2026-08-29 17:07:03-0400 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
2026年8月29日 / 美国东部时间下午5:07 / 美联社
加利福尼亚州一名联邦法官援引第一修正案的重要性表示，美国政府正以违宪方式压制对以色列在加沙战争的批评者及其他人士，这是特朗普政府为驱逐那些声称在表达观点时扰乱大学校园的非公民而采取的举措的一部分。
诺埃尔·怀斯法官在周五的一项裁决中为《斯坦福日报》——斯坦福大学的学生报纸——赢得了胜利。该报曾表示，一些国际学生因面临驱逐威胁而不敢发声。
“如果我们仅仅‘有权’表达对政府及其领导人的附和观点，那么言论自由就只是虚幻的，”法官写道。
该裁决在很大程度上援引了近一年前波士顿一名美国地区法官的判决结果。那位法官裁定，特朗普政府仅因支持巴勒斯坦人、批评以色列就针对非公民下达驱逐令，违反了宪法。
怀斯写道，言论和新闻自由是“美国持久民主的基石”。这位法官指出了违反第一修正案和第五修正案的言论自由与模糊性缺陷，并因此推翻了联邦政府在驱逐程序中所依据的部分条款。
怀斯援引了2025年3月美国移民当局对参与支持巴勒斯坦人、批评以色列行动的人士进行报复的事件——包括联合国机构委托的专家在内的越来越多专家认为，以色列的行为构成种族灭绝。这位法官还援引了对那些在去年9月转折点美国联合创始人查理·柯克遇刺后批评他的人士进行报复的案例。
“明天，甚至可能就在今天，目标可能包括美国境内任何行使言论自由、仅仅表达政府不喜欢的观点的人，”圣何塞的这位法官说道。
“这种恶性循环与我们的宪法背道而驰，宪法承认我们自由发言的权利，”她补充道。“在这里，你可以同时憎恶一个人言论的内容，同时热爱这个珍视允许言论自由的国家。对我们宪法规定的言论自由权利的热忱保护，生动地展现了这个国家无惧批评的强大底气。”
美国司法部周六未回应置评请求。
《斯坦福日报》主编乔治·波蒂厄斯对该裁决回应称，在X平台上发文称：“我们新闻编辑部的记者本不必担心写一篇报道会导致自己被驱逐。今天的胜利意味着他们不必再为此担忧。”
发起此次诉讼的个人权利与表达基金会的律师康纳·菲茨帕特里克对该裁决表示赞赏。
“在美国，言论自由不只属于那些言论得到政府认可的人，”菲茨帕特里克在一份声明中说道。
在她的裁决中，怀斯表示，政府的策略显然已对大学校园产生了影响。
“政府就受保护的言论传递了一个令人寒心的信息——公开反对以色列或支持巴勒斯坦人，我们就会吊销你的签证并将你驱逐出境。安分点。非公民学生听到了这个警告并听从了。正如那句俗语所说，沉默得令人窒息，”法官写道。
怀斯指出，在《斯坦福日报》，报社中合法居留的非公民员工已经辞职、扣压稿件、拒绝任务、要求撤下文章，并因担心遭遇不利的移民后果而要求匿名。
她表示，非公民与公民一样享有第一修正案权利，但却不得不猜测美国在任何特定时刻、任何特定议题上的外交政策究竟为何。
“这是一个令人费解的标准，”她说。“尽管法院理解政府在外交政策和移民事务上被赋予了相当大的自由裁量权，但这种自由裁量权仍必须确保普通民众能够清楚了解法律允许和禁止的行为。”
怀斯补充道：“我们宪法规定的言论自由权保障人们有权通过言辞、行动或集会，表达可能令人反感的观点、与主流政治规范相悖的观点，或是挑战国家国内或外交政策、军事参与或战争的信念。”
Trump cannot deport students for criticizing Israel, federal judge rules
2026-08-29 17:07:03-0400 / CBS News
August 29, 2026 / 5:07 PM EDT / AP
Citing the importance of the First Amendment, a federal judge in California says the U.S. government is unconstitutionally silencing critics of Israel’s war in Gaza and others as part of the Trump administration’s quest to deport noncitizens who it says disrupted college campuses while expressing their views.
Judge Noël Wise, in a ruling Friday, delivered a victory for The Stanford Daily, the student newspaper at Stanford University, which has said some international students were afraid to speak out because of the deportation threat.
“Freedom of speech is illusory if we are only ‘free’ to express complementary views about the government and its leaders,” the judge wrote.
The decision largely piggybacks on findings from nearly a year ago by a U.S. district judge in Boston, who ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution when it targeted people who are not citizens for deportation solely for supporting Palestinians and criticizing Israel.
Wise wrote that the freedoms of speech and the press are “foundational to America’s enduring democracy.” The judge cited free-speech and vagueness flaws that violate the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment as she struck down portions of the provisions that the federal government follows regarding deportations.
Wise cited retaliation in March 2025 by U.S. immigration authorities against people who engaged in speech supporting the Palestinians and against Israel’s actions — which a growing number of experts, including those commissioned by a U.N. body — have said amount to genocide. The judge also cited retaliation against people who were critical of Charlie Kirk after the Turning Point USA co-founder was assassinated last September.
“Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like,” the judge in San Jose said.
“This downward spiral is antithetical to our Constitution that recognizes our right to speak freely,” she added. “Here you can simultaneously hate the content of a person’s speech and love the country that cherishes the freedom to allow it. Zealous protection of our Constitutional right to free speech is a provocative demonstration of our country’s powerful lack of fear.”
The Justice Department did not respond Saturday to a message seeking comment on the decision.
George Porteous, the editor-in-chief of The Stanford Daily, responded to the ruling by saying on X: “The reporters in our newsroom shouldn’t have to fear that writing a story will result in their deportation. Today’s victory means they won’t have to.”
Conor Fitzpatrick, an attorney with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which brought the lawsuit, praised the ruling.
“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” Fitzpatrick said in a release.
In her decision, Wise said it was clear that the government’s tactics has had an effect on college campuses.
“The government has offered a chilling message regarding protected speech – speak out against Israel or in support of Palestinians and we will revoke your visa and deport you. Behave. Noncitizen students heard the warning and heeded. And, as the idiom goes, the silence is deafening,” the judge wrote.
At The Stanford Daily, lawfully present noncitizens at the paper have quit, withheld articles, refused assignments, requested articles be taken down, and asked for anonymity due to fear of adverse immigration consequences, Wise noted.
She said noncitizens have the same First Amendment rights as citizens and yet were left to guess what the U.S. foreign policy was at any given moment and on any given subject.
“This is an incomprehensible standard,” she said. “While the Court understands that the government has been granted considerable discretion on foreign policy and immigration matters, that discretion must nevertheless still ensure that ordinary people can understand what the law permits and prohibits.”
Wise added: “Our Constitutional right to freedom of speech guarantees people the right to express – through their words, actions, or assembly – opinions that may be repugnant, views that run counter to prevailing political norms, or beliefs that otherwise challenge the country’s domestic or foreign policy, military engagement, or war.”
发表回复