A federal judge in California has ruled that the U.S. government is unconstitutionally silencing critics of Israel's war in Gaza, invoking the First Amendment as she blocked portions of the Trump administration's effort to deport noncitizens whom it says disrupted college campuses while expressing their views.

Judge Noël Wise, in a ruling issued Friday, delivered a victory to The Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at Stanford University, which has said some international students were afraid to speak out because of the deportation threat.

"Freedom of speech is illusory if we are only 'free' to express complementary views about the government and its leaders," the judge wrote.

The decision largely builds on findings from nearly a year ago by a U.S. district judge in Boston, who ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution when it targeted noncitizens for deportation solely for supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel. Friday's ruling is part of a broader wave of litigation challenging the administration's campus-deportation campaign, and further appeals by the government could ultimately place questions about noncitizens' speech rights before higher courts, including potentially the Supreme Court.

Wise wrote that the freedoms of speech and the press are "foundational to America's enduring democracy." She cited free-speech and vagueness flaws that violate the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment as she struck down portions of the provisions the federal government follows regarding deportations.

The judge cited retaliation in March 2025 by U.S. immigration authorities against people who engaged in speech supporting Palestinians and opposing Israel's actions — which a growing number of experts, including those commissioned by a U.N. body, have said amount to genocide. She also cited retaliation against people who were critical of Charlie Kirk after the Turning Point USA co-founder was assassinated last September.

"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," the judge in San Jose said.

"This downward spiral is antithetical to our Constitution that recognizes our right to speak freely," she added. "Here you can simultaneously hate the content of a person's speech and love the country that cherishes the freedom to allow it. Zealous protection of our Constitutional right to free speech is a provocative demonstration of our country's powerful lack of fear."

The Justice Department did not respond Saturday to a message seeking comment on the decision.

George Porteous, editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily, responded to the ruling on X: "The reporters in our newsroom shouldn't have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation. Today's victory means they won't have to."

Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which brought the lawsuit, praised the ruling.

"In America, free speech doesn't just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with," Fitzpatrick said in a release. FIRE, a nonpartisan free-speech group, has litigated numerous campus speech cases, and the Stanford Daily suit extended that work to student journalists facing immigration consequences for their reporting.

In her decision, Wise said it was clear that the government's tactics had an effect on college campuses.

"The government has offered a chilling message regarding protected speech — speak out against Israel or in support of Palestinians and we will revoke your visa and deport you. Behave. Noncitizen students heard the warning and heeded. And, as the idiom goes, the silence is deafening," the judge wrote.

At The Stanford Daily, Wise noted, lawfully present noncitizens at the paper have quit, withheld articles, refused assignments, requested that articles be taken down, and asked for anonymity due to fear of adverse immigration consequences.

She said noncitizens hold the same First Amendment rights as citizens, yet were left to guess what U.S. foreign policy was at any given moment and on any given subject. That principle — that First Amendment protections extend to noncitizens on U.S. soil — has long roots in Supreme Court precedent, though the government retains broad authority over immigration status itself, a tension at the heart of these cases.

"This is an incomprehensible standard," she said. "While the Court understands that the government has been granted considerable discretion on foreign policy and immigration matters, that discretion must nevertheless still ensure that ordinary people can understand what the law permits and prohibits."

Wise added: "Our Constitutional right to freedom of speech guarantees people the right to express — through their words, actions, or assembly — opinions that may be repugnant, views that run counter to prevailing political norms, or beliefs that otherwise challenge the country's domestic or foreign policy, military engagement, or war."

Source: Fortune