Trump admin likely violated Constitution in bid to deport Columbia University activist, judge says
A federal judge said Wednesday that attempts to deport a pro-Palestinian Columbia University activist likely violate the Constitution, dealing a potential blow to efforts by the Trump administration to kick political student activists out of the country.
But U.S. Judge Michael Farbiarz stopped short of releasing Mahmoud Khalil, a legal resident of the U.S., from the Louisiana jail where he is being held. Farbiarz directed Khalil's legal team to present more arguments on why he should be released.
The judge added that while Khalil may be successful in challenging the government's 'vagueness' regarding his detention, the government may still be justified in detaining him based on their allegation that he lied on his green card application. Khalil contends he is a political prisoner detained in violation of his free speech rights.
'If an immigration court holds that the Petitioner did not have to disclose the allegedly omitted information, that could fully dispose of the underlying ground for removal, without any need for a federal court to reach a potentially complex First Amendment question,' Farbiarz wrote in the 106-page decision.
Khalil was arrested by federal immigration agents in New York City on March 8 and has been held in immigration detention in Louisiana since. He was among the first in a wave of pro-Palestinian legal residents who have been arrested by federal authorities as the Trump administration has ramped up mass deportation and tested the limits of immigration law.
While Khalil hasn't been charged with a crime, he's facing removal based on two claims: inaccuracies on his green card application and a determination by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Khail's presence in the country would have 'serious adverse foreign policy consequences' and 'compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.'
Khalil's legal challenge to his detention is playing out in two courts — immigration court in Louisiana, where a judge said she had no authority to question the government's decision to remove Khalil, and in federal court in New Jersey, where Khalil was temporarily held while his attorneys filed a petition for his release.
Farbiarz's ruling says Rubio likely overstepped his authority when he invoked a rarely used provision of federal law called section 1227 to target Khalil and other student activists for deportation. The statute allows for the deportation of non-citizens if the secretary of state determines their 'presence or activities … would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences.'
'The petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that section 1227 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him through the SoS's determination,' Farbiarz wrote.
Removal of this kind, he added, would be 'unprecedented.'
The judge asked for additional briefings on the government's claims surrounding Kahlil's green card application. He also said he would soon issue another order with the next steps in the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union, part of the legal team representing Khalil, said in a statement they vow to keep fighting for his release.
'We will work as quickly as possible to provide the court the additional information it requested supporting our effort to free Mahmoud or otherwise return him to his wife and newborn son. Every day Mahmoud spends languishing in an ICE detention facility in Jena, Louisiana, is an affront to justice, and we won't stop working until he is free,' his legal team said.
Khalil is protected from being deported immediately under a previous order from Farbiarz that bars the government from removing him while his fight to be released from detention proceeds.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Is House size the solution to the gerrymandering problem?
Plymouth Advertisement To be truly representative, why not expand House to 10,000 members? Jeff Jacoby's suggestion to enlarge the House of Representatives as a way to end the gerrymandering wars was a good idea but did not go far enough. Today's data and data processing capabilities would still make gerrymandering possible, even if the United States tripled the number of members of the House, and districts would still be too large. Large districts enable the wealthy and special interests to make our representatives beholden to them, and enable outside money to influence what our country's Founders meant to be local elections. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Technology is distorting our electoral processes. Why not use technology to support the democracy the Founders envisioned? Why not expand the House to 10,000 members, with each member representing approximately 34,000 constituents? That's close to the same number when the country was founded, 30,000. We should also end the requirement that all members be physically present and use more video conferencing and other technology to support the actions needed for the House to govern. This would make the 'people's chamber' once again the people's chamber, reduce the cost of elections, make representatives more accessible, and truly eliminate gerrymandering. Advertisement Richard Amster Cambridge Gerrymandering isn't the only problem with the House I stand in complete agreement with both Jeff Jacoby's analysis of the gerrymandering problem and his fitting solution. Our Framers intended Article 1 of the US Constitution, which establishes Congress, to be the most significant. They wanted House members to be close to the average citizen. They anticipated this body increasing in size with our nation's increasing population, to accurately reflect the views and needs of the people. Capping the number of representatives at 435 in 1929 was wrong — and so is the historic practice of gerrymandering, famously done in Massachusetts in 1812 and repeated often since then in virtually every state. But our nation's lawmaking body is also undermined by two related factors — the use of seniority in committee assignments and the lack of term limits. Partly as a result, representatives spend too much time on political pandering, fund-raising, and trying to manage age-related infirmities. Instead of giving committee assignments to the longest serving members, who have been waiting in the wings and feel entitled to the role, grant them to members with practical experience in the work of that committee. And while we're in the mood for change, let's allow representatives only four terms. This should be sufficient time for each to make substantive contributions, especially in smaller districts more 'in touch' with their constituents. Advertisement Peter Vangsness Medway Small districts aren't enough: We need good government initiatives Jeff Jacoby proposes enlarging the House of Representatives as a solution to political gerrymandering. But it's important to note that the term 'gerrymander' goes back to Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry, who signed a state redistricting plan into law in 1812. Wags referred to one tortuous, lizard-shaped, North Shore district as a 'Gerry-mander.' The congressional districts at the time had about 35,000 constituents each, and digital computers were still more than a century from their birth. So you do not need large congressional districts, or computers, to engage in gerrymandering. To point out something that should be obvious, running an honest government requires bipartisan support for fair districting practices, honest ethics oversight, and effective protection against foreign government interference. Donald Segretti, Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, and others have for decades used dirty tricks to win elections — and many of these dirty tricksters have been Republicans. At the same time, the purging of voter rolls has often disproportionately affected Democratic voters. This contrasts with a decades-long effort by Democrats to improve voting access and integrity, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the post-Watergate campaign-finance reforms. The disparity is stark between the Republicans, who are backing away from bipartisanship and good government initiatives, and the Democrats, who remain committed to them. Stuart Gallant Belmont
CNBC
3 hours ago
- CNBC
Germany's Merz strikes sharp tone with Europe as he cozies up to Trump
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz is looking to redefine Germany's voice in Europe and build a relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump — who many of Merz's European colleagues do not see eye to eye with. The historically EU-friendly Merz, a former member of the European Parliament, now has a long list of complaints about the bloc. This has included objections to an increase in the EU's new long-term budget that was proposed last month, as well as calling the bloc out for sluggishness and complex bureaucracy. Germany was also among the louder critics of the EU-U.S. trade agreement. Merz's sharp tone is noticeable — especially in comparison to his predecessor Olaf Scholz, who generally struck a more mellow approach. But it does not necessarily mean that the German Chancellor's overall position on Europe has changed, Jörn Fleck, senior director at the Europe Center at the Atlantic Council, told CNBC. "Merz's political vita is a pro-European one, and that hasn't changed. But Merz's pro-EU politics have always been informed by and in creative tension with his traditional conservative values — a fiscal, small government, big on security conservatism," he said. The chancellor's jabs towards the EU reflect this political tension, as well as the domestic political issues Merz is battling with, Fleck said. The German leader's grievances, particularly with EU red tape, often echoes domestic voter sentiment. It's Merz' way of being sensitive to industry leaders who are advocating for less Brussels-bureaucracy, according to Sudha David-Wilp, vice president of external relations and senior fellow at The German Marshall Fund of the United States. In July, Merz told reporters during a press conference that the EU had become "too regulation-intensive" and at times "too slow to react," according to a CNBC translation. His tone will also be informed by his electorate which is "not fundamentally critical of Europe but is nevertheless conservative," said Henning Vöpel, CEO of the Centres for European Policy Network. A new German style? Merz is likely also trying to establish a "new" German tone and tweak the country's position within the EU, experts told CNBC. "After the last German government, which often abstained on important European policy issues - often referred to as the 'German vote' - he wants to claim a new leadership role for Germany and therefore take a more brisk and critical stance," Vöpel said. The Atlantic Council's Fleck shared a similar view, saying Merz is under pressure to stand his ground in instances where EU issues like fiscal plans could impact German domestic politics or become a risk to his agenda at home. "Beyond that, Merz promised a new clarity when it comes to communicating Germany's positions in Europe," he added. "For most, that clarity will be a welcome change of tone." However, while Berlin is now coming to Brussels with a new communication style, Germany's view on the bloc has not fundamentally changed according to Fleck. "His statements, the makeup of his new team, and the reportedly close dialogue with Commission President Ursula von der Leyen hardly suggest a major shift," he said. German-U.S. relationship building The sharper tone may also be serving a transatlantic purpose, according to Vöpel. "By adopting a critical tone towards the EU, Merz can appease Trump, who sees the EU as an attack on the USA," he said. Merz and Trump appear to be building a solid relationship, setting the German Chancellor apart from many of his counterparts in the EU which have not yet been able to do so. June's Merz-Trump meeting in the Oval Office was broadly seen as a quiet win for the German leader, and more recently he was one of the key instigators of U.S.-European talks ahead of Trump's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The German Marshall Fund's David-Wilp explained that "Merz is under no illusion that Germany and Europe need the United States, because a smooth working relationship with the White House is important for the continent's stability and prosperity." Instead of looking nostalgically to the past, his priority is to continue open communication and keep the transatlantic relationship constructive, she said. Importantly, Merz also does not appear to see any conflicts or trade-offs in his pro-EU and pro-Atlanticist positions, Fleck added. "Merz seems to have found the right balance in standing his ground on priority issues and leveraging European coordination while not getting drawn into unnecessary rhetorical skirmishes with the US president," he said.
3 hours ago
20 years after its landmark withdrawal from Gaza, Israel is mired there
TEL AVIV, Israel -- Twenty years ago, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, dismantling 21 Jewish settlements and pulling out its forces. The Friday anniversary of the start of the landmark disengagement comes as Israel is mired in a nearly 2-year war with Hamas that has devastated the Palestinian territory and means it is likely to keep troops there long into the future. Israel's disengagement, which also included removing four settlements in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, was then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's controversial attempt to jump-start negotiations with the Palestinians. But it bitterly divided Israeli society and led to the empowerment of Hamas, with implications that continue to reverberate today. The emotional images of Jews being ripped from their homes by Israeli soldiers galvanized Israel's far-right and settler movements. The anger helped them organize and increase their political influence, accounting in part for the rise of hard-line politicians like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. On Thursday, Smotrich boasted of a settlement expansion plan east of Jerusalem that will 'bury' the idea of a future Palestinian state. For Palestinians, even if they welcomed the disengagement, it didn't end Israel's control over their lives. Soon after, Hamas won elections in 2006, then drove out the Palestinian Authority in a violent takeover. Israel and Egypt imposed a closure on the territory, controlling entry and exit of goods and people. Though its intensity varied over the years, the closure helped impoverish the population and entrenched a painful separation from Palestinians in the West Bank. Israel captured the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians claim all three territories for a future independent state. Israel couldn't justify the military or economic cost of maintaining the heavily fortified settlements in Gaza, explained Kobi Michael, a senior researcher at the Misgav Institute and the Institute for National Security Studies think tanks. There were around 8,000 Israeli settlers and 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza in 2005. 'There was no chance for these settlements to exist or flourish or become meaningful enough to be a strategic anchor,' he said. By contrast, there are more than 500,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank, most living in developed settlement blocs that have generally received more support from Israeli society, Michael said. Most of the world considers the settlements illegal under international law. Because Israel withdrew unilaterally, without any coordination with the Palestinian Authority, it enhanced Hamas' stature among Palestinians in Gaza. 'This contributed to Hamas' win in the elections in 2006, because they leveraged it and introduced it as a very significant achievement,' Michael said. 'They saw it as an achievement of the resistance and a justification for the continuation of the armed resistance.' Footage of the violence between Israeli settlers and Israeli soldiers also created an 'open wound' in Israeli society, Michael said. 'I don't think any government will be able to do something like that in the future,' he said. That limits any flexibility over settlements in the West Bank if negotiations over a two-state solution with the Palestinians ever resume. 'Disengagement will never happen again, this is a price we're paying as a society, and a price we're paying politically,' he said. Anita Tucker, now 79, was part of the first nine Jewish families that moved to the Gaza Strip in 1976. She and her husband and their three kids lived in an Israeli army outpost near what is today Deir al-Balah, while the settlement of Netzer Hazoni was constructed. Originally from Brooklyn, she started a farm growing vegetables in the harsh, tall sand dunes. At first relations were good with their Palestinian neighbors, she said, and they worked hard to build their home and a 'beautiful community.' She had two more children, and three chose to stay and raise their families in Netzer Hazoni. She can still recall the moment, 20 years ago, when 1,000 Israeli soldiers arrived at the gate to the settlement to remove the approximately 400 residents. Some of her neighbors lit their houses on fire in protest. 'Obviously it was a mistake to leave. The lives of the Arabs became much worse, and the lives of the Jews became much, much worse, with rockets and Oct. 7,' she said, referring to the decades of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel and the date in 2023 of the Hamas attack that launched the ongoing war. Despite the passage of time, her family still is 'yearning and longing for their home,' she said. Several of her 10 grandchildren, including some who spent their early childhood in the Gaza settlements, have served in the current war and were near her old house. 'It's hard to believe, because of all the terrible things that happened that we predicted, but we're willing to build there again,' said Tucker. After Israel's withdrawal 20 years ago, many Palestinians described Gaza as an 'open-air prison.' They had control on the inside – under a Hamas government that some supported but some saw as heavy-handed and brutal. But ultimately, Israel had a grip around the territory. Many Palestinians believe Sharon carried out the withdrawal so Israel could focus on cementing its control in the West Bank through settlement building. Now some believe more direct Israeli occupation is returning to Gaza. After 22 months of war, Israeli troops control more than 75% of Gaza, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks of maintaining security control long term after the war. Amjad Shawa, the director of the Palestinian NGO Network, said he doesn't believe Netanyahu will repeat Sharon's full withdrawal. Instead, he expects the military to continue controlling large swaths of Gaza through 'buffer zones.' The aim, he said, is to keep Gaza 'unlivable in order to change the demographics,' referring to Netanyahu's plans to encourage Palestinians to leave the territory. Israel is 'is reoccupying the Gaza Strip' to prevent a Palestinian state, said Mostafa Ibrahim, an author based in Gaza City whose home was destroyed in the current war. Israeli former Maj. Gen. Dan Harel, who was head of the country's Southern Command during the disengagement, remembers the toll of protecting a few thousand settlers. There were an average of 10 attacks per day against Israeli settlers and soldiers, including rockets, roadside bombs big enough to destroy a tank, tunnels to attack Israeli soldiers and military positions, and frequent gunfire. 'Bringing a school bus of kids from one place to another required a military escort,' said Harel. 'There wasn't a future. People paint it as how wonderful it was there, but it wasn't wonderful.' Harel says the decision to evacuate Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip was the right one, but that Israel missed crucial opportunities. Most egregious, he said, was a unilateral withdrawal without obtaining any concessions from the Palestinians in Gaza or the Palestinian Authority. He also sharply criticized Israel's policy of containment toward Hamas after disengagement. There were short but destructive conflicts over the years between the two sides, but otherwise the policy gave Hamas 'an opportunity to do whatever they wanted.' 'We had such a blind spot with Hamas, we didn't see them morph from a terror organization into an organized military, with battalions and commanders and infrastructure,' he said. The Oct. 7 attack, Israel's largest military intelligence failure to date, was not a result of the disengagement, said Harel. 'The main issue is what we did in the 18 years in between.'
