Judge sides with The Stanford Daily, rules federal government violated constitution

In a sweeping ruling with national implications, a federal judge sided with The Stanford Daily and ruled on Friday that the federal government violated the U.S. Constitution when it targeted student journalists who wrote stories that criticized Israel and participated in pro-Palestinian demonstration.

In a 90-page ruling that liberally cited Benjamin Franklin and James Madison, United States District Judge Noël Wise found that the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment of the constitution when government officials detained and tried to deport noncitizen students who spoke out against Israel.

The Stanford Daily, which is the university’s student publication, alleged in its complaint that the aggressive enforcement actions have already had chilling effect on the newspaper’s coverage. Many of its noncitizen writers have declined to cover pro-Palestinian protests or to cover topics relating to the war in Gaza despite being “lawfully present,” according to the court documents. An editor at Stanford Daily had reportedly quit because of his visa status, while a writer had declined to publish an article about a vigil relating to Gaza, according to the suit.

Stanford was joined in the lawsuit by Jane Doe, an unnamed pro-Palestine activist who is not affiliated with the university or the newspaper, but who was reportedly driven to “self-censor” because of the federal actions. It named as defendants U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security.

Stanford contended in its complaint that the government has been violating the constitution by invoking the Immigration and Nationality Act to cancel student visas and launch deportation proceedings. Wise agreed and concluded that the government used these provisions in a way that violated the constitutional rights of the activists it was targeting.

The ruling cites numerous examples of immigration officials detaining students in who wrote stories that were critical of Israel. These include the detentions of Mahmoud Khalil, an activist who led pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University; Rümeysa Öztürk, a doctorate student at Tufts University who was detained for writing an op-ed in the student paper that criticized the university for, among other things, refusing to recognize “genocide” in Gaza; and Mohsen Mahdawi, a Columbia student who was targeted for deportation because of his participation in campus protests.

“Through these examples of government enforcement, coupled with the government’s many statements about how it will revoke visas and deport noncitizens who express opinions unacceptable to the government regarding Israel and Palestine, Stanford Daily has established that there is a substantial risk that its members too face visa revocation and deportation,” Wise wrote in her order. “Stanford Daily, on behalf of its members, has adequately demonstrated facts to support that its members have ‘an actual and well-founded fear that’ the Deportation and Revocation Provisions will be enforced against them, and that members refrained from expressive activity based on their reasonable fear that the government may disapprove of their speech as to Israel and Palestine, much like the government’s disapproval of the speech of Khalil, Öztürk, and Mahdawi.”

George Porteous, editor-in-chief at The Stanford Daily, celebrated the ruling and said in a statement that it was “a good day for the Constitution.”

“The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation,” he wrote on LinkedIn. “Today’s victory means they won’t have to. The Court’s decision will enable our reporters to focus on what they do best: asking tough questions and reporting the truth.”

The case was spearheaded by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, an organization that focuses on civil rights on college campuses and which filed its legal challenge against the Trump administration in August 2025. The group asserted that members of 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.”

In the suit, the plaintiffs challenged the government’s reliance on two specific provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. One allows the government to begin deportation proceedings against noncitizens whose speech “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest,” as determined by the secretary of state. The second gives the secretary of state broad powers to revoke the visa of any noncitizen. The suit alleged that the government invoked these provisions in a way that violated the First Amendment rights of noncitizens.

Wise concurred with the plaintiffs and also concluded that the government’s reliance on the two provisions violates the Fifth Amendment, which grants residents protections against being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” She wrote in her ruling that First Amendment makes it clear that “it is not the government that gives freedom of speech to the people.”

She called freedoms of speech and freedom embodied in the First Amendment “foundational to America’s enduring democracy.”

“In the United States, free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility,” Wise wrote. “It is evidence of its strength. That strength is diminished when members of our society — citizens and noncitizens alike — must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation.

FIRE declared in a statement on its site that the Friday ruling “affirms a bedrock constitutional principle: The government cannot punish people for protected speech simply because officials dislike their views.”

“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” FIRE attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said in a statement. “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

Most Popular

‘Hard to believe’: Two Redwood City residents died in Palo Alto motorcycle crashesAugust 28, 2026 5:59 pm

For former TIDE students, a rocky start and missing programs at Woodside HighAugust 28, 2026 10:57 am

Menlo Park overhauls license plate reader sharing after discovering more improper searchesAugust 27, 2026 4:09 pm