Stanford Newspaper Says Trump Visa Stance Violates Speech Rights

Stanford University’s student-run newspaper is accusing the Trump administration of violating the First Amendment by deporting lawfully present international students for writing about pro-Palestinian protests or otherwise criticizing US support for Israel.

Many immigrants who are legally in the US and write for the paper have “self-censored by declining to cover pro-Palestinian student protests at Stanford” and related topics, Stanford Daily Publishing Corp. said in a complaint filed Wednesday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

They’re also asking the newspaper to remove prior articles over fear they’ll face deportation or have their visas revoked, it said.

The lawsuit is the latest over the Trump administration revoking the visas of and initiating deportation proceedings against university students across the US who protested in favor of Palestinians on college campuses since the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel.

Some of the more high-profile suits involve former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, who was detained for more than three months over his role in pro-Palestinian protests, and Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University student who was detained for her part in authoring an op-ed supporting Gazans.

Citing these and other cases, Stanford Daily argues the administration is “aggressively targeting lawfully present noncitizens for protected speech, particularly at universities.”

Two anonymous plaintiffs who are Stanford Daily writers on F-1 visas also claim they refrained from publishing content related to the Israel-Gaza conflict over fears they’d face deportation or have their visas revoked. And the paper has received “numerous requests” from noncitizens legally in the US and either wrote or were quoted or pictured in articles to remove the content out of fear of adverse immigration actions, the complaint says.

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides Secretary of State Marco Rubio the authority to revoke an individual’s visa at any time, or deem an individual deportable based on his personal determination that their beliefs or statements compromise a US foreign policy interest.

But Stanford Daily said Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem are violating the First Amendment by enforcing those provisions “based on protected expression.”

The INA provisions are discriminatory to viewpoints the government deems adverse to its foreign policy, and vest Rubio with “unbounded, unbridled, and unconstrained discretion” to revoke visas or initiate deportation proceedings against any noncitizen based on protected speech.

The statute is also unconstitutionally vague, since it provides nonctizens with “no guidance” of when their expression might compromise US foreign policy interests, the complaint asserts.

The plaintiffs are seeking an order preventing the administration from revoking or initiating deportation proceedings against Stanford Daily’s members for engaging in protected speech, and a declaration that the challenged provisions of the INA are unconstitutional.

The State Department and DHS didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Van Der Hout LLP represent the plaintiffs.

The case is Stanford Daily Publ’g Corp. v. Rubio, N.D. Cal., No. 5:25-cv-06618, complaint filed 8/6/25.