The Stanford Daily, Stanford University’s independently run student newspaper, and two of its student staff, are suing Marco Rubio, in his capacity as Secretary of State, and Kristi Noem, in her capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security, for violating their First Amendment rights.
.
From the suit:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and 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. The Secretary of State and the President claim to possess unreviewable statutory authority to deport any lawfully present noncitizen for speech the government deems anti-American or anti-Israel…
The result, the plaintiffs say, is that at the Stanford Daily,
writers present on student visas are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the conflict will endanger their lawful immigration status. And Plaintiffs Jane Doe and John Doe, lawfully present noncitizens with no criminal history, have likewise self-censored because of their rational concern about the ongoing danger of deportation for expression Secretary Rubio deems anti-American or anti-Israel. This pall of fear is incompatible with American liberty.
Precedents, the plaintiffs say, show that it is illegal for the Federal government to punish lawfully present noncitizens for speech that would be protected were it uttered by citizens:
Our First Amendment stands as a bulwark against the government infringing the inalienable human right to think and speak for yourself. That is why the Supreme Court held over 80 years ago that “[f]reedom of speech and of press is accorded aliens residing in this country.” Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 148 (1945). Our First Amendment does not “acknowledge any distinction between citizens and resident aliens.” Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 n.5 (1953)
Here’s more about the plaintiffs:
Plaintiff Jane Doe is a noncitizen lawfully present in the United States in valid nonimmigrant status, having entered lawfully pursuant to an F-1 student visa. Jane Doe has published pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel commentary online. Jane Doe has not been accused of violating any university rules nor has she been charged with or convicted of any crime. Yet she is listed on the Canary Mission website, which compiles profiles on individuals the organization views as having “anti-Israel” opinions. A Trump administration official testified that “most of the names” of individuals targeted for deportation based on pro-Palestinian advocacy come from Canary Mission. Since March 2025, fearing Secretary Rubio will revoke her visa under the Revocation Provision or render her deportable under the Deportation Provision, Jane Doe has refrained from publishing and voicing her true opinions regarding Palestine and Israel.
Plaintiff John Doe is a noncitizen lawfully present in the United States in valid nonimmigrant status, having entered lawfully pursuant to an F-1 student visa. After the October 7, 2023, attack, John Doe peacefully attended pro-Palestinian protests at his university and elsewhere and published pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel commentary online. John Doe has not been accused of violating any university rules nor has he been charged with or convicted of any crime. Beginning in March 2025 and continuing into April 2025, John Doe feared that Secretary Rubio would revoke his visa under the Revocation Provision or render him deportable under the Deportation Provision based on his published works and pro-Palestinian stance. John Doe therefore refrained, for example, from publishing a study related to Gaza. He has since resumed his journalism and pro-Palestinian advocacy, placing him at risk of visa revocation and deportation.
The Stanford Daily is being represented by lawyers from Van Der Hout LLP and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). FIRE’s press release about the case is here.
The full complaint is below.
