On Aug. 28, Judge Noël Wise (N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-06618) declared that challenged portions of the INA Deportation Provision (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(C)(iii), 1227(a)(4)(C)(i)) and Revocation Provision (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) violate the First and Fifth Amendments with respect to enforcement based on protected speech. The court entered no permanent injunction and directed judgment. It did not address every removal or revocation ground. Official public records opened Sept. 25 do not show whether the government has appealed.
Open N.D. California No. 5:25-cv-06618 · Aug. 28 decision via GovInfo coverage →
Situation Room · United States · Newsroom focus
Federal court declares challenged immigration provisions unconstitutional as applied to protected speech
What did the Northern District of California decide about using protected speech to revoke visas or pursue deportation?
The declared scope passed verification protocol 2.1; this is not a claim of exhaustive coverage. Every displayed archive match opens a dated record.The public question, separated from the record.
Primary records were found in Federal, Administrative sources; 5 records are listed below.
This is not legal advice. It is a scoped public-record review, not a ruling on whether conduct is lawful.Verification protocol 2.1
Verified Sep 25, 2026 · 11:21 UTCScope and evidence
On September 25, 2026 this review read Document 108 on GovInfo, confirmed the GovInfo package lists three opinion granules for the case (January 16, March 13 and August 28, 2026), ran the GovInfo court-opinion search for Stanford Daily in the Northern District of California and the Ninth Circuit since August 28, attempted the official PACER docket route, checked the court's public site, and reopened 8 U.S.C. 1201 and 1227, 9 FAM 403.11 and EO 14161. It checked for later, appellate, stayed, amended and corrected records within those sources.
Names and identifiers searched
Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation; Jane Doe (John Doe dismissed by stipulation July 27, 2026); Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, and Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security, in official capacities; Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation v. Rubio, N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-06618-NW (San Jose), Judge Noël Wise; Document 108 memorandum of decision (GovInfo USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-06618-2) and Document 109 judgment; Deportation Provision 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(C)(iii) and 1227(a)(4)(C)(i); Revocation Provision 8 U.S.C. 1201(i) (INA 221(i)); 9 FAM 403.11; Executive Order 14161. Separate case, not merged: American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, D. Mass. No. 1:25-cv-10685, First Circuit Nos. 26-1141 and 26-1195. Exclude individual removal or habeas cases that do not cite this judgment.
Primary evidence
Federal · Sep 25, 2026Deportable aliens: foreign policycodified federal statute · 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4)(C)Makes deportable a noncitizen whose presence or activities the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences; part of the Deportation Provision addressed in Document 108. Other deportation grounds are not addressed by the declaration.
Federal · Sep 25, 2026Revocation of visas or documentscodified federal statute · 8 U.S.C. 1201(i)Lets a consular officer or the Secretary of State revoke a visa or other documentation at any time in their discretion; this is the Revocation Provision addressed in Document 108. The court's declaration concerns its use based on protected speech, not every revocation.
Federal · Aug 28, 2026Stanford Daily Publishing Corporation v. Rubio (Memorandum of Decision)memorandum of decision after trial on the papers · N.D. Cal. No. 5:25-cv-06618-NW, Document 108 (GovInfo USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-06618-2)Declares that the challenged portions of the Deportation Provision (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(C)(iii) and 1227(a)(4)(C)(i)) and the Revocation Provision (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) violate the First Amendment and are void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment with respect to enforcement based on protected speech. Holds permanent injunctive relief not appropriate at this stage, denies the injunctive claims under the Deportation Provision, and directs the Clerk to issue judgment and close the case.
Administrative · Apr 29, 20259 FAM 403.11 NIV Revocationagency manual provision · 9 FAM 403.11 (CT:VISA-2150)The live manual, reopened September 25, 2026, still shows CT:VISA-2150 dated April 29, 2025, cites INA 221(i) (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) and describes Department revocations that may be undertaken prudentially. No later revision reflecting the August 28 decision was displayed.
Federal · Jan 30, 2025Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety ThreatsFederal Register executive order · EO 14161; FR Doc. 2025-02009Signed January 20, 2025 and published at 90 FR 8451; directs enhanced screening and related policy review. It is policy background and does not itself contain the court's holding or remedy.
Automatic archive only
No automatic match
These scores compare news coverage with automatic archive matches only. They exclude the separately verified primary-evidence ledger and do not measure all legal action on this topic.
See the exact scoring method →Automatic archive snapshot
What this archive shows now
Attention, automatic archive matches, and the next checkpoint are kept separate from any verified scoped review.
No matching coverage is in the current feed.
No automatic match dated today is displayed.
The reviewed primary evidence is listed above. This archive result does not establish whether other legal action occurred today.
Recheck the named primary sources by Sep 28, 2026.
The scoped review changes only after new evidence passes verification. Automatic archive matches are displayed separately.
Inspect automatic archive matches ↓Automatic archive view
Records matched inside VoteFiles
The verified scope and primary evidence are above. This section shows only additional automatic archive matches.
No additional automatic archive match is displayed. The verified primary-evidence ledger above remains the controlling treatment.
Cross-branch archive matches
Where matches appear
Each column is a different kind of government record. A keyword match does not establish the record’s effect on this topic.
No additional automatic order match; see the verified scope above.
No additional automatic congressional match; see the verified scope above.
No additional automatic vote match; see the verified scope above.
No additional automatic federal-court match; see the verified scope above.
People and institutions
Who is shaping this file
People come from exact article-to-member matches. Institutions come from the records in this room.
Key people in current coverage
No politician passed the exact-name matching rules for this coverage window.
Institutions named in archive matches or reporting
No institution was identified in this automatic view.
Reviewed authorities are listed in the scope and evidence section above.
Automatic archive timeline
Matched archive records by date
Sorted only by the date on the underlying public record. This list does not include the separate reviewed evidence ledger.
No additional automatic timeline match is displayed; see the verified primary evidence above.
Why this is surfacing
Current coverage
Coverage controls attention ranking. It never changes the status of an official action. See how every monitored outlet is covering it →
No matching coverage is in the current feed.
More live files
Track another topic
Trade and tariffsOpen live file
International conflictOpen live file
Federal budgetOpen live file
Immigration policyOpen live file
Elections and votingOpen live file
Prices and the economyOpen live fileTopic matches use recent coverage and plain-language keyword searches across the public archive. A match means a record may relate to the topic; it is not a claim about motive, impact, or outcome. See sources and method.