The student newspaper of the University of Stanford continues the Trump administration on what it says, it is the government’s attempts to target international students for immigration actions on the expression of pro-Palestinian opinions.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed the trial before the Federal Court in San Jose, California, in the name of the Stanford every dayas well as two former anonymous students. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and internal security secretary Kristi Noem are appointed defendants. A spokesman for the University of Stanford told Reuters that the student newspaper was an independent organization and that the university was not involved in the trial.
“In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight at the door for expressed bad opinion,” said Conor Fitzpatrick, Fire lawyer in a statement. “Freedom of expression is not a privilege that the government distributes. Under our constitution, it is the inalienable law of each man, woman and child. ”
The trial requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the government from trying to expel the students on pro-Palestinian speech while the case is underway. “Secretary of state Marco Rubio and the Trump administration are trying to transform the indisputable human right of freedom of expression into a contingent privilege to the whims of a federal bureaucrat, triggering an expulsion procedure against non-citizens legally residing in this country for their protected political discourse concerning American and Israeli foreign policy,” said the complaint.
THE Stanford every day Previously, he was previously losing a Supreme Court case in 1978 about the search of his offices and the seizure of evidence related to a crime – a protest demonstration where police were injured – which he had reported, but was not criminally involved.
Here is what you need to know about the new case and why the newspaper hopes to defend again not only its own student writers, but a wider class of people whose rights he believes.
Targery of foreign students
The Trump administration used two provisions of the 1952 immigration and nationality law to target students born abroad and the pro-Palestinian censure discourse, according to the trial. The first provision, known as the deportation provision, gives the Secretary of State the power to expel a non-citizen if he “personally determines their beliefs, declarations or associations”, “compromises a drilling interest in foreign policy in the United States”, according to the trial.
Rubio cited the provision to justify the attempted deportation of the Palestinian Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, who had acted as a link between demonstrators and university administrators during demonstrations of pro-Palestinian students in 2024, And was arrested by immigration agents on March 8. In a note of service in April to an immigration judge supervising the case of Khalil, Rubio said that although the deportation provision, passed or expected of Khalil, allowed Rubio to “determine personally” that Khalil was authorized to remain in the United States (Khalil deposited for a preliminary injunction contesting the government’s attempts to deport him who lightens that he has distorted himself at his request for a green card).
The second provision, known as the Revocation, allows the Secretary of State to revoke a visa or documentation at his discretion. The Trump administration used this provision to revoke the visa and have TUFTS University Ph.D. Student Rumeysa Öztürk, who had co-written a pro-Palestinian editorial in the TUFTS every day Before his detention and has since been released.
“We have given you a visa to come and study and graduate, not to become a social activist who tears our university campuses,” Rubio told journalists in May. “If we have given you a visa and decide to do it, we will remove it.”
The complaint argues that the two provisions are unconstitutional when applied to protected discourse: “The first amendment cements the promise of America that the government cannot subject a speaker to disadvantaged treatment because those who like power do not like his message. And when a federal status collided with the rights of the first amendment, the Constitution prevails. “
The complainants argue that the threats and actions of the government have constituted violations of the rights of the first amendment. Since March, non -citizen writers of Stanford every day refused to cover Pro-Palestinian demonstrations and asked to remove the previous articles on the subject, fearing that such reports would compromise their legal immigration status, according to the trial.
“There is really afraid on the campus and he reaches the editorial room,” said Greta Reich, editor -in -chief of the student newspaper, in a press release. “I have reduced assignments, request the deletion of some of their articles, and even leave the document because they fear the expulsion to be associated with political subjects, even as a journalistic basis. Daily loses the votes of an important part of our student population. ”
The Trump administration has also suppressed international students more widely. In April, the government discreetly revoked the visas of thousands of students who would have committed minor legal offenses before suddenly overthrowing politics. The administration also used international students as a negotiation currency to oblige university administrations to comply with certain requests, for example by trying to revoke the authority of Harvard University to register international students. And the government has increased its careful examination of candidates for student visas, in particular in verification of candidates’ social media profiles for “a history of political activism”.
The response from the Trump administration
“The DHS does not stop people on the basis of a protected discourse, so that the premise of the complainants is incorrect,” said DHS spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, in a media statement. “The DHS plays its role seriously in the abolition of threats to the public and our communities, and the idea that the application of federal law in this regard constitutes a kind of reservoir to speech is laughable.”
A trial on the bench contesting the alleged policy of the “ideological deportation” of the Trump administration ended last month and a final decision is scheduled for this month or next month. This prosecution was brought by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. During the trial, a government service note discovered in court revealed that officials had warned Rubio of a potential legal examination of attempts at expulsion because their basis could be considered a speech protected by the Constitution.
“Anyone who has a position contrary to what the American government says that it should think, it is immediately” anti-American “,” said David Rozas, an immigration lawyer who represented Alireza Doroudi, an Iranian student who was detained for weeks and finally chose self-conformity, said the hour in May. “America was built on the speech,” he added. Trump’s immigration program, he said, “will suffocate American growth and the American dream.”
“225 years after the expiration of the law on extraterrestrial friends, the danger of nocturnal raids on non-citizens for perceived thought crime is once again reality. Secretary Rubio and the war of the Trump administration against the freedom of expression of non-citizens are intended to send an undoubted message: to look at what you say, or you might be the next. “Message received.”
