The Sun, along with 54 other college news organizations and leaders, signed an amicus brief on Wednesday in support of The Stanford Daily’s ongoing lawsuit against U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem — Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation et al. v. Rubio et al.
The amicus brief, which is a statement that an individual or organization can sign and send to a court in support of a party in a lawsuit, was filed with the Student Press Law Center, the Associated Collegiate Press and the College Media Association. These three national groups work to support free press rights for student journalists.
The suit, filed on Aug. 6 on behalf of The Daily by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression — an organization seeking to protect and defend freedom of speech in the United States — contests two provisions from existing federal immigration law that it argues have been used to infringe on constitutionally protected speech.
The suit directly challenges two provisions from the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act that would allow the Secretary of State to deport any noncitizen that the government deems to “compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest” with their speech on campus and to revoke visas of noncitizens “at any time, in his discretion.”
According to the suit, legal noncitizen members of The Daily have “self-censored” while writing about pro-Palestinian protests at Stanford or related political issues in fear of retaliation from the federal government. The suit claims that editors and staffers at The Daily have either had to quit the paper or request to remove online articles due to the government threats of “adverse immigration consequences.”
Greta Reich, the editor-in-chief at The Daily, wrote that the paper is losing a significant portion of student voices due to a “real fear on campus [that] reaches into the newsroom.”
“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,” Reich wrote.
FIRE, which filed the suit on behalf of The Stanford Daily Publishing Corps, claims that the two provisions of the INA are unconstitutional due to their violations of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits the federal government from restricting the right to freedom of speech and of the press. The suit also alleges that the provisions violate the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees a citizen's right to due process in legal proceedings, as the Constitution prohibits “vague laws” that could lead to arbitrary enforcement.
The brief emphasizes the importance of freedom of speech on college campuses, citing the “high-profile arrests” of student activists like Mahmoud Khalil, Mohsen Mahdawi and Rumeysa Ozturk in early 2025, which showed the “audacious characterization of their speech as cause for removal from the United States.”
According to the amicus brief, The Daily’s suit highlights “the importance of the work of a student press that reflects a diverse range of viewpoints,” and how the "government's attack on disfavored speech” has affected student-led newsrooms across the country. The brief also asserts that both citizen and noncitizen journalists at student media outlets across the U.S. have seen their work “hampered for the better part of a year” due to the government’s actions.
The amicus brief calls for the court to grant The Daily’s challenge to the two provisions of the INA and stop the “defendants from unconstitutionally applying the Revocation Provision and Deportation Provision to punish international students for their protected speech activity.”
Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney with FIRE, explained that the government’s threats regarding visa revocation and deportation due to speech contradict the U.S. Constitution.
“In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” Fitzpatrick said. “Free speech isn’t a privilege the government hands out. Under our Constitution it is the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”
According to SPLC, ACP, CMA and the 55 collegiate news organizations and leaders that signed the brief, the suits’ outcome will have notable implications on the future of student journalism.
“If not enjoined, the threat of visa revocations to punish disfavored speech will inflict further harm on student newsrooms,” the amicus brief states. “A free press cannot thrive in an atmosphere of fear, whether the threat comes from a university dean or a federal deportation order.”
Matthew Kiviat is a member of the Class of 2027 in the College of Arts and Sciences. He is the assistant managing editor for the 143rd Editorial Board and was a news editor for the 142nd Editorial Board. He can be reached at mkiviat@cornellsun.com.
