A federal judge in California ruled on Friday 28 August that the two immigration provisions the US government has used to revoke visas and begin deportation proceedings over political speech are unconstitutional when applied to protected speech. Judge Noël Wise of the US District Court for the Northern District of California found that they violate both the First Amendment and the Fifth, in a 90-page decision in Stanford Daily Publishing Corp. v. Rubio, No. 5:25-cv-06618. The court entered final judgment for the plaintiffs the same day and closed the case, which puts the ruling in a position to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Background
The case was filed on 6 August 2025 by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression on behalf of the Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper, and a noncitizen visa holder identified in the case as Jane Doe. The defendants are Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin, both in their official capacities. The newspaper argued that its noncitizen writers and editors had stopped publishing what they thought because they were afraid an op-ed or a protest would cost them their status. Judge Wise decided the case on a bench trial on the papers under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1), ruling for the plaintiffs on six of their eight claims.
The two provisions at issue
- The Deportation Provision, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(3)(C)(iii) and 1227(a)(4)(C)(i): the challenged part lets the Secretary of State make a noncitizen deportable where he "personally determines" their presence would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest
- The Revocation Provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i): the challenged part lets a consular officer or the Secretary of State revoke a visa "at any time, in his discretion", with almost no judicial review
- The court declared each of them unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and void for vagueness under the Fifth, with respect to enforcement based on protected speech
What the court held
The plaintiffs did not ask the court to strike the statutes down altogether. They challenged them only to the extent the government enforces them against noncitizens for protected speech, and that is the scope of what the court decided. Judge Wise issued four declarations: that the challenged portion of each provision violates the First Amendment as to speech-based enforcement, and that each is void for vagueness under the Fifth. "Foundational to America's enduring democracy are our freedoms of speech and the press embodied in the First Amendment," she wrote. "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. 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." She then traced how the target had moved: pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speech in March 2025, people critical of Charlie Kirk in September 2025, and by May 2026 potentially "weighing in on a peace deal that's being negotiated" in Iran over the Strait of Hormuz. "Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like."
What the court did not do
It did not issue an injunction. The plaintiffs asked for permanent injunctive relief on four of their claims and the court refused, holding that an injunction was "not appropriate at this stage" given the declaratory relief already granted, and that on the two Deportation Provision claims only the Supreme Court could grant that remedy. Judge Wise wrote that the plaintiffs had otherwise made out every element for an injunction and that she would have granted one. The practical difference matters: a declaratory judgment states the law between these parties, but there is no court order compelling the government to do or stop anything, and no mechanism to hold it in contempt.
Who it affects
The people most directly caught by these powers are students and academics on F-1 and J-1 status, but the provisions are not limited to them. A visa can be revoked under § 1201(i) regardless of category, so H-1B and O-1 holders, exchange visitors and visitors on B visas are within reach of the same authority. During 2025 and 2026 the powers were used against foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian activism, among them Mahmoud Khalil at Columbia and Rümeysa Öztürk at Tufts. The wider effect has been quieter than those cases: people deleting social media accounts, declining to sign open letters and avoiding demonstrations rather than risk their status.
What to do now
This is one district court decision. Its reasoning is persuasive rather than binding on other courts, and now that final judgment has been entered the government can take it to the Ninth Circuit. Nothing in the ruling touches the State Department's other grounds for refusing or revoking a visa, and nothing suspends the social-media vetting that consular posts apply to student applicants, so an application can still fail for reasons unrelated to this case. If you hold or are applying for a US visa, keep your own records of your status and filings, do not assume a favourable ruling elsewhere protects you personally, and take advice on your own facts if you have already been contacted about a revocation. Our United States country guide (/country-guides/united-states) sets out how the categories work, and the field guide section on visas and status (/field-guide/visas-status) covers what to do when status and rights come apart.
When it takes effect
The decision and judgment were both entered on 28 August 2026. The declarations are effective now as between the parties. The government can appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
A declaration, not an order
Because the court declined to issue an injunction, nothing in this judgment directs the government to stop revoking visas over speech in cases outside it. The administration had not said publicly by 30 August whether it will appeal.
Key Takeaway
A federal court has declared that revoking a visa or deporting someone over protected speech is unconstitutional, but it issued no injunction, and the ruling is one district court decision that can be appealed.