Judge says deporting Mahmoud Khalil for his beliefs would likely violate constitution
NEW YORK — A federal judge said the Trump administration's effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil because of his pro-Palestinian activism at Columbia University was likely unconstitutional.
But in a lengthy order issued Wednesday, Judge Michael Farbiarz declined to release Khalil from a Louisiana jail, finding his attorneys had not sufficiently responded to another charge brought by the government: that Khalil did not properly disclose certain personal details in his permanent residency application.
The judge said he would outline next steps in the coming days.
Khalil, a legal U.S. resident, was detained by federal immigration agents on March 8 in the lobby of his university-owned apartment, the first arrest under President Donald Trump's widening crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza.
He was then flown across the country and taken to an immigration detention center in Jena, Louisiana, thousands of miles from his attorneys and wife, a U.S. citizen who gave birth to their first child while he was in custody.
Khalil's lawyers argue his detention is illegal and part of a broader attempt by the Trump administration to suppress constitutionally protected free speech.
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invoked a rarely used statute to justify deporting Khalil and others, citing 'potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.'
In his order Wednesday, the judge said Rubio's order opened the door to 'arbitrary enforcement' and would likely be found unconstitutional.
Inquiries to the State Department were not immediately returned.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump rages against court ruling on tariffs, calls on Supreme Court to act quickly
US President Donald Trump US President Donald Trump wrote a fiery post on social media on Thursday night after a federal court ruling challenged the legality of his proposed tariffs, criticising the judiciary and taking aim at prominent conservative legal figures. The controversy stems from a recent decision by the US court of international trade, which on Wednesday ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in attempting to implement new tariffs. However, a day later, the US court of appeals for the federal circuit issued a temporary stay, allowing the tariffs to remain in place for now. Reacting to the development on Truth Social, Trump blasted the court of international trade's ruling as 'incredible' and politically motivated. 'Where do these initial three Judges come from?' Trump wrote. 'Is it purely a hatred of 'TRUMP?' What other reason could it be?' In a striking departure from usual Republican rhetoric, Trump also lashed out at the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group influential in shaping his judicial nominations during his presidency. He specifically targeted Leonard Leo, co-chairman of the organisation's board, accusing him of giving 'bad advice' and harbouring personal ambitions. 'It was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges,' Trump posted. 'I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like गुड़गांव में बिक्री के लिए 3बीएचके फ्लैट (कीमतें जांचें) 3BHK Flat For Sale | Search Ads और जानें Undo Disappointment in judicial picks Trump expressed frustration over some of the judges he appointed while in office, blaming the Federalist Society for pushing names that he now regrets. 'I am very proud of many of our picks, but very disappointed in others,' he wrote. 'They always must do what's right for the Country!' Tariffs and legal battle continue Trump concluded his lengthy post by reiterating support for his proposed tariffs, which he insists are crucial for America's economic security. 'The ruling by the US Court of International Trade is so wrong, and so political!' he declared, expressing hope that the Supreme Court would overturn the decision 'quickly and decisively.' 'The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm,' he added.
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
President Trump isn't a tariff king
In a ruling heard 'round the world, the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday blocked President Trump's sweeping tariffs. This is an important moment for the rule of law as much as for the economy, proving again that America doesn't have a king who can rule by decree. The Trump tariffs have created enormous costs and uncertainty, but now we know they're illegal. As the three-judge panel explains in its detailed 52-page ruling, the President exceeded his emergency powers and bypassed discrete tariff authorities delegated to him by Congress. The ruling erases his April 2 tariffs as well as those on Canada and Mexico. Small businesses and several states (V.O.S. Selections v. U.S.) challenged Mr. Trump's use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs willy-nilly. That law gives the President broad authority in a national emergency to 'deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat" including to 'regulate" the 'importation" of foreign property. After declaring fentanyl an emergency, the President in February slapped tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China. Then in April he deemed the U.S. trade deficit an emergency and imposed tariffs of varying rates on the world. He later reduced those to 10% across the board for 90 days, supposedly to allow time to negotiate trade deals. No other President has used IEEPA to impose tariffs. As the trade court explains, Richard Nixon used the law's precursor, the Trading With the Enemy Act, in 1971 to impose 10% tariffs for a short period to address a balance of payments problem. The Justice Department said Mr. Trump's tariffs are no different. Not so. As the panel notes, Nixon tariffs were upheld by an appeals court because they were a 'limited surcharge" and 'temporary measure calculated to help meet a particular national emergency, which is quite different from imposing whatever tariff rates he deems desirable." The latter is what Mr. Trump did, at one point jacking up rates to 145% on China. Congress also limited the President's emergency powers in IEEPA to prevent overreach. 'The legislative history surrounding IEEPA confirms that the words 'regulate . . . importation' have a narrower meaning than the power to impose any tariffs whatsoever," the panel notes. Mr. Trump invoked IEEPA because he wanted to impose tariffs as he sees fit. But the Constitution doesn't let the President ignore Congress and do whatever he wants. 'Under the major questions doctrine, when Congress delegates powers of 'vast economic and political significance,' it must 'speak clearly,'" the judges stress. Democrats panned the major questions doctrine when the High Court used it to block Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness, but perhaps they will now see its wisdom. The judges also say Mr. Trump's fentanyl tariffs are unlawful because they don't, as IEEPA requires, 'deal with" their stated objectives. The government's theory would permit 'any infliction of a burden on a counterparty to exact concessions," the panel notes. 'If 'deal with' can mean 'impose a burden until someone else deals with,' then everything is permitted." Exactly. The court's ruling effectively slams the door on IEEPA as a basis to impose tariffs. This means a future Democratic President can't declare a climate emergency and wield tariffs to punish countries for CO2 emissions. Conservatives ought to cheer this restraint on one-man rule. White House officials are attacking the trade court's ruling as liberal judicial overreach, though the three judges were Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees. On Thursday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit put a stay on the trade court's ruling while it considers Mr. Trump's emergency appeal. Meanwhile, a separate federal judge also ruled the tariffs illegal under IEEPA. The White House boasts it will win at the Supreme Court, but our reading of the trade court's opinion suggests the opposite. Mr. Trump's three Court appointees are likely to invoke the major-questions precedent. Mr. Trump has other laws he can use to impose tariffs, though most are more limited than his emergency claims. The most expansive is Section 338 of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Act, which lets a President impose duties up to 50% on countries found to discriminate against the U.S. But no President has ever done so. Mr. Trump would be wiser to heed the trade court's ruling as the political gift it is and liberate his Presidency and the economy from his destructive tariff obsessions.
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
No ‘Thug Life' in Karnataka if Kamal Haasan doesn't apologise: Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce
Bengaluru: Sending a strong message to actor-turned-politician Kamal Haasan for his provocative remark on Kannada language, the Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) on Thursday said it would not allow the release of the star's upcoming film 'Thug Life' in Karnataka unless he apologises to the people of the state. A day after Kannada and culture minister Shivaraj Tangadagi wrote to KFCC, seeking a ban on Haasan's films, office bearers of the chamber held a meeting with all stakeholders, including the distributor of his upcoming film here. "The minister and several pro-Kannada groups demanded a ban on Kamal Haasan's movie. The chamber has decided that the actor must apologise. We are reaching out to him to make him apologise," said M Narasimhalu, the president of KFCC, adding that Venkatesh, who has the distribution rights for 'Thug Life', was also summoned for Thursday's meeting. Sa Ra Govindu, the former president of KFCC, said: "As a Kannadiga, I strongly condemn Kamal Haasan's statement. We have already briefed his production team, and they have assured us a reply from the actor." Meanwhile, minister Tangadagi, who met Kannada star and film producer Shivaraj Kumar at a private function, appealed to him to take a tough stand on Haasan over his controversial remark. "You are like a big brother for the entire Kannada film industry. We cannot remain quiet when somebody speaks lightly about our language. You should take a tough stand and raise your voice against Kamal Haasan's comment," Tangadagi reportedly urged Kumar.
