Mahmoud Khalil's lawyers petition for the Columbia activist's immediate release
The arrest of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil was a "targeted, retaliatory detention and attempted removal of a student protestor because of his constitutionally protected speech," his attorneys said Thursday in a new petition seeking his immediate release.
Khalil, a leader of the Columbia University encampment protests last spring, was detained on March 8 and is being held in Louisiana as of Thursday.
He possesses a green card and has not been charged with a crime.
Officials from President Donald Trump's administration have said Khalil was detained for his purported support of Hamas. But Baher Azmy, one of Khalil's lawyers, called his client's alleged alignment with Hamas "false and preposterous."
MORE: Activist Mahmoud Khalil asked Columbia University for legal support day before ICE arrest, his wife says
His lawyers argued in their petition that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had determined that Khalil's presence in the United States would have potentially serious foreign policy consequences based on lawful activity -- namely his participation in protests and his statements about Israel.
"Neither Secretary Rubio nor any other government official has alleged that Mr. Khalil has committed any crime or, indeed, broken any law whatsoever," the amended petition said.
MORE: Experts say Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder, can't be deported without due process
"The Rubio Determination and the government's subsequent actions, including its ongoing detention of Mr. Khalil in rural Louisiana, isolating him from his wife, community, and legal team, are plainly intended as retaliation and punishment for Mr. Khalil's protected speech and intended to silence, or at the very least restrict and chill, his speech now and in the future, all in violation of the First Amendment," it continued.
His lawyers conceded Khalil is "an outspoken student activist" who called Israel's actions in Gaza "genocide," but they also said he has been "committed to peaceful protest."
Khalil was taken from New York to New Jersey following his arrest. He was later transferred to Louisiana. The complaint described a process in which "Mr. Khalil felt as though he was being kidnapped. He was reminded of prior experience fleeing arbitrary detention in Syria."
The petition claims that the arrest violated Khalil's First and Fifth Amendment rights, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.
MORE: 98 protesters arrested at Trump Tower sit-in for detained activist Mahmoud Khalil
At least 98 people were arrested at a protest in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York City calling for Khalil's release earlier in the day on Thursday.
Separately, Columbia University announced Thursday that students who occupied the campus' Hamilton Hall during pro-Palestinian protests last spring have been expelled, been suspended for several years or had their degrees temporarily revoked.
Khalil is set to appear before an immigration judge on March 27.
Mahmoud Khalil's lawyers petition for the Columbia activist's immediate release originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Explainer-Does U.S. law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
By Dietrich Knauth President Donald Trump has deployed National Guard troops to California after two days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying that the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. California Governor Gavin Newsom on Sunday said he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind "its unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County" and return them to his command. WHAT LAWS DID TRUMP CITE TO JUSTIFY THE MOVE? Trump cited Title 10 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the U.S. Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the U.S. is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' WHAT ARE NATIONAL GUARD TROOPS ALLOWED TO DO UNDER THE LAW CITED IN TRUMP'S ORDER? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the U.S. military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows the troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH? The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to assembly, freedom of speech and the press. Experts have said that Trump's decision to have U.S. troops respond to protests is an ominous sign for how far the president is willing to go to repress political speech and activity that he disagrees with or that criticizes his administration's policies. IS TRUMP'S MOVE SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEGAL CHALLENGES? Four legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organizations have cast doubt on Trump's use of Title 10 in response to immigration protests calling it inflammatory and reckless, especially without the support of California's Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who has said Trump's actions would only escalate tensions. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Title 10 also says "orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States," but legal experts said that language might not be an obstacle. Legislative history suggests that those words were likely meant to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. COULD CALIFORNIA SUE TO CHALLENGE TRUMP'S MOVE? California could file a lawsuit, arguing that deployment of National Guard troops was not justified by Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion' or threat to law enforcement. A lawsuit might take months to resolve, and the outcome would be uncertain. Because the protests may be over before a lawsuit is resolved, the decision to sue might be more of a political question than a legal one, experts said. WHAT OTHER LAWS COULD TRUMP INVOKE TO DIRECT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR OTHER U.S MILITARY TROOPS? Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Casting protests as an 'insurrection' that requires the deployment of troops against U.S. citizens would be riskier legal territory, one legal expert said, in part because mostly peaceful protests and minor incidents aren't the sort of thing that the Insurrection Act were designed to address. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial. But, the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Top Republican Flames Musk for Pushing GOP ‘Off the Cliff'
Nebraska GOP Rep. Don Bacon blamed billionaire Elon Musk for bankrolling the Republican party to a point of no return amid the former 'First Buddy's' very public spat with President Donald Trump. Bacon—who has publicly opposed Trump's handling of the Russia-Ukraine war, tariffs, Signalgate, and cuts to the United States Agency for International Development—told the New York Times he refuses to follow his party 'off the cliff' and into oblivion. Bacon pointed the finger at Musk for using his money to muscle his way into politics, saying the Tesla CEO used his financial hold over Republicans to tank a bipartisan spending bill that would have averted a government shutdown in December. 'I sort of blame him for that disaster,' Bacon, 61, said. Bacon was the sole House Republican to vote 'no' on renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. However, he did vote 'yes' to shuffle Trump's 'big beautiful bill' to its next phase. Upon voting, Bacon announced that the bill, though 'not perfect,' 'delivers for Nebraskans.' 'I don't like voting 'no,'' Bacon said. 'I like fixing things.' He added that he does what Trump 'has done' at the Southern Border. 'I have no problem with that,' he said. With Musk on the outs with Trump, Bacon said it's an opportunity to 'fight for the soul of our party,' 'I don't want to be the guy who follows the flute player off the cliff. I think that's what's going on right now,' Bacon said, comparing his numerous breaks from party lines to Winston Churchill condemning Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. Bacon added, 'Winston Churchill, who is one of my heroes, he was very unpopular 1932 through '40 because he was anti-Nazi. But in 1940, they go, 'Who was the only guy that knew what was going on?'' Shooting down any talk of campaigning to take the top job for himself as president, Bacon instead put the buzz out that he'd like to go into intelligence. 'If I had a perfect lane, someday I'd love to work in an administration as director of intelligence or secretary of Defense or Air Force,' he said. He added, 'I'd rather go down in history as being on the right side of this stuff.' The Daily Beast has reached out to Elon Musk for comment on Bacon's remarks.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Israel vows to stop aid ship from reaching Gaza
Israel imposed the blockade on Gaza, with Egypt's help, after Hamas, the Islamic militant group, took over the coastal strip in 2007. Israeli officials have said the blockade is necessary to prevent weapons smuggling into the enclave. Conditions in Gaza have worsened considerably since the deadly Hamas-led attack on Israel in October 2023, which ignited the current war, now in its 20th month. Israel recently banned the entry of any humanitarian aid for 80 days, bringing the territory to the brink of famine, according to international aid organizations. Advertisement The Madleen is probably carrying only a symbolic amount of humanitarian aid. The coalition said in a statement that it was bringing urgently needed goods, including baby formula, flour, rice, diapers, medical supplies, and children's prosthetics. But Israel's defense minister, Israel Katz, said he had instructed the country's military to prevent the vessel from reaching Gaza. Advertisement In a blunt statement, he said, 'To Greta the antisemite and her friends, propagandists for Hamas — I say clearly: You would do well to turn back, because you won't get to Gaza. Israel will act against any attempt to breach the blockade or aid terrorist organizations by sea, air or land.' Thunberg has been an outspoken opponent of Israel's naval blockade of Gaza and its actions in the enclave. 'We are doing this because, no matter what odds we are against, we have to keep trying,' Thunberg said last week. 'Because the moment we stop trying is when we lose our humanity. And no matter how dangerous this mission is, it's not even near as dangerous as the silence of the entire world in the face of the livestreamed genocide.' Israel's military has blocked past attempts by pro-Palestinian activists to bring aid to Gaza by sea, including by force. In 2010, nine passengers aboard the Mavi Marmara, part of a flotilla carrying aid from Turkey to Gaza, were killed in an Israeli commando raid, stirring international outrage and damaging Turkish-Israeli relations. A 10th passenger died from his wounds years later. Israel said at the time that its soldiers, some of whom had rappelled onto the ship from helicopters, fell into an ambush and were attacked with clubs, metal rods, and knives. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition has described the interception of the Mavi Marmara as 'an unlawful and deadly attack' and said the Madleen's mission is 'a continuation of that legacy -- a refusal to surrender to silence, fear or complicity' in the face of the siege of Gaza. Another recent attempt by the coalition to challenge the blockade was thwarted. A ship called Conscience left Tunisia in late April carrying human rights activists and aid and was scheduled to stop in Malta to pick up more people, including Thunberg. But the ship was rocked by explosions off the coast of Malta, setting it on fire. Advertisement The passengers and crew were not harmed, but the mission was abandoned. Israel has since lifted its total ban on the entry of humanitarian aid and, in recent weeks, has backed a new system aimed at getting help to Palestinians without Hamas being able to divert or benefit from it. The effort got off to a troubled start as Israeli forces fired at hungry and desperate Palestinians on their way to collect boxes of food at a distribution site in southern Gaza, killing and wounding scores of them. The distribution sites are being operated by American security contractors under the auspices of a new organization, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. That effort has been boycotted by the United Nations and other prominent aid groups, which accuse Israel of using aid as a weapon. The foundation said it had distributed more than 1.1 million meals Sunday across three distribution sites. In addition, the group said it had delivered 11 truckloads of food directly to community leaders through local merchants as part of a pilot project aimed at easing crowding at the existing distribution points. On Saturday, the foundation said it was 'impossible to proceed' with the distribution of aid that day, accusing Hamas of threatening its operations. A group spokesperson Sunday shared a written warning he said local staff members had received, threatening them with 'serious consequences' if they continued working for the program. Advertisement This article originally appeared in
