A California federal judge has pushed off deciding the merits of Stanford University's student newspaper's challenge to the Trump administration's targeting of foreign students who express pro-Palestinian views for immigration enforcement, saying she can't rule until she's sure the paper has standing.

After a hearing on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Noël Wise issued an order denying dual motions for summary judgment from The Stanford Daily and two anonymous students and from the defendants, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

The judge said she needs more information that would illuminate whether the plaintiffs have standing before she can rule on the merits, including the relationship between the two individual plaintiffs and the newspaper; how the paper was affected by statements from Rubio and Noem about the Trump administration's intent to revoke visas of "Hamas sympathizers"; and whether those statements pose an imminent threat to the individual plaintiffs.

"The court finds that there are disputes of material fact, and in some instances, insufficient facts alleged in the complaint for the court to analyze whether any of the plaintiffs have met their burden to establish standing," the judge said.

Judge Wise ordered Noem and Rubio to file a motion to dismiss by Dec. 3, with The Stanford Daily's response due by Dec. 10.

The newspaper and the students sued on Aug. 6, claiming that the Trump administration's immigration enforcement efforts targeting lawfully present foreign students who express pro-Palestinian views is unconstitutional and is chilling students' free speech rights.

The Stanford Daily had been covering campus protests and published student opinion pieces related to Israel's war in Gaza following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack in southern Israel.

But after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement began arresting, detaining and placing foreign students like Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil into removal proceedings, the newspaper's noncitizen staff members stopped participating in that coverage out of fear they could meet the same fate, their suit said.

Rubio has initiated removal proceedings against Khalil and other foreign students under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the secretary of state authority to remove anyone whose presence in the U.S. they believe would impede U.S. foreign policy objectives.

The U.S. Department of Justice has argued that The Stanford Daily's lawsuit can't go forward because the paper and the students lack standing.

In a Sept. 24 filing asking the court to side with Rubio and Noem, the DOJ said "there is no evidence that any of them have actually faced enforcement or have demonstrated a substantial threat of future enforcement."

The DOJ also argued that the newspaper can't establish that the government has interfered with its core activities or stopped it from publishing foreign students' reporting and editorials since it was the students' choice to opt out of reporting on issues related to Palestine.

"There are no declarations testifying that the newspaper has been unable to publish as much as it previously did, or that the quality of its reporting has suffered by any measure," the department said.

In defense of their standing, the students said in an Aug. 29 motion asking the court to rule in their favor that they have engaged in "precisely the type" of First Amendment-protected speech that Rubio and other administration officials have said would warrant revoking student visas and initiate removal proceedings.

That included "accusing Israel of committing 'genocide' and perpetuating 'apartheid,' as well as chanting 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,'" their motion said.

Conor T. Fitzpatrick of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression noted in a comment to Law360 on Thursday that the additional briefing the judge requested is on a procedural issue.

"We are confident that once that is concluded, the First Amendment's protection for freedom of speech and a free press will prevail," he said.

Counsel for the government did not return a request for comment Thursday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Marc Van Der Hout and Johnny Sinodis of Van Der Hout LLP, and Conor T. Fitzpatrick, Daniel A. Zahn and Colin P. McDonell of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

The government is represented by Craig H. Missakian and Kelsey J. Helland of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California.

The case is Stanford Daily Publishing Corp. et al. v. Rubio et al., case number 5:25-cv-06618, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

--Additional reporting by Bonnie Eslinger and Rae Ann Varona. Editing by Adam LoBelia.