A First Amendment Lawsuit Highlights the Chilling Impact of Speech-Based Deportation on Student Journalists
After the Trump administration began targeting international students for arrest and deportation based on their anti-Israel views, editors at The Stanford Daily say, noncitizen staff members began to worry that their journalism could jeopardize their ability to remain in the United States. As a result, several writers at Stanford University’s student newspaper declined to cover stories involving the war in Gaza or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In some cases, they even asked that their previous work be removed from the internet, lest it jeopardize their visas. The editors also heard from sources whose views on Israeli policy or Palestinian rights had been quoted in the paper, who asked that their names and photos be excised from online articles.
Those chilling effects are at the center of a lawsuit that the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed on Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In addition to The Stanford Daily, the plaintiffs include two former university students, identified as Jane Doe and John Doe, who say they have censored themselves in response to the government’s speech-based deportation policy. That policy, FIRE argues, violates the First Amendment by punishing protected speech based on content and viewpoint. The lawsuit says the policy also violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process because it is unconstitutionally vague.
The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory judgments on those points and injunctions barring the defendants, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, from seeking to deport Stanford Daily staff members, John Doe, or Jane Doe based on speech protected by the First Amendment. “In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” says FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick. “Free speech isn’t a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”
The lawsuit focuses on the Trump administration’s use of two Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provisions. One of them, 8 USC 1227 (as qualified by 8 USC 1182), makes a noncitizen subject to removal when the secretary of state determines that his “beliefs, statements, or associations,” although “lawful,” threaten to “compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.” Rubio invoked that provision against former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident who was arrested on March 8 and detained for three months because of his participation in campus protests against the war in Gaza.
The other INA provision, 8 USC 1201, authorizes the secretary of state to “at any time, in his discretion, revoke” a “visa or other documentation.” Rubio invoked that provision against Tufts University graduate student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was arrested on March 25 and detained for a month a half because she had co-authored a Tufts Daily op-ed piece that expressed support for the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel.
The Trump administration has detained several other students and scholars on similar grounds, arguing that their pro-Palestinian advocacy amounted to antisemitism or rhetorical support for Hamas. The arrestees—including Khalil, the first target—dispute those characterizations. But even if they were accurate, the speech at issue would still be constitutionally protected.
President Donald Trump and his underlings concede as much. During his 2024 campaign, the lawsuit notes, Trump repeatedly promised to arrest and deport student protesters whose advocacy he viewed as antisemitic, pro-terrorist, or anti-American, even if they had not broken the law by engaging in violence, vandalism, or other disruptive activities. Rubio likewise conceded t
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
