logo
US judge orders release of pro-Palestinian Columbia graduate from immigration custody

US judge orders release of pro-Palestinian Columbia graduate from immigration custody

First Post21-06-2025
Khalil was the latest in a string of foreign pro-Palestinian students arrested in the U.S. starting in March who have subsequently been released by a judge. They include Mohsen Mahdawi and Rumeysya Ozturk read more
A U.S. judge ordered on Friday that Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil be released immediately from immigration custody, a major victory for rights groups that challenged what they called the Trump administration's unlawful targeting of a pro-Palestinian activist.
Khalil, a prominent figure in pro-Palestinian protests against Israel's war on Gaza, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan on March 8. President Donald Trump, a Republican, has called the protests antisemitic and vowed to deport foreign students who took part. Khalil became the first target of this policy.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
After hearing oral arguments from lawyers for Khalil and for the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz of Newark, New Jersey, ordered DHS to release him from custody at a jail for immigrants in rural Louisiana by as soon as 6:30 pm (7:30 ET) on Friday.
Farbiarz said the government had made no attempt to rebut evidence provided by Khalil's lawyers that he was not a flight risk nor a danger to the public.
'There is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner (Khalil),' Farbiarz said as he ruled from the bench, adding that punishing someone over a civil immigration matter was unconstitutional.
Khalil was the latest in a string of foreign pro-Palestinian students arrested in the U.S. starting in March who have subsequently been released by a judge. They include Mohsen Mahdawi and Rumeysya Ozturk.
Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., says he is being punished for his political speech in violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Khalil condemned antisemitism and racism in interviews with CNN and other news outlets last year.
The Syrian-born activist plans to return to New York to be with his wife Dr. Noor Abdalla and their infant son who was born during Khalil's 104 days in detention.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'This ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others," Abdalla said in a statement. 'Today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family and the community that has supported us since the day he was unjustly taken for speaking out for Palestinian freedom."
The White House condemned the decision to release Khalil, saying he should be deported for 'conduct detrimental to American foreign policy interests' and fraudulently obtaining a student visa.
'There is no basis for a local federal judge in New Jersey —who lacks jurisdiction — to order Khalil's release from a detention facility in Louisiana,' White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement. 'We expect to be vindicated on appeal."
Even though a federal judge ordered Khalil be freed, the immigration proceedings against him continue.
The Louisiana immigration judge in his case on Friday denied his asylum request, ruled he could be deported based on the government's allegations of immigration fraud, and denied a bail hearing. Farbiarz's decision rendered the bail request moot.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Like others facing deportation, Khalil has avenues to appeal within the immigration system. Farbiarz is also considering Khalil's challenge of his deportation on constitutional grounds, and has blocked officials from deporting Khalil while that challenge plays out.
Earlier this month, Farbiarz ruled the government was violating Khalil's free speech rights by detaining him under a little-used law granting the U.S. secretary of state power to seek deportation of non-citizens whose presence in the country was deemed adverse to U.S. foreign policy interests.
On June 13, the judge declined to order Khalil's release from a detention center in Jena, Louisiana, after Trump's administration said Khalil was being held on a separate charge that he withheld information from his application for lawful permanent residency.
Khalil's lawyers deny that allegation and say people are rarely detained on such charges. On June 16, they urged Farbiarz to grant a separate request from their client to be released on bail or be transferred to immigration detention in New Jersey to be closer to his family in New York.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
At Friday's hearing, Farbiarz said it was 'highly unusual' for the government to jail an immigrant accused of omissions in his application for U.S. permanent residency.
Khalil, 30, became a U.S. permanent resident last year, and his wife and newborn son are U.S. citizens.
Trump administration lawyers wrote in a June 17 filing that Khalil's request for release should be addressed to the judge overseeing his immigration case, an administrative process over whether he can be deported, rather than to Farbiarz, who is considering whether Khalil's March 8 arrest and subsequent detention were constitutional.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lula hits back at Trump over judiciary attacks, says US president would face trial in Brazil if January 6 riots happened there
Lula hits back at Trump over judiciary attacks, says US president would face trial in Brazil if January 6 riots happened there

First Post

time21 minutes ago

  • First Post

Lula hits back at Trump over judiciary attacks, says US president would face trial in Brazil if January 6 riots happened there

President Lula da Silva has rebuked Donald Trump's escalating campaign against the country's judiciary, saying the US leader would face trial in Brazil if the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots had happened there. Read here Brazilian President Lula da Silva has pushed back against President Donald Trump's campaign targeting the country's judiciary, saying the US leader would face trial in Brazil had the January 6 US Capitol attacks taken place there, the Guardian reported. Lula's comments come amid what analysts describe as one of the deepest diplomatic rifts between Washington and Brasília in decades. Trump has imposed 50% tariffs on Brazilian imports and sanctioned a supreme court justice, the moves which are widely considered as an attempt to aid Trump's far-right ally and former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who faces up to 40 years in prison over allegations of plotting a coup after losing the 2022 election to Lula. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Bolsonaro could face up to 40 years in prison when Brazil's supreme court delivers its verdict in the coming weeks. Trump has denounced the case as a 'witch-hunt' and urged Brazilian authorities to drop the charges. Lula also dismissed US criticism of Brazil's human rights record after the State Department's annual report accused his administration of stifling democratic debate and restricting the speech of Bolsonaro supporters, journalists, and elected officials. 'There was really no reason to hit Brazil with tariffs, and nor will we accept being told that we don't respect human rights here in Brazil,' Lula said. Drawing a sharp contrast between Brazil's handling of political unrest and Trump's pardons for January 6 participants, Lula noted that 141 people are serving prison terms for joining the 8 January 2023 riots in Brasília, which prosecutors say formed part of Bolsonaro's coup attempt. In the US, Trump granted 'full, complete and unconditional' pardons to about 1,500 people involved in the Capitol assault soon after taking office last year. Lula urged Brazilians not to be intimidated by Trump's pressure campaign, adding that his administration had repeatedly tried to negotiate with Washington before the tariffs were enacted. According to Brazilian diplomats, those overtures went unanswered, with key decisions reportedly taken within Trump's inner circle, a group to which they had no access. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Unveiling a long-anticipated aid package on Wednesday to offset the impact of steep US tariffs, Brazil's government said it would offer credit lines for exporters and increase government purchases of goods struggling to find new markets. A delegation of Brazilian senators travelled to Washington in the final week of July in a last-ditch effort to defuse tensions. The group, led by Senator Nelsinho Trad, met with business leaders with ties to Brazil and nine US senators, only one of them Republican, Thom Tillis of North Carolina. 'We found views on Brazil were ideologically charged,' Trad told The AP. 'But we made an effort to present economic arguments.' While the delegation was in Washington, Trump signed the order imposing the 50% tariff. But there was relief: not all Brazilian imports would be hit. Exemptions included civil aircraft and parts, aluminium, tin, wood pulp, energy products and fertilizers. Trad believes Brazil's outreach may have helped soften the final terms. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'I think the path has to remain one of dialogue and reason so we can make progress on other fronts,' he said. With inputs from agencies

Aid and advice: on Jammu and Kashmir, LG's Assembly member nominations
Aid and advice: on Jammu and Kashmir, LG's Assembly member nominations

The Hindu

time21 minutes ago

  • The Hindu

Aid and advice: on Jammu and Kashmir, LG's Assembly member nominations

The Union Ministry of Home Affairs' assertion to the J&K High Court that the Lieutenant Governor (LG) can nominate five Assembly members without the 'aid and advice' of the elected government overrides democratic accountability. Consequential decisions such as nominating members who have voting rights in an elected assembly must flow from democratic mandate, not administrative discretion. The High Court's constitutional question could not be more direct: do the 2023 amendments to the J&K Reorganisation Act, allowing the LG to nominate five Assembly members 'which have the potential of converting the minority government into a majority government and vice-versa,' violate the Constitution's basic structure? Rather than addressing this, the Ministry delves into legal technicalities. Its submission argues that nominations fall outside the elected government's remit, seemingly invoking the K. Lakshminarayanan vs The Union of India precedent from Puducherry while claiming the 'sanctioned strength' includes elected and nominated members. It even references Section 12 of the 1963 Union Territories Act (voting procedures) as justification for bypassing democratic consultation. When five nominated members could determine government stability in a 119-member Assembly, the issue transcends statutory definitions of 'sanctioned strength'. The real question is whether any legal framework allowing appointed officials to potentially overturn the people's electoral verdict violates the democratic essence of the Constitution. The amendments inserted Sections 15A and 15B into the 2019 Act, allowing the LG to nominate two Kashmiri migrants (including one woman) and one from the Pakistan-occupied J&K community, besides the existing power to nominate two women, if inadequately represented in the elected Assembly. This effectively creates five nominated seats. The High Court's framing of this issue acknowledges the stakes involved: this could 'convert minority government into majority government and vice-versa', potentially subverting the electoral process. This concern is not unsubstantiated — in 2021, three years after Lakshminarayanan, Puducherry saw nominated members and defecting elected MLAs contributing to the collapse of the Congress-led government. Also, J&K's trajectory to Union Territory, without consultation with elected representatives, makes democratic accountability even more crucial. The unfulfilled promise of Statehood restoration, acknowledged by the Supreme Court and despite overwhelming support in J&K, reinforces that current arrangements should strengthen democratic governance. The Ministry's argument that nominations exist 'outside the realm of the business of the elected government' also contradicts evolving Supreme Court jurisprudence. In the Delhi services cases of 2018 and 2023, it ruled that the LG should act on elected governments' aid and advice, with discretionary powers treated as exceptions. Seen in this light, the Ministry's arguments do not hold water.

Trump to seek 'long-term' federal takeover extension for DC police
Trump to seek 'long-term' federal takeover extension for DC police

India Today

time21 minutes ago

  • India Today

Trump to seek 'long-term' federal takeover extension for DC police

US President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he would ask congressional Republicans to extend federal control of Washington's city police force beyond 30 days, escalating his campaign to exert presidential power over the nation's also asserted that any congressional action could serve as a model for other US cities. He has previously threatened to expand his efforts to other Democratic-run cities such as Chicago that he claims have failed to address was not clear how Trump's takeover of Washington's Metropolitan Police Department could be replicated elsewhere. In seizing control on Monday, Trump took advantage of a federal law, the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, that permits the president to do so under emergency circumstances for up to 30 days. Trump also announced on Monday that he was deploying 800 National Guard troops to the city, a tactic he employed in Los Angeles in June when he mobilised thousands of Guard soldiers and hundreds of US Marines in response to protests over his administration's immigration extraordinary moves in Washington are reflective of how he has approached his second term in office, shattering political norms and legal concerns to test the limits of his office's Republican president has claimed that the capital is gripped by a wave of violent crime and pervasive homelessness, despite both federal and city crime statistics showing that violent crime has declined precipitously since a spike in offices of House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, both Republicans, were not immediately available to comment on Trump's request for congressional action. Democratic legislative leaders also did not immediately respond to requests for told reporters on Wednesday that if Congress fails to act, he can declare a "national emergency" to extend the 30-day limit. It was not immediately clear what legal power Trump was referring to."There's nothing about the president extending past 30 days unilaterally," Claire Finkelstein, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, said of the Home Rule Act. "If the 30 days are up, that's that."The president has used emergency declarations to justify numerous unprecedented executive actions, including historically high tariffs on foreign imports and his wide-ranging immigration crackdown. Many have drawn lawsuits challenging his both Washington and Los Angeles, Trump bypassed or ignored objections from elected local leaders. A federal trial on whether Trump violated the law in Los Angeles by calling up the National Guard over the objections of Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom is underway in San Francisco.- EndsTune InMust Watch

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store