The lawsuit, filed in August, challenges the constitutionality of two statutory provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
One gives the secretary of state the power to “initiate deportation proceedings against any noncitizen for protected speech if the secretary ‘personally determines’ the speech ‘compromises a compelling foreign policy interest.’”
The other provision being challenged lets Rubio revoke noncitizens’ visas “’at any time’ for any reason,” according to the lawsuit.
The case alleges these provisions are having a muffling effect on speech for foreign students.
Fitzpatrick says that “Lawfully present noncitizens on college campuses should not have to fear that voicing the ‘wrong’ opinion in a class discussion, term paper, or in the student newspaper could result in their deportation.”
He notes that the Supreme Court’s 1945 ruling Bridges v. Wixon established that noncitizens are entitled to “freedom of speech and of the press.” FIRE’s lawsuit is defending “First Amendment protections for lawfully present noncitizens,” Fitzpatrick adds.
“There are narrow, statutory distinctions between citizens and noncitizens in campaign finance (noncitizens, generally speaking, cannot contribute to election campaigns). But those are not pertinent nor at issue” in the college context, he observes.
“A college education is about having your beliefs challenged, and challenging others’ beliefs. No college student, citizen or not, is well-served by having to self-censor their true beliefs, or engaging in discussions with classmates who are self-censoring out of fear of government retribution,” he says..
FIRE’s lawsuit directly challenges the constitutionality of the statutes relied upon by Rubio. By contrast, the AAUP’s lawsuit is “challenging the ‘policy’ of the administration of targeting pro-Palestinian speech” rather than those statutes themselves.
