Filed Date: Aug. 6, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding in progress
This case challenged the Trump Administration's alleged targeting of noncitizen F-1 student visa holders for deportation and visa revocation based on their constitutionally protected political speech, particularly concerning their views on American and Israeli foreign policy. The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation alleged that these deportation threats adversely affected its noncitizen staff and impaired the newspaper's ability to engage in journalistic activity. The complaint asserted that noncitizen writers were engaging in self-censorship due to fears of visa revocation and deportation, especially when reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It further alleged that international students ceased speaking on the record with Stanford Daily reporters about topics related to Israel and Palestine.
On August 6, 2025, the Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation and two noncitizen individuals holding F-1 student visas filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants' actions violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, they challenged two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): (1) the Deportation Provision, which authorizes the Secretary of State to deem noncitizens deportable if their speech "comprises a compelling United States policy interest," and (2) the Revocation Provision, which grants the Secretary discretion to revoke a visa "at any time." Plaintiffs argued that both provisions, as applied to constitutionally protected speech, violated the First Amendment, and that they also violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause on the grounds of unconstitutional vagueness.
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting that the Court declare the Deportation and Revocation Provisions unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments. They also sought preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants from revoking visas or initiating deportation proceedings based on noncitizens' protected speech. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Noel Wise.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for a Preliminary Injunction (PI) enjoining Defendants from revoking the visas and other documentation of Plaintiffs and their noncitizen members based on constitutionally protected speech, and from initiating deportation proceedings on that basis. Plaintiffs also moved for preliminary factual findings and legal conclusions declaring the Deportation and Revocation Provisions unconstitutional as applied to the speech of noncitizens protected under the First Amendment.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Emma Vayda (8/7/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71038037/parties/stanford-daily-publishing-corporation-v-rubio/
Fitzpatrick, Conor T. (California)
Hout, Marc Van (California)
McDonell, Colin Patrick (California)
Zahn, Daniel (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71038037/stanford-daily-publishing-corporation-v-rubio/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 11:46 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Immigration Enforcement)
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Visa revocation)
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 6, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation, a student-run newspaper of Stanford University, and two noncitizens holding F-1 student visas.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Secretary of State (- United States (national) -), Federal
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: