
US Court Orders Release Of Pro-Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil
New Jersey:
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Deccan Herald
31 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Won't get Nobel Prize for 'stopping' India-Pakistan war, rues Trump
In a post on his social media platform, Truth Social, on Friday, Trump said, 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize, no matter what I do.'


United News of India
39 minutes ago
- United News of India
Iran's key advisory body denounces Trump's calls for Iranian surrender, says it's not an option
Tehran, June 20 (UNI) Iran's Expediency Discernment Council, a key institution in the country's political structure, has strongly condemned US President Donald Trump's remarks on Iran to either surrender or 'face the slaughter', declaring that surrender or accepting imposed peace is not an option, reports Iran International. The administrative advisory body said "Trump and the dreamers of the camp supporting the false Zionist regime must know that the surrender of the great Iranian nation or acceptance of an imposed peace is a futile illusion and an unattainable fantasy." The council reaffirmed the country's resolve to defend its national and ideological principles under the leadership of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. It criticised Trump's call for an unconditional surrender as irrational and dismissive of Iran's strength. Trump has been considering giving Israel direct US military aid, making Washington an active participant in the ongoing conflict. Iran has warned that any US interference will be met with serious repercussions, and has threatened to block the Hormuz Strait, which is crucial for global maritime trade, controlling over one-third of the world's oil supply. Blocking it could potentially give Iran an unprecedented edge in the conflict, giving it leverage. The Expediency Discernment Council (EDC) is an administrative assembly in Iran appointed by the Supreme Leader, established to resolve conflicts between the Majlis (parliament) and the Guardian Council. It was created in 1988. It plays a major role in formulating macro policies of the Islamic regime, and serves as a mediator between different branches of government and advising the Supreme Leader on key policy matters. UNI ANV RN


Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Wife's WhatsApp chats obtained via 'spy app' used as valid evidence about her extramarital affair in Divorce case, what Madhya Pradesh HC said
In a crucial ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reportedly permitted a husband to present his wife's private WhatsApp chats as evidence in a divorce case, even though they were obtained without her consent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court's decision, based on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act , 1984, allows Family Courts to consider evidence that may not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to resolve disputes like divorce. The case arose when the husband, using a special app (spy app) installed on his wife's phone without her knowledge, accessed her private WhatsApp conversations. These chats allegedly revealed an extramarital affair, prompting the husband to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife's legal team objected, arguing that presenting the chats violated her under Article 21 of the Constitution and Sections 43, 66, and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They further contended that evidence obtained illegally should be inadmissible. Rejecting these arguments, the High Court emphasized that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is not absolute and is subject to limitations. Citing Supreme Court judgments, including the Sharda and Puttaswami cases, the court noted that statutory provisions like Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act permit limited invasions of privacy in the interest of justice. The court framed the issue as a conflict between two fundamental rights under Article 21: the wife's right to privacy and the husband's right to a fair trial. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It ruled that the right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial, which has broader implications for public justice. 'A litigating party has a right to bring relevant evidence before the court,' the court stated, adding that denying this opportunity would undermine the Family Courts Act's intent. The High Court clarified that it was not ruling on the authenticity of the WhatsApp chats, leaving that determination to the Family Court. If the chats are deemed genuine, they could support the husband's case for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. This ruling has sparked debate over the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of justice in family disputes, with potential implications for how digital evidence is handled in Indian courts.