US District Judge Noël Wise ruled on August 28, 2026, that the government’s use of two immigration provisions against noncitizens because of constitutionally protected speech violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the US Constitution. The 90-page decision applies to the challenged parts of those provisions when speech is the basis for enforcement.

The court granted declaratory relief to Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation and an anonymous noncitizen who holds an F-1 student visa. It did not strike down every use of the statutes or issue a permanent injunction against visa revocation or deportation proceedings.

The court examined two routes to immigration enforcement

The Stanford Daily and two anonymous F-1 visa holders filed the lawsuit on August 6, 2025. One of the individual plaintiffs left the case in July 2026, leaving the newspaper and a plaintiff identified as Jane Doe. The parties presented their arguments at a May 27 bench trial based on an agreed factual record.

The court called the first group of sections in the US Immigration and Nationality Act the Deportation Provision. It consists of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(3)(C)(iii) and 1227(a)(4)(C), which address a US secretary of state’s determination that a noncitizen’s presence or activities could have serious adverse consequences for US foreign policy. The disputed language allowed otherwise lawful beliefs, statements or associations to become a basis for action after the secretary personally determined that the person’s presence would compromise a compelling US foreign-policy interest.

The second statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1201(i), lets a US consular officer or the secretary of state revoke a visa at their discretion. Wise found that using either route because of protected speech imposed unfavorable treatment based on the content or viewpoint of that speech and gave noncitizens no clear way to know what expression could trigger action. She ruled that the challenged language violated the First Amendment and was unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment.

The ruling is limited to protected speech

This was an as-applied decision, meaning the court assessed the provisions only when the US government uses protected speech as the basis for enforcement. The decision did not abolish the F-1 student-visa category’s academic or immigration requirements, decide questions about admission at the US border or address violations unrelated to speech.

Jane Doe held an F-1 visa, but The Stanford Daily’s affected members included lawfully present noncitizens with different immigration statuses. The constitutional holding turned on the government’s reason for acting, not on a new protection available only to F-1 students.

The record documented self-censorship in the newsroom

The Associated Press reported that lawfully present noncitizens at The Stanford Daily had quit, withheld articles, refused assignments, asked for anonymity or requested that published work be removed because they feared adverse immigration consequences. Wise treated those actions as evidence that the enforcement policy had affected the newspaper’s reporting.

Reuters traced the dispute to the US government’s March 2025 campaign of visa revocations and detentions involving noncitizens engaged in pro-Palestinian campus advocacy. The arrest of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil was an early case in that campaign, but his immigration proceedings are separate from The Stanford Daily lawsuit.

Declaratory relief did not become a permanent injunction

The court entered four declarations: the challenged parts of both the deportation and revocation provisions violated the First Amendment, and each was void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment when enforced on the basis of protected speech. The court denied permanent injunctive relief against the Deportation Provision and found an injunction against the Revocation Provision inappropriate at that stage.

Wise said 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) prevented the district court from permanently enjoining the Deportation Provision because only the US Supreme Court may issue that relief. For the Revocation Provision, she held that a permanent injunction was not appropriate at that stage after granting declaratory relief. She also noted that the plaintiffs’ anonymity would complicate any injunction tailored to named individuals.

The absence of an injunction does not erase the declaratory judgment, but the decision does not give every noncitizen blanket immunity from US immigration enforcement. Its scope remains tied to constitutionally protected speech and the specific statutory language the plaintiffs challenged.

An appeal remained possible

The Stanford Daily reported that the Trump administration was likely to appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. APPI News could not verify a filed notice of appeal in publicly accessible court records at the time of writing.

Reuters said the US State Department and US Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment after the ruling. The Associated Press reported that the US Justice Department had not responded to its request by August 29.