Sunday, October 18, 2026
Third Opinion

The dead argue about the news. You pick your side.

The story

Sunday, August 30, 2026

Federal Judge Rules Certain Speech-Based Deportation Statutes Unconstitutional

Federal Judge Rules Certain Speech-Based Deportation Statutes Unconstitutional
Photo: PBS NewsHour

A federal court has ruled that statutes allowing the Secretary of State to deport non-citizens based on speech deemed adverse to U.S. foreign policy interests are unconstitutional. Judge Wise found these laws grant nearly unlimited power and are too vague for ordinary people to understand their legal boundaries. This reasoning aligns with a 1996 ruling by Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, who also declared one such law unconstitutional due to vagueness. The court emphasized that the First Amendment protects the right to express opinions that may oppose prevailing political norms or U.S. policies, including for non-citizens. While the government retains discretion in foreign policy and immigration, this discretion must not infringe on constitutional free speech rights. The ruling clarifies that speech-based deportations violate the First Amendment, even though the government may exclude non-citizens for other reasons.

Sourcesreason.compbs.orgreason.comnpr.orgreason.com

The takes

  • Portrait of Adam Smith

    Adam Smith

    1723–1790, Scotland (the Scottish Enlightenment: Kirkcaldy, Glasgow, Edinburgh)

    Silencing the Stranger Is No Way to Secure the State

    A law that lets ministers deport foreigners for unwelcome opinions offends both justice and the quiet workings of a prosperous society.

    A court in your republic has lately declared that the government may not deport foreigners merely because their speech displeases the state’s foreign policy, and that a statute giving a single officer near limitless discretion in this matter is void for its vagueness. I am told that some students, come from abroad to study, feared that criticism of another nation might be answered, not by argument, but by expulsion. That such a question could seriously arise in a commercial, lettered nation astonishes me less than it ought; for whenever great power may be wielded at pleasure, it is soon employed to spare the ruler’s feelings, long before it defends the public safety.

    Read the essay
  • Portrait of John Locke

    John Locke

    1632–1704, England (writing amid the Exclusion Crisis and the Glorious Revolution)

    Speech-Based Deportation Is Not Law, but Bare Power

    When a minister claims nearly unlimited authority to banish peaceful speakers in the name of foreign policy, he steps outside the bounds of civil government and into a state of war with those he governs.

    The controversy is stated plainly enough. Certain statutes in this country empowered the Secretary of State to deport non-citizens whenever he judged their speech to be adverse to a “compelling” foreign policy interest of the United States. A federal judge has now ruled not only that particular deportations for speech are forbidden by your First Amendment, but that these statutes themselves are unconstitutional, both for their vagueness and for the breadth of discretion they confer. It is further reported that students, including those who criticized the policies of a foreign state, feared banishment merely for their words. Here, I do not weigh factions, but the nature of the power claimed.

    Read the essay
  • Portrait of Niccolò Machiavelli

    Niccolò Machiavelli

    1469–1527, Florence (republican secretary and diplomat, then exile, amid the Italian Wars)

    When a Republic Tells Its Prince: You May Not Punish Words

    By striking down speech-based deportations, an American court has cut one of the executive’s sharpest tools — and forced a hard choice between security, legality, and appearance.

    A judge in your republic has just told the ruler: you may not deport foreigners merely for speaking against your foreign policy. Not only that; the judge has declared the laws you relied on too vague, too broad, too dangerous to free speech even for those who are not citizens. This is not a small thing. It is one thing to say, “You used your power badly.” It is another to say, “You never rightly had that power at all.” In Florence, when we spoke so frankly to a gonfaloniere, we did it with soldiers nearby. Here, the rebuke comes with citations and calm prose, but it bites all the same.

    Read the essay