Kathmandu— A United States federal judge ruled that the Donald Trump administration violated the constitutional rights of international students by attempting to punish them for expressing criticism of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The ruling, issued Friday in California by District Judge Noel Wise, condemned the actions of the US Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as infringements upon protected free speech. The case centered on visa revocations and detentions of students engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy beginning in March 2025, with Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil among the first targeted.

Constitutional Grounds for Ruling

Judge Wise emphasized that freedom of speech is a fundamental right belonging to all individuals within the United States, not one subject to government control. In her 90-page decision, she stated plainly, “It is not the government’s to take.” She further argued that open dialogue, even criticism of governmental policies and leaders, strengthens American democracy. Wise added that any chilling effect on speech due to fear of government retaliation weakens this democratic foundation.

Lawsuit Origins and Key Plaintiffs

The lawsuit originated from detentions like that of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and permanent US resident who became a key negotiator during the 2025 student protest movement. Khalil praised the ruling on Saturday via social media, stating, “No one should fear speaking up for Palestine.” The complaint also included Stanford University’s independent newspaper, the Stanford Daily, which reported that noncitizen writers self-censored coverage of pro-Palestinian protests due to concerns about administrative repercussions. Two anonymous plaintiffs, foreign nationals with no criminal record, similarly expressed fears of losing their student visas if they voiced dissenting opinions.

Government Justification and Legal Challenge

The Trump administration defended its actions by citing the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows the secretary of state to exclude foreign nationals if their presence could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” However, critics argued that this standard is vague and does not override First Amendment protections. Judge Wise specifically criticized Secretary of State Marco Rubio for what she termed a “standardless” enforcement of visa revocation policies, finding a pattern of targeting individuals critical of the government or its favored causes.

Broader Implications and Legal Precedent

Conor Fitzpatrick, a lawyer with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Free Expression (FIRE), celebrated the ruling as a victory for First Amendment rights. “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child,” he said in a statement. This decision follows a similar September 2025 ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts, which also found US officials violated the First Amendment through attempts to deport students and academics for pro-Palestinian advocacy. That case was brought by a coalition of education groups who argued that the policy fostered “a climate of repression and fear on university campuses”.

The State Department and DHS have been contacted for comment, but had not responded as of this report. The ruling sets a legal precedent protecting free speech rights for international students and scholars in the United States.

(With inputs from Al Jazeera)

Originally published on abcnews.com.np.