Stanford Student Newspaper Files Lawsuit Against Trump Administration Over Alleged Misuse of Immigration Law Against Pro-Palestinian Students
In August 2025, Stanford University's student-run newspaper, The Stanford Daily, filed a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration. The lawsuit alleges that the administration’s policy of threatening to deport foreign students for expressing criticism of Israel or U.S. foreign policy violates their First Amendment rights to free speech.
The newspaper claims this so-called "ideological deportation policy" chills free speech on campus, causing student journalists on visas to self-censor, decline assignments, or remove previously published articles out of fear of deportation. The suit specifically targets Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, arguing that their statutory authority to deport foreign visa holders based on their speech is unconstitutional.
Some Stanford student writers, particularly international students on visas, have refrained from covering the Gaza conflict or from speaking openly due to fears their speech could trigger deportation actions. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California and requests that federal officials be barred from initiating deportation based on speech deemed "anti-American" or "anti-Israel."
The legal challenge is part of multiple ongoing battles questioning provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allegedly used to enforce an ideological test on foreign students and activists. One of the INA provisions at issue gives Secretary of State Rubio the authority to decide that a noncitizen is removable if he "personally determines" that the individual's views "would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest." The other INA provision gives the secretary the power to "at any time, in his discretion" revoke a visa.
In a separate case in Boston, a weekslong bench trial has recently concluded, during which members of the Trump administration testified under oath about the government's targeting of noncitizen pro-Palestinian students and scholars. US District Judge William Young, an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan, is now deciding whether the government's "ideological deportation policy" unlawfully chilled the speech of certain professors in the Boston case.
Attorneys for The Stanford Daily stated in the lawsuit that international students on staff are turning down assignments related to the war in Gaza or seeking removal of their previous articles about it. The case in Boston is the latest legal challenge to the two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the administration's policy around them. The Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security spokesperson dismissed the lawsuit as "baseless," defending enforcement of immigration laws as necessary to remove threats to public safety.
The Stanford Daily's lawsuit was filed at a federal court in California, with the California case brought by the organization that publishes The Stanford Daily and two noncitizen former college students. In several other cases around the country, judges have been asked to weigh the constitutionality of the INA provisions and the administration's policy around them. The lawsuit emphasizes that no one in the U.S. should live in fear of deportation for expressing political opinions, asserting the Constitution’s supremacy when federal statutes conflict with First Amendment rights.
- The Stanford Daily's lawsuit alleges that the Trump administration's policy of threatening to deport foreign students for expressing criticisms of Israel or US foreign policy violates their First Amendment rights to free speech, specifically targeting Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
- Some Stanford student writers, particularly international students on visas, have refrained from covering the Gaza conflict or from speaking openly due to fears their speech could trigger deportation actions, with the Stanford Daily's lawsuit requesting that federal officials be barred from initiating deportation based on speech deemed "anti-American" or "anti-Israel."
- The Trump administration’s Department of Homeland Security spokesperson dismissed the Stanford Daily's lawsuit as "baseless," defending enforcement of immigration laws as necessary to remove threats to public safety, while the lawsuit emphasizes that no one in the US should live in fear of deportation for expressing political opinions, asserting the Constitution’s supremacy when federal statutes conflict with First Amendment rights.
- The Stanford Daily's lawsuit, one of several ongoing legal challenges questioning provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), argues that the statutory authority of Secretary of State Rubio to deport foreign visa holders based on their speech is unconstitutional, due to the INA provisions that give him the power to decide if an individual's views "would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest" and the power to revoke a visa "at any time, in his discretion."
