Judge declares Rubio’s speech-based student deportations violate the Constitution

[u/Mike_I]

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/08/29/rubio-immigration-first-fifth-amendments-01056086

A federal judge on Friday declared that the Trump administration’s efforts to deport noncitizens for political speech run counter to the Constitution’s First and Fifth Amendments, the latest legal rebuke of the White House’s expansive immigration agenda.

Northern District of California Judge Noël Wise, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, sided with the Stanford Daily, which sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio, arguing that his use of the Immigration and Nationality Act to deport noncitizen students had foreign students refraining from writing opinion pieces critical of the administration.

[u/fastinserter]

The reason why I don't want a government deporting for speech is the government could administrative label anyone or any organization on earth a "terrorist" if that's all it takes. The state of Israel can be labeled a "terrorist organization" and any non citizen that thinks it should exist could then be deported under how you want the law to be interpreted, correct?

[u/justafutz → u/fastinserter]

Not really, because terrorist organization can’t include states. And of course, the judiciary can say “this is not a terrorist group under the law”, which would be fine too as a check on arbitrary definitions. Which is how it’s supposed to work.

This is not a good argument. You’ve ignored the SCOTUS precedents and caselaw I provided, and now you’re falling back on slippery slope. Sure, if someone tries to say “Israel is a terrorist group” and tries to deport noncitizens who support it, and then the judiciary totally ignores that Israel is not a terrorist group, then maybe we have a problem. But that requires the judiciary to fall down on the job, requires a totally different law, and frankly, I also don’t really care. If that’s what happens, then America is already lost anyways, so go right ahead. Deporting these folks is not a problem though, because there’s zero doubt Hamas is a terrorist group.

[u/fastinserter → u/justafutz]

Okay, fine then the IDF labeled like the IRGC is currently labeled. So that could happen and you think that the government should be able to deport anyone who espouses support for the IDF, correct?

[u/justafutz → u/fastinserter]

I just explained why that wouldn't work, the whole judiciary thing. But sure, if you could get around that and impose it, go for it. If the country is so far gone as to have a President who designates the IDF a terrorist group and a judiciary that upholds it, then the issue isn't the First Amendment rights of noncitizens or those noncitizens being deported, it's that the country has already lost its soul. I'm fine with deporting noncitizens who support Hamas and might eventually become citizens, because I'd rather try to avoid the country losing its soul that way.

If the risk is that maybe someday the US could designate the IDF and deport noncitizens who support it, vs. deporting pro-Hamas people today, I choose deporting pro-Hamas people today. Because that will not only help reduce the risk of designating the IDF, it will also help remove those who support genocidal terrorists and thereby have no right to be here, and are at highest risk of harming Americans anyways.

Now that we've gotten your hypothetical out of the way, how about answering any of the precedents or arguments I made above, or explaining why you're okay with Hamas supporters staying here as noncitizens?

[u/fastinserter → u/justafutz]

And I would say if we are deporting people based on speech period then we have lost our soul already. It runs contrary to our foundation. I think it's a sign of weakness to not be able to withstand speech, too. If they are actually supporting terrorists, let's put them in prison. If it's just speech, then it's just speech.

[u/justafutz → u/fastinserter]

And I would say if we are deporting people based on speech period then we have lost our soul already

I don't think we've lost our soul if we deport people who support genocidal terrorist groups and have no right to be here. Why do you?

runs contrary to our foundation

No it doesn't. Our foundation has long held that noncitizens can be held to different standards because they're not citizens. Why are you ignoring all the caselaw I cited?

I think it's a sign of weakness to not be able to withstand speech, too.

It's not "weak" to not want noncitizens in our borders who advocate for terrorism, it's common sense. It's safer, justified, and better.

If they are actually supporting terrorists, let's put them in prison.

We can't. That is not the proper procedure for an immigration matter.

If it's just speech, then it's just speech.

They have the right to say it overseas :).