday ruling by Judge Noël Wise marked a significant win for The Stanford Daily, Stanford University’s student newspaper, which argued that the threat of removal from the country had left some international students too fearful to voice their views publicly.
“Freedom of speech is illusory if we are only ‘free’ to express complementary views about the government and its leaders,” Wise wrote in the decision.
Her ruling closely builds on findings issued nearly a year earlier by a federal district judge in Boston, who concluded that the Trump administration violated constitutional protections by singling out noncitizens for deportation based only on their support for Palestinians and criticism of Israel.
Wise emphasized that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are “foundational to America’s enduring democracy.” In striking down parts of the federal deportation framework, she pointed to constitutional defects involving free expression and vague government standards, finding violations of both the First and Fifth Amendments.
The judge cited actions taken in March 2025 by U.S. immigration officials against people who had spoken in support of Palestinians and against Israel’s military campaign — conduct that a growing number of experts, including some commissioned by a U.N. body, have described as amounting to genocide. She also referenced retaliation aimed at people who criticized 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 San Jose-based judge wrote.
Wise warned that such a “downward spiral” runs directly against the Constitution’s promise of free expression. “Here you can simultaneously hate the content of a person’s speech and love the country that cherishes the freedom to allow it,” she wrote. “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 U.S. 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.”
