Trump administration's bid to deport Mahmoud Khalil is likely unconstitutional, judge rules
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration's effort to deport pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is likely unconstitutional, but the judge stopped short of freeing him from jail.
Instead, Khalil must present further legal arguments for why he should be released, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz wrote in a 106-page decision.
Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and recent Columbia University graduate student, has not been charged with any crime. But he has been detained in Louisiana since March, after authorities arrested him in the lobby of his university residence and put him into deportation proceedings.
Khalil was the first of a group of foreign-born pro-Palestinian academics who were swept up by the Trump administration even though they had green cards or valid student visas. Judges have ordered several of the other academics released from jail, but Khalil has remained locked up while fighting his deportation on two parallel tracks: Farbiarz's courtroom in New Jersey and a separate immigration court proceeding in Louisiana.
During Khalil's time in jail, his wife gave birth to their first child.
In seeking to remove Khalil from the country, the Trump administration invoked a rarely used provision of federal law that allows the deportation of any noncitizen if the secretary of State determined the person's 'presence or activities' in the U.S. 'would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences.'
Farbiarz, a Biden appointee, ruled Wednesday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio likely acted unconstitutionally when he used that provision to target Khalil.
Rubio, the judge wrote, never explained whether Khalil's activities 'affected U.S. relations with any other country,' and as a result, his use of the provision was likely 'unconstitutionally vague.'
'An ordinary person would have had no real inkling that a Section 1227 removal could go forward in this way,' the judge continued, referring to the section of federal law that contains the deportation provision.
But that does not mean Khalil should automatically be released, Farbiarz wrote. The judge said he wants additional briefing on other issues, including the government's claim that Khalil omitted relevant information, including his membership in several organizations, when he applied for his green card.
Khalil and his lawyers have argued that the administration is illegally retaliating against him for his role in organizing campus protests of the Israel-Hamas war.
'The district court held what we already knew: Secretary Rubio's weaponization of immigration law to punish Mahmoud and others like him is likely unconstitutional,' Khalil's lawyers said Wednesday in response to Farbiarz's ruling. '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.'
While Khalil's case has been pending before Farbiarz, an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that Khalil can be deported as a national security risk. Immigration judges are employees of the Justice Department and ordinarily do not grapple with constitutional questions as extensively as U.S. district judges.
Khalil is expected to appeal the immigration judge's ruling. He cannot be deported immediately because Farbiarz previously barred the government from removing him from the country while his legal challenge is pending.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
41 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
Judge pauses IU protest policy, says it likely violates First Amendment
An Indiana University policy enacted in response to pro-Palestinian protests will be paused after a federal judge ruled the policy may be violating students' First Amendment rights. IU revised its "expressive activity" policy in mid-2024 to ban overnight camping and use of structures, such as tents, without approval — hallmarks of the pro-Palestine protest movement. In response, the Indiana Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit challenging the policy last August. In its complaint, the ACLU alleged the university policy violates the First Amendment and is overly broad. Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana agreed and granted a preliminary injunction May 29. "The Policy likely burdens substantially more speech than necessary to further the University's interest in public safety and thus lacks narrow tailoring," the preliminary injunction reads. "The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Policy violates the First Amendment." During the 2024 spring semester, protesters established an encampment in Dunn Meadow for several months. The protests drew national attention, resulted in dozens of arrests and required 'extensive repairs' of the area. Under the now-halted section of the policy, students, faculty and staff could not engage in protests and other expressive activities from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. without permission. If violated, one could face a range of disciplinary actions, including suspension, expulsion, loss of university employment and a responsibility to pay for damages. "While IU supports everyone's right to protest, camping or using any item to create a shelter is not a permitted form of expressive activity," the university said in paid content published in the Herald-Times last fall. "This ensures campus safety and accessibility for all community members." IU did not provide a reaction to the injunction since the university does not comment on pending litigation, spokesperson Mark Bode said. The USA TODAY Network - Indiana's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
How Policies Are Affecting Counseling For International Students
International flags on a campus The law of unintended consequences is a principle that, when applied to politics, describes what happens when the government passes a law which creates outcomes which were not expected or foreseen. A 1994 article in the Columbia Law Review provided historical examples of unintended consequences related to laws passed by the federal government. A 2025 report on described how the federal government has recently displayed a shock and awe approach while creating new policies. Such an approach to creating policies could result in unintended consequences, and many college counseling centers are experiencing unintended consequences related to providing services for international students. A 2025 report on described how the federal government recently accused certain schools of failing to protect and adequately support Jewish students after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks on Israel. These accusations suggested that due to the unique impact of the attacks, Jewish students needed specialized support. However, as outlined in a report on this past January, because of state laws regarding DEI bans, many counseling centers were prohibited from providing specialized mental health support targeted to Jewish students. In general, many counseling centers no longer offer targeted mental health support to any specific ethnic group. This is significant because, due to current global events, certain groups of international students are more vulnerable to distress than other groups of international students. Since these vulnerable groups of international students often share an ethnic identity, many counseling centers won't target mental health services to them. As outlined in a 2024 report by Psychology Today, many ethical codes for mental health professions state that providers prioritize client welfare and not abandoned them with an unexpected end to treatment. Many international students are experiencing high level symptoms which can be addressed by campus counseling centers. However, ethical dilemmas occur if/when an international student with significant mental health concerns is given notice of an immediate visa revoke. Earlier this year, Inside Higher Education provided a tracking report of international students who had their student visas revoked. What this report does not track is how many of these students experienced suicide ideation, self-harm compulsions, or were receiving successful treatment for a serious mental health concern prior to their visas being revoked. Ethical codes encourage campus counseling centers not to abandon these clients; however, in these cases, federal policies might immediately terminate therapy, leaving providers little recourse because most providers cannot practice outside of their state lines. According to a 2022 article by the Iowa Law Review, the U.S. Congress has historically acknowledged the law of unintended consequences through a process called legislative fixes. This process is designed to address the unintended consequences of major bills prior to the courts being involved. The report by Inside Higher Education indicated that, as of last month, the federal government is fighting 65 lawsuits related to student visas of international students. This high number might reflect how many recent policies did not go through the legislative process of the U.S. Congress. Regardless of the outcomes of these lawsuits, it's important to acknowledge the unintended consequences that federal policies are having on the ability of campus counseling centers to provide services to international students.
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Israel Accepts US Ceasefire Proposal for Gaza
00:00 What is the likelihood that we actually do get a ceasefire breakthrough in the coming days? Well, Israel has already said it accepts this plan. This plan hews largely to what the US envoy, Steve Witkoff, proposed back in early March. Back then, Israel also said it accepted it. Hamas did not. Hamas has yet to deliver a final decision on the plan this time, this round, this iteration. There are reasons that Hamas won't want to accept it. It's under increasing pressure in the Gaza Strip, not just militarily, but also because of the Israeli cut off of aid. Well, actually, the Israeli creation of an alternative aid system that's getting on its feet now and which seeks to isolate and sideline Hamas, split it off from the suffering Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip. Again, we don't know if Hamas will accept it. Hamas has main objects of objection so far appear to be in the endgame formula here. It appears to be fairly hazy as to how this war might end. It's worth remembering Hamas wants to end this war while remaining largely in power in place and Israel wants to end this war with Hamas out and gone. It's very hard to see how those two would be bridged. So we're waiting in the coming hours to hear a Hamas response. I want to ask you about the proposal to build an extra 22 settlements in the West Bank and some of the language that has come out of key Israeli officials in the last 24 hours suggesting that this could be a plan to issue the possibility of a future Palestinian state. Talk us through what is going on and some of the conversations that are being had right now within the Israeli government. Well, in principle, this shouldn't be that surprising. Successive right wing Israeli governments have said they're determined to expand settlements in the West Bank. This is in defiance of most world opinion, which sees this territory as a future Palestinian state, which sees those settlements as illegal, as being constructed in territory captured in war. The reason I think this is interesting now is the timing. We just discussed the cease fire proposal in terms of Israeli domestic opinion. Some of Prime Minister Netanyahu's religious nationalist partners would very much balk. In fact, they've already publicly said they would oppose a cease fire that entails easing up the pressure on Hamas, withdrawing from some of the territory captured in the Gaza Strip, potentially even ending the war with Hamas still in place, if that's what Hamas manages to achieve. So it could be that the timing of the announcement is to mollify those government partners and assure them that in the West Bank at least their wishes are being fulfilled. It's also worth remembering that next month in June, there is an international conference in New York headed up by Saudi Arabia, by France, which intends to revive the idea of Palestinian statehood, Israel is opposed to it, especially after the October 7th attacks that sparked the Gaza war. This could be a messaging for those international powers that that plan is a dead letter.
