A California federal court ruled that student visa revocation and deportation provisions cannot be enforced against lawfully present noncitizens solely for First Amendment-protected speech. The ruling granted declaratory relief but stopped short of a permanent injunction.

A federal judge in California has ruled that the U.S. government cannot use certain immigration powers to revoke visas or pursue deportation against lawfully present noncitizens when enforcement is based on speech protected by the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Noël Wise issued the decision on Friday, August 28, 2026, in the Northern District of California. The case was brought by Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation and Jane Doe, an F-1 visa holder.

Court finds First and Fifth Amendment violations

The plaintiffs challenged provisions of U.S. immigration law that allow federal officials to revoke visas and pursue removal on foreign-policy grounds.

The court concluded that the challenged portions violate the First Amendment when applied to constitutionally protected speech. It also found those provisions unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment in that context.

Case focused on political and campus speech

The dispute involved expression concerning Palestinians, Israel, U.S. foreign policy and the war in Gaza. The ruling does not protect conduct outside First Amendment safeguards and does not prevent immigration enforcement based on terrorism, espionage, criminal activity or other lawful national-security grounds.

Students and journalists described self-censorship

The plaintiffs said the threat of immigration consequences had discouraged some noncitizen students and journalists from speaking or reporting freely. The record described students avoiding assignments, leaving reporting roles, removing previously published work and reducing political activity because of concerns about their immigration status.

Ruling grants relief but no permanent injunction

The court granted declaratory relief, formally finding the challenged applications unconstitutional, but did not issue the permanent injunctions requested by the plaintiffs.

The decision therefore does not eliminate broader federal visa revocation or deportation authority. Instead, it limits the use of those powers when enforcement is based on protected expression by lawfully present noncitizens, while leaving other lawful immigration and national-security grounds intact.