Judge signals ongoing problem in Stanford's daily eviction trial

A California federal judge has rejected his decision on the merits of Stanford UniversityThe student newspaper challenges the Trump administration's targeting of foreign students who express pro-Palestinian views for immigration enforcement, saying it cannot govern until it is sure the paper has clout.

After a hearing Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Noël Wise issued a ruling order denying dual motions for summary judgment from the Stanford Daily and two anonymous students as well as defendants, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The judge said she needed more information that would help determine whether the plaintiffs have standing before she could rule on the merits, including the relationship between the two individual plaintiffs and the newspaper; how the newspaper was affected by Rubio and Noem's statements about the Trump administration's intention to revoke the visas of “Hamas sympathizers”; and whether these statements pose an imminent threat to the individual plaintiffs.

“The court finds that there are disputes over material facts and, in some cases, facts alleged in the complaint are insufficient for the court to analyze whether any of the plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing standing,” the judge said.

Judge Wise ordered Noem and Rubio to file a motion to dismiss by December 3, with Stanford Daily's response expected by December 10.

The newspaper and students filed a lawsuit on August 6, claiming that the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts targeting lawfully present foreign students expressing pro-Palestinian views were unconstitutional and chills students’ right to freedom of expression.

The Stanford Daily covered campus protests and published student opinion pieces related to Israel's war in Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack in southern Israel.

But after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement began arresting, detaining and placing foreign students like Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil in deportation proceedings, the newspaper's non-citizen staffers stopped participating in that coverage for fear of suffering the same fate, according to their complaint.

Rubio initiated deportation proceedings against Khalil and other foreign students under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the secretary of state the authority to expel anyone whose presence in the United States he believes would interfere with U.S. foreign policy objectives.

THE US Department of Justice argued that the Stanford Daily lawsuit could not move forward because the newspaper and students lack of standing.

In a September 24 filing asking the court to side with Rubio and Noem, the DOJ said “there is no evidence that either of them was actually the subject of an execution or demonstrated a substantial threat of future execution.”

The DOJ also argued that the newspaper cannot establish that the government interfered with its core activities or prevented it from publishing reporting and editorials by foreign students since it was the students' choice to refuse to publish reporting on Palestine-related issues.

“There is no statement that the newspaper has been unable to publish as much as before, or that the quality of its reporting has suffered in any way,” the department said.

To defend their position, the students said in an Aug. 29 motion asking the court to rule in their favor that they had engaged in “precisely the type” of First Amendment-protected speech that Rubio and other administration officials said would warrant revocation of student visas and initiation of removal proceedings.

This included “accusing Israel of committing 'genocide' and perpetuating 'apartheid,' as well as chanting 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,'” their motion states.

Conor T. Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression noted in a comment to Law360 Thursday that the additional information requested by the judge related to a procedural matter.

“We are confident that once this is concluded, the First Amendment's protection of free speech and a free press will prevail,” he said.

The government's lawyer did not return a request for comment Thursday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Marc Van Der Hout and Johnny Sinodis of Van Der Hout LLPand Conor T. Fitzpatrick, Daniel A. Zahn and Colin P. McDonell of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The government is represented by Craig H. Missakian and Kelsey J. Helland of United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California.

The deal is Stanford Daily Publishing Corp. et al. c. Rubio et al., case number 17:25-cv-06618in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

–Additional reporting by Bonnie Eslinger and Rae Ann Varona. Edited by Adam LoBelia.