US Judge Rules Trump Administration Unlawfully Targeted Pro-Palestine Activists

A US federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration acted unconstitutionally when it used immigration laws to revoke visas and pursue deportation proceedings against non-citizen college students over pro-Palestinian advocacy and criticism of Israel.

US District Judge Noel Wise in San Jose, California, sharply criticised the US State Department and Department of Homeland Security for using federal immigration provisions in a way that targeted non-citizens because of views the government allegedly sought to suppress.

Wise said freedom of speech in the United States includes the right to criticise the government and its leaders, and warned that government retaliation can encourage people to censor themselves.

“That strength is diminished when members of our society – citizens and noncitizens alike – must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation,” Wise wrote.

The State Department and DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

JUDGE CHALLENGES VISA REVOCATION POLICY

The ruling examined policies adopted by the Trump administration beginning in March 2025, when authorities started revoking visas and detaining non-citizens involved in pro-Palestinian campus advocacy.

The crackdown gained national attention following the arrest of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who is separately challenging efforts to deport him.

The arrests subsequently became part of a lawsuit filed in August 2025 by The Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper. The publication argued that some of its student-visa-holding writers had avoided covering pro-Palestinian demonstrations and issues surrounding the Middle East conflict because of concerns about the administration's policies.

Lawyers representing the newspaper challenged two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that their application violated protections under the First and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution.

One provision allowed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to make a non-citizen deportable if he personally determined that the person's actions “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest”. Another gave the secretary broad discretion to revoke visas.

COURT SAYS GOVERNMENT TARGETED SPEECH

Judge Wise sided with the newspaper and found that the government's use of the immigration provisions could amount to viewpoint- or content-based discrimination when speech itself was the reason for a visa revocation or deportation decision.

“When a noncitizen's speech is the reason behind a visa revocation and deportation determination,” Wise said, “the government is singling out that speech for disfavoured treatment based on its viewpoint or content.”

The ruling was welcomed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represented The Stanford Daily.

Conor Fitzpatrick of the organisation said the decision demonstrated that free speech should not be treated as a privilege but as a fundamental right.

RULING FOLLOWS SIMILAR DECISION

Wise's decision follows a similar ruling issued last year by US District Judge William Young in Boston.

Young had also found unconstitutional a Trump administration policy involving the revocation of visas, arrests, detention and deportation of foreign students and faculty members involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

The latest ruling adds to the legal challenges surrounding the administration's use of immigration powers against non-citizens for political or ideological expression.

JUDGE WARNS OF BROADER FREE SPEECH IMPACT

Wise also expressed concern that government action against pro-Palestinian activists could establish a precedent extending beyond the specific cases before the court.

She warned that the government's targets could eventually include people in the United States who express other opinions that officials dislike.

The judge argued that such a trajectory would conflict with the constitutional protection of free expression.

The ruling therefore goes beyond the dispute over student visas and pro-Palestinian activism. It raises a broader question about how far the US government can use immigration powers when the conduct at issue involves constitutionally protected speech.

For non-citizens studying in the United States, the decision could have significant implications for how immigration enforcement and free-speech protections intersect, although the administration could challenge the ruling through further legal proceedings.