A US federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration acted unconstitutionally when it used immigration laws to revoke visas and pursue deportation proceedings against non-citizens over pro-Palestinian advocacy and criticism of Israel.

US District Judge Noel Wise in San Jose, California, ruled that provisions of federal immigration law used by the Trump administration to target non-citizen college students for their political expression were unconstitutional.

The case focused on the administration's use of immigration powers against students and other non-citizens who engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy on US campuses.

Wise criticised the US State Department and Department of Homeland Security for using immigration provisions in a way that, according to her ruling, targeted people because of their views.

Case followed visa cancellations and arrests

The ruling relates to policies implemented from March 2025, when the Trump administration began cancelling visas and detaining non-citizens involved in pro-Palestinian campus activism.

The arrest of Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, who is separately challenging his deportation, became one of the most prominent examples of the administration's approach.

The policies subsequently became the subject of a lawsuit filed in August 2025 by The Stanford Daily, Stanford University's student newspaper.

Student newspaper raised free-speech concerns

The Stanford Daily argued that some of its student-visa holders had avoided covering pro-Palestinian demonstrations and other subjects linked to the Middle East conflict because they feared government action.

The newspaper's lawyers challenged two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, arguing that their use against constitutionally protected speech violated the First and Fifth Amendments.

One provision allowed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to determine that a non-citizen's actions compromised a compelling US foreign-policy interest, while another gave the secretary broad discretion to revoke visas.

Judge says speech was targeted

Wise agreed with the newspaper's constitutional challenge.

The judge found that when a person's speech becomes the basis for visa cancellation and deportation proceedings, the government is effectively treating that speech differently because of its content or viewpoint.

She also warned that allowing such powers to be used against one category of political expression could eventually expose people expressing other views disliked by the government to similar action.

Earlier ruling reached similar conclusion

The decision follows a ruling by US District Judge William Young in Boston last year, which also found unconstitutional the administration's policy of revoking visas, detaining and pursuing deportation against foreign students and faculty involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

The State Department and DHS had not immediately responded to requests for comment.

The ruling centres on the tension between the US government's immigration powers over non-citizens and constitutional protections for political speech.

Although non-citizens can face immigration consequences under US law, Wise's decision says the government cannot use those powers to discriminate against constitutionally protected expression based on its viewpoint or content.

The case is also significant because it addresses the chilling effect that immigration enforcement can have on speech. The Stanford Daily argued that students had altered or avoided their journalism because of concerns about visa cancellation or deportation.

The ruling could face further legal challenges, meaning its broader impact on the Trump administration's immigration and campus-activism policies may depend on subsequent proceedings.