Tea at Trianon: The First Amendment Protects Your Speech, Not an Islamic Activist's F-1 Student Visa

John Wilson Croker on Marie-Antoinette

"We have followed the history of Marie Antoinette with the greatest diligence and scrupulosity. We have lived in those times. We have talked with some of her friends and some of her enemies; we have read, certainly not all, but hundreds of the libels written against her; and we have, in short, examined her life with– if we may be allowed to say so of ourselves– something of the accuracy of contemporaries, the diligence of inquirers, and the impartiality of historians, all combined; and we feel it our duty to declare, in as a solemn a manner as literature admits of, our well-matured opinion that every reproach against the morals of the queen was a gross calumny– that she was, as we have said, one of the purest of human beings."

~from History of the Guillotine by John Wilson Croker, 1844

Edmund Burke on Marie-Antoinette

"It is now sixteen or seventeen years since I saw the queen of France, then dauphiness, at Versailles; and surely there never lighted on this orb, which she hardly seemed to touch, a more delightful vision. I saw her just above the horizon, decorating and cheering the elevated sphere she had just begun to move in, glittering like a morning star full of life and splendor and joy. Oh, what a revolution....Little did I dream that I should have lived to see such disasters fall upon her, in a nation of gallant men, in a nation of men of honor and of cavaliers! I thought ten thousand swords must have leaped from their scabbards, to avenge even a look which threatened her with insult. But the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded...."

~Edmund Burke, October 1790

Wednesday, September 2, 2026

The First Amendment Protects Your Speech, Not an Islamic Activist's F-1 Student Visa

From The Enterprise:

Last week, Judge Noël Wise of the Northern District of California entered judgment in Stanford Daily Publishing Corp. v. Rubio. The plaintiffs were the university’s student newspaper and a Jane Doe holding an F-1 visa. The opinion runs some 90 pages and collapses two legal statuses that the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act keep apart. An American citizen and a foreign student may stand at the same rally and chant the same slogans for Hamas, the same organization that murdered, raped, and kidnapped Israeli civilians on October 7. The First Amendment forbids the government from jailing, fining, or prosecuting either of them for those words alone. That protection is real. It is also not the question this case decides.
The question is whether a foreign student, admitted for a limited purpose on conditions attached by Congress, may retain the invitation after the Secretary of State concludes that his presence carries potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. Judge Wise held, in effect, that once the guest begins speaking, the invitation hardens into something the Secretary cannot touch. She treated a permission as if it were a right. The citizen holds this country the way an owner holds a house. The visa student is a guest. Nothing in the First Amendment converts the second position into the first.
Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 USC 1201(i), is written for guests. After a visa is issued, the Secretary of State “may at any time, in his discretion, revoke” it. The power does not expire when the student clears customs. The judgment belongs to the Secretary, not to a jury, a prosecutor, or a district judge in San Jose. A companion provision, 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C), makes an alien deportable when the Secretary has reasonable ground to believe that his presence or activities would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. Congress then added the sentence that should have stopped this lawsuit at the courthouse door. There shall be no means of judicial review of a 221(i) revocation, except in the narrow case where the revocation is the sole ground for removal. Congress knows how to open the courthouse. It does so constantly. Here it closed the door on purpose, because visa decisions sit where foreign policy, intelligence, and diplomacy meet, and because courts have the least competence in that arena. (Read more.)