Judge delays Stanford Daily free speech lawsuit against Trump administration

A First Amendment legal challenge brought by the Stanford Daily student newspaper against the Trump administration has been pushed to January 2026 to give a federal judge more time to assess whether the plaintiffs are qualified to be part of the lawsuit.

First filed in August, the suit alleges the administration has used immigration policies to suppress protected speech by student activists and journalists. It names Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as defendants.

The plaintiffs – the newspaper and two individuals using aliases – are challenging two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that they say let the government punish noncitizens for exercising protected speech.

The first, the Deportation Provision, allows the Secretary of State to deport someone if their beliefs or statements are deemed to threaten U.S. foreign policy. The second, the Revocation Provision, allows the Secretary to revoke visas at any time, which the plaintiffs argue could be misused to target protected speech.

Stanford Daily, the lead plaintiff in the case, argues that Trump administration powers have been used to revoke visas and threaten deportation of noncitizens who expressed views critical of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy — creating what they describe as a “chilling effect” on political expression, which they say was not the original intent of the provisions. This, they contend, has caused students to fear writing for or speaking to the organization, severely impacting the Stanford Daily’s ability to report the news.

Federal Judge Noël Wise said Wednesday in San Jose that although she was prepared to consider the merits, she must first determine whether the plaintiffs are directly affected by the Trump administration’s immigration policies they are challenging.

She scheduled the next hearing for Jan. 6, 2026, when the parties are expected to present their arguments.

The question of the plaintiffs’ eligibility arose after the government, represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelsey Helland, argued that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated personal harm and therefore cannot be a part of the case.

Conor Fitzpatrick, lead counsel for the Stanford Daily with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, expressed confidence in the case’s strength.

“We are ready and willing to address any concerns the court may have. We are confident in our constitutional challenge and that freedom of the press will prevail,” Fitzpatrick said.

According to the Associated Press, at least 358 lawsuits have been filed against the Trump administration during his second term, but this is the first major free-speech challenge led by an independent student news outlet.

“You are asking this court to find that the statute is facially unconstitutional, not merely unconstitutional as applied,” Wise told attorneys. In other words, the plaintiffs are arguing the law is invalid in all situations, not just in the way it was used in this specific case.

While Wednesday’s hearing largely focused on procedural issues, Wise acknowledged the significance of the case and its potential impact on free speech nationwide, without signaling support for either side.

“The issues in this case are very serious,” Wise said. “Whether freedom of speech is being punished by the government of the United States is a serious allegation.”

Wise dismissed both sides’ summary-judgment motions without prejudice — meaning she did not rule on the merits — to give the parties an opportunity to resolve procedural questions, particularly whether the plaintiffs have the right to sue.

In court, the defense said it would file a motion to dismiss, while the plaintiffs said they would submit additional information this month to show their complainants are qualified to be a part of the case.

A ruling on that motion is expected in January 2026.

Stanford has seen a strong pro-Palestinian student movement emerge over the past two years, including sit-ins and overnight campouts that began shortly after the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli military assault on Gaza.

Following the attack, similar encampments appeared at universities nationwide.

In its court filing, the Trump administration maintains that the Deportation Provision has a “well-established and longstanding history of legitimate use,” noting that it applies to noncitizens “whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

Fitzpatrick clarified during the hearing that they are not seeking to strike down entire provisions, but assert that the government’s application of them violates plaintiffs rights to protected speech.

“That is a very difficult standard to meet. It does not mean it is impossible, but I urge you to think carefully about how you frame this case going forward,” Wise said.

Fitzpatrick told this news organization they are committed to seeing the lawsuit through.

“We’re making the same case today that we’ve made every day since Secretary Rubio and the Trump administration started trying to deport people who are legally here simply because the government doesn’t like their opinion: The government is wrong, is abusing its authority, and is violating the First Amendment,” Fitzpatrick said. “It’s fundamentally un-American for people who have committed no crime to fear a midnight knock at the door by federal officials for having the ‘wrong’ beliefs.”