The Trump administration appealed on October 14, 2026, asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review U.S. District Judge Noël Wise’s August 28 ruling on immigration provisions used against protected political speech.
Background: Federal Judge Halts Trump Deportation of Students Over Pro-Palestinian Speech
Wise granted declaratory relief, but issued no permanent injunction. The appeal challenges her ruling that the provisions violated constitutional protections when officials applied them to lawful political expression.
The Ninth Circuit set January 6, 2027, as the deadline for the administration’s opening brief. The appeal is now pending.
Wise’s order declares constitutional limits but grants no permanent injunction
The lawsuit was filed in 2025 by The Stanford Daily, Stanford University’s independent student newspaper, and two unnamed international students. They alleged that federal officials revoked visas and sought to deport students over views characterized as “anti-American or anti-Israel.”
The newspaper said the government’s actions had created a “pall of fear” among international students at Stanford. It alleged that some students stopped writing stories or asked to have previously published articles taken down. Those allegations formed part of the plaintiffs’ challenge.
Wise’s decision granted declaratory relief. It did not impose a permanent injunction against the administration. That is the relief the court issued in this case.
The disputed provisions let the secretary of state determine whether a foreign national’s presence threatens U.S. foreign policy interests. They permit the secretary to seek deportation when a person’s presence or activities could produce potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
The statute generally protects lawful speech and associations. It provides an exception when the secretary personally determines that a person’s presence would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.
The dispute centers on a foreign-policy provision and protected speech
The administration defended its statutory authority to enforce immigration restrictions. The plaintiffs argued that officials had used those powers to punish political viewpoints.
Wise found that applying the challenged provisions to protected expression violated First Amendment protections. She also concluded that the provisions’ vague language raised Fifth Amendment due process concerns. Those constitutional conclusions are at the center of the appeal.
A ruling for the administration could restore its ability to invoke the disputed provisions, while a decision against it could place broader limits on speech-based enforcement across the circuit. The appellate court has not yet ruled.
Khalil and Suri face separate appeals over speech and immigration process
Separate proceedings involving Mahmoud Khalil and Badar Khan Suri have raised related questions about speech and immigration enforcement. In September 2026, the administration asked the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling favoring Suri, an Indian national and Georgetown University postdoctoral scholar who was detained by ICE and ordered released.
Khalil, a Columbia University graduate, appealed to the justices during the week of October 19, 2026. Lower courts have split over whether people in similar circumstances must complete immigration proceedings before pursuing a First Amendment defense in federal court. Suri won in the lower courts; Khalil lost.
Khalil is challenging a ruling by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It held that federal immigration law barred a district judge from ordering his release from ICE custody. His lawyers say noncitizens must be able to bring federal claims alleging that detention punishes protected speech.
The dispute also concerns which courts may hear those claims. Federal appeals courts disagree over whether district judges can consider them or whether they must first proceed through immigration courts. Those courts are run by the U.S. Department of Justice and are not part of the federal judiciary.
Immigration agents arrested Khalil in March 2025 in the lobby of his Manhattan university residence, although he was a lawful permanent resident. He is an Algerian citizen born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria. His wife and their 1-year-old son are U.S. citizens.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked an Immigration and Nationality Act provision to deem Khalil removable, citing his involvement in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities” at Columbia in 2024. The government said those activities fostered a hostile environment for Jewish students.
U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz of New Jersey ordered the Department of Homeland Security to release Khalil from a Louisiana detention center in June 2025. A 2-1 panel of the appeals court reversed that decision in January 2026, saying his claims could be raised through an appeal of a removal order rather than in district court.
The Board of Immigration Appeals rejected Khalil’s challenge in April to an immigration judge’s order directing his removal to Algeria or Syria. A separate appeal of that removal order remains pending. The lower-court order barring his re-detention remains in place until the Supreme Court rules.
Khalil warned reporters on Monday, October 19, 2026, that if the government could punish pro-Palestinian speech, a future administration could punish any speech.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices: “That is all practically disastrous. The existing circuit conflict threatens intolerable disuniformity”
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said the administration acted within its authority in Khalil’s case and encouraged him to self-deport.
A separate January ruling set conditions for an automatic pause
On January 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge William Young issued a ruling in a lawsuit brought by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association. The groups alleged that the administration engaged in viewpoint discrimination by revoking visas of foreign nationals involved in anti-Israel unrest.
Young ordered an automatic stay of deportation proceedings for qualifying members if the administration changed their immigration status. A person had to prove membership in one of the groups before March 25, 2025, and continued membership through Sept. 30. The person also could not have a criminal conviction or an expired visa.
The order stated: “Upon such proof, it shall be presumed that the alteration in immigration status is in retribution for the exercise during the course of the present case of their First Amendment rights”. Young also described the alleged conduct as a “concerted action of the highest Cabinet Officials of the Executive Branch deliberately to violate the First Amendment right of Free Speech of the Plaintiffs' noncitizen members”.
As of October 2026, the Supreme Court had not acted on the Khalil or Suri petitions. The administration’s opening brief in Wise’s case is due January 6, 2027.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
