U.S. court found pro‑Palestinian students justified

Federal judge Noel Wise in California ruled that the Trump administration's applications to cancel the visas of international students who criticize Israel's operations in Gaza and support Palestinian causes, and to deport them, violated constitutional protections. In a 90‑page opinion issued on August 28, Wise said the government cannot use immigration laws to suppress political viewpoints.

The case was opened by the Stanford Daily.

The ruling came after a lawsuit filed by the student newspaper The Stanford Daily. The newspaper and the international student argued that the Trump administration's immigration policies were trying to keep them out for supporting Palestine or criticizing Israel's policies. The court ruled in favor of the government on eight of the plaintiffs' claims.

Emphasis on the First Amendment

Wise emphasized in his ruling that the free speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is not limited to citizens. The judge held that "In America, free speech belongs to the people. The government has no power to take it away." He also noted that when people are afraid of the government's reaction and are forced to self‑censor, the foundation of free speech is weakened.

Visa cancellations and extrajudicial actions were discussed.

At the heart of the lawsuit were provisions of the Immigration and Citizenship Law that grant the government the authority to cancel foreigners' visas and initiate deportation proceedings under certain conditions. Wise ruled that applying these provisions when protected political expression is at issue constitutes a viewpoint‑ and content‑based restriction under the First Amendment, and that they also raise uncertainty concerns under the Fifth Amendment.

International students censored themselves.

In the court’s ruling, findings were presented that some writers from Stanford Daily, composed of international students, avoided reporting on pro‑Palestinian demonstrations, the war in Gaza, and the Israel‑Palestine conflict. It was noted that some students withdrew their articles, wanted to remove their names or previously published content, and that some sources preferred to speak off‑record with journalists.

Previous cases were also cited in the ruling.

Wise also referred in his decision to individuals such as Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, and Mohsen Mahdawi who faced immigration proceedings over pro‑Palestinian statements or activities. The court assessed that these examples constituted a genuine concern among international students about expressing views the government disapproves of regarding Palestine and Israel.

The court did not grant all requests.

The decision, while containing significant outcomes in favor of the plaintiffs, did not accept all measures requested by the court. Wise did not find the request for two precautionary measures that would directly prohibit the government from canceling visas or initiating deportation due to protected expressions appropriate at this stage. Nevertheless, it issued a finding that applying those legal provisions to protected political expression is unconstitutional.

The administration is expected to appeal the decision.

Among the parties to the lawsuit are U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin. After the ruling, the government's stance will be closely monitored, and the case is expected to be transferred to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The decision amplified the debate over freedom of expression.

The ruling sparked a new legal debate over the constitutional limits of the Trump administration's immigration policies targeting the political activities and expressions of international students. While the Student Press Law Center and freedom‑of‑speech advocates view the decision as a significant development for student journalism and free expression, the legal process concerning the scope of the government's immigration and foreign‑policy powers continues.