Stanford student newspaper sues Trump administration over pro-Palestine deportations

USA Today

a day ago

The complaint accuses the Trump administration of turning free speech into a "privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat."
The student newspaper at Stanford University sued the Trump administration over its attempt to use federal immigration law to revoke noncitizens' visas or deport them over pro-Palestinian speech, saying such policies violate the First and Fifth amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation, which operates Stanford University's student newspaper, The Stanford Daily, and two unnamed plaintiffs, filed the lawsuit on Aug. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a national free speech group, is representing the student publication.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem are named as defendants.
The complaint claims noncitizen writers for the student newspaper have 'self-censored' by avoiding covering pro-Palestinian protests or any topic related to Israel's war in Gaza, and by attempting to remove their previous articles on the issue.
The other plaintiffs, referred to as Jane Doe and John Doe, are noncitizens legally in the U.S., the complaint said. Though neither has been charged with or convicted of a crime, the lawsuit said their fear of potential retaliation by President Donald Trump's administration has prompted them to refrain from pro-Palestine speech.
One individual has 'since resumed his journalism and pro-Palestinian advocacy, placing him at risk of visa revocation and deportation,' according to the complaint.
'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 complaint said.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called it a "baseless, political lawsuit" in an email to USA TODAY.
"DHS doesn't arrest people based on protected speech, so the plaintiffs' premise is incorrect," McLaughlin said. "DHS takes its role in removing threats to the public and our communities seriously, and the idea that enforcing federal law in that regard constitutes some kind of prior restraint on speech is laughable."
McLaughlin said there is "no room in the United States for the rest of the world's terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here."
"Sec. Noem has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and hide behind the First Amendment to advocate for anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism – think again," she said.
Among other requests, the complaint asks the court to grant both preliminary and permanent injunctions barring Rubio and Noem from attempting to use provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act to deport or otherwise retaliate against the plaintiffs based on their speech.
The American Association of University Professors and its chapters at various universities filed a similar lawsuit in Boston over the administration's actions against noncitizens for their pro-Palestinian speech. The judge has not yet issued a ruling in the case.
USA TODAY reached out to the State Department for comment.
BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at [e-mail].
USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.