����ֱ��

• The First Amendment trumps the statutes that the government is abusing to deport people for speech alone
• This lawsuit seeks a landmark ruling that the First Amendment forbids the government from deporting lawfully present noncitizens for constitutionally protected speech
• FIRE attorney: ‘In a free country, you shouldn’t have to show your papers to voice your opinion’

SAN JOSE, Calif., Aug. 6, 2025 — Today, the ����ֱ�� sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio, challenging two federal immigration law provisions that give him unchecked power to revoke legal immigrants’ visas and deport them for protected speech.

“In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” said ����ֱ�� attorney Conor Fitzpatrick. “Free speech isn’t a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.” 

But since March, Rubio and the Trump administration have waged an assault on free speech, targeting foreign university students for deportation based on bedrock protected speech like writing op-eds and attending protests. Their attack is casting a pall of fear over millions of noncitizens, who now worry that voicing the “wrong” opinion about America or Israel will result in deportation.

Noncitizens in the United States . Despite that, Rubio is wielding two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to target lawfully present noncitizens for their opinions.

• The  allows the secretary of state to initiate deportation proceedings against  any noncitizen for protected speech if the secretary “” the speech “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest.”
• The  enables the secretary of state to revoke the visa of any noncitizen “at any time” for any reason. 

As ����ֱ��’s lawsuit explains, the provisions are unconstitutional when used to revoke a visa or deport someone for speech the First Amendment protects. 

The Trump administration is proudly using the provisions to revoke the visas of and deport lawfully present noncitizens for their speech if the government deems it anti-American or anti-Israel. Rubio used the first provision to target Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil for protected pro-Palestinian speech and the second to target Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk for coauthoring an op-ed.

Rubio and the Trump administration claim — as all censors do — that this time is different. They claim that this political speech comes from noncitizens, which therefore warrants setting aside America's protection of free speech.

That’s wrong. America’s founding principle is that liberty comes not from the government, but is an inherent right of every individual. Every person — whether they’re a U.S. citizen, are visiting for the week, or are here on a student visa — has free speech rights in this country.

“Two lawful residents of the United States holding the same sign at the same protest shouldn’t be treated differently just because one’s here on a visa,” said ����ֱ�� Legal Director Will Creeley. “The First Amendment bars the government from punishing protected speech — period. In our free country, you shouldn’t have to show your papers to speak your mind.”

Plaintiffs in ����ֱ��’s lawsuit represent the wide range of groups and individuals whose speech is threatened by the continued assault on noncitizens’ protected speech:

• The Stanford Daily, the independent, student-run newspaper at Stanford University, where writers with student visas are declining assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East, worried that even reporting on the war will endanger their immigration status
• Jane Doe and John Doe, two legal noncitizens with no criminal record who engaged in pro-Palestinian speech and now fear deportation and visa revocation because of their expression

“There’s real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,” said Greta Reich, editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily. “I’ve had reporters turn down assignments, request the removal of some of their articles, and even quit the paper because they fear deportation for being associated with speaking on political topics, even in a journalistic capacity. The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.”

There’s also historical context that should give the government pause. Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts 225 years ago. One of those acts allowed President John Adams to deport noncitizens if he thought they posed a “danger” to the country. It was one of the most unconstitutional laws in our nation’s history and died a quick death two years later, after the acts contributed to Adams’ resounding loss in the 1800 presidential election to Thomas Jefferson. 

FIRE aims to stop the government’s use of the two provisions that stand counter to our ideals as a nation: Provisions that — in their expansive scope and unchecked authority — are more at home in countries like China and Russia than in a free America. By defeating these provisions, no administration of any party will be able to weaponize them against individuals for expression disfavored by the government.

FIRE moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the government from abusing the visa provision while the case is ongoing.

Marc Van Der Hout, Johnny Sinodis, and Oona Cahill at  are serving as local and advisory counsel on the case.

From today’s lawsuit: “Our First Amendment stands as a bulwark against the government infringing the inalienable human rights to think and speak for yourself.”

The ����ֱ�� (����ֱ��) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. 

CONTACT:

Daniel Burnett, Senior Director of Communications, ����ֱ��: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org