US judge orders release of pro-Palestinian activist Khalil
By Jonathan Allen and Luc Cohen
NEW YORK (Reuters) -A U.S. judge ordered on Friday that Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil be immediately released 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, and 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.
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 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, and punishing someone over a civil immigration matter is unconstitutional, he said.
Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States, 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.
"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, and look forward to removing Khalil from the United States."
Earlier this month, Farbiarz had ruled that 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.
But the judge declined on June 13 to order Khalil's release from a detention center in Jena, Louisiana, after President Donald 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
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Judge orders Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil freed from detention
Khalil was the first arrest under President Donald Trump's crackdown on students who joined campus protests against Israel's devastating war in Gaza. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said Khalil must be expelled from the country because his continued presence could harm American foreign policy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Farbiarz had ruled earlier that the government can't continue to hold Khalil on those grounds, but the government argued the legal U.S. resident was instead being held based on allegations that he lied on his green card application. Khalil disputes the accusations that he wasn't forthcoming on the application. Advertisement Khalil, a legal U.S. resident, was detained on March 8 at his apartment building in Manhattan over his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. His lawyers say the Trump administration is simply trying to crack down on free speech. Khalil isn't accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. The international affairs graduate student served as a negotiator and spokesperson for student activists. He wasn't among the demonstrators arrested, but his prominence in news coverage and willingness to speak publicly made him a target of critics. Advertisement The Trump administration has argued that noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the country as it considers their views antisemitic.
UPI
44 minutes ago
- UPI
Supreme Court allows terrorism victims to sue Palestinian groups
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a federal law that allows victims of terrorism to sue Palestinian entities in U.S. courts. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo June 20 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld a federal law that allows victims of terrorism to sue two Palestinian entities in U.S. courts. The decision reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals in the New York-based 2nd Circuit that found the law denied the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority fair legal process. All nine justices ruled that the bipartisan 2019 law, called the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, does not violate due process rights of the PLO and PA. The lawsuit and appeal involve cases from the early 2000s and not the Israel-Hamas war and airstrikes between Israel and Iran. It was based on the Antiterrorism Act of 1990, which creates a federal civil damages action for U.S. nationals injured or killed "by reason of an act of international terrorism." Founded in 1964, the PLO is internationally recognized as the official representative of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories. The PA, founded in 1994, is the Fatah-controlled government body that exercises partial civil control over the Palestinian enclaves in the West Bank. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 46-page opinion that included a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas and backed by Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wanted to define the boundaries of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Lawsuits by U.S. victims of terrorist attacks in Israel can move forward in American courts. "It is permissible for the Federal Government to craft a narrow jurisdictional provision that ensures, as part of a broader foreign policy agenda, that Americans injured or killed by acts of terror have an adequate forum in which to vindicate their right to ATA compensation," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. In April, the high court consolidated two cases for arguments: a Justice Department appeal and an appeal by the family of Israeli-American Ari Fuld, who was fatally stabbed at a shopping mall in the West Bank in 2018. The Biden administration initially intervened in Fuld's case and another one brought by 11 American families who sued the Palestinian leadership groups and were awarded $650 million in a 2025 trial for several attacks in Israel.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Tuition increases, layoffs are coming to a broad set of universities
Students and employees from coast to coast are poised to feel the squeeze. Although the exact consequences will vary by school, administrators are warning that many students may have to pay more, professors may lose their jobs, programs could vanish, and support services could shrink. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The turmoil is not limited to any one type of university or college, or any one state. A day before Michigan State University trustees opted for tuition increases, a California State University campus minutes from the Pacific Ocean announced that it was trimming its workforce. Advertisement 'If you're a student or family looking to go to college this year, all of the numbers are going in the wrong direction,' said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, who described the mood among higher education leaders as 'dark but resolved.' The Trump administration's efforts to reduce research funding are siphoning cash from many campuses, sometimes by hundreds of millions of dollars. But that is just one factor contributing to higher education's financial crunch. Colleges, like businesses and households, are facing greater costs for wages, supplies, utilities, and other expenses. Advertisement Their income sources are not always keeping pace. In Nebraska, the state government's contribution to the university system will rise roughly 0.6 percent, far below the 3.5 percent increase that the Board of Regents had sought to account for inflation. But regents saw the increase as a modest victory. Governor Jim Pillen, a Republican who wanted the state to have 'the courage to say no, and to focus on needs, not wants,' had originally urged a 2 percent reduction. 'We will need to continue to reduce spending and make increasingly difficult choices to ensure fiscal discipline,' Jeffrey P. Gold, the University of Nebraska's president, told regents before a vote Thursday to impose cuts and increase tuition. Students who enroll at the flagship campus in Lincoln are poised to pay about 5 percent more. In neighboring Kansas, only one of the state's six public universities did not propose a tuition increase for the coming school year. And University of Oklahoma leaders just raised tuition again, too. The White House rejected accusations from some college administrators that the federal government is partly to blame for tuition increases and other budget moves. 'Any school that scapegoats the administration's policies of cutting waste, fraud and abuse to justify raising already astronomical tuition costs is failing American students in an effort to score political points and fatten its coffers,' Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement. He added: 'If these higher education institutions were serious about lowering costs, they would cut the bloated salaries of their faculty and stop wasting money on useless programs that do little to advance education.' Advertisement Some schools are more reliant than others on federal money, especially research institutions, and leaders on many of those campuses have cited the administration's tactics as they have reworked their budgets. But public institutions are also sometimes facing significant resistance in statehouses, and recent rises in inflation have put new demands on campus finances. College leaders across the country have sometimes sought to defend new tuition increases by noting correctly that their prices had stayed relatively steady in recent years. Others point to the number of scholarships and grants they offer, which routinely drive costs well south of the sticker price, and say that many students are ultimately paying less than in the past. In Minnesota, students are set to pay more for less. State leaders maintained stable support for the University of Minnesota — a decision that university officials considered an effective budget cut, given inflation. And questions are swirling over how much additional declines in federal money could worsen the university's financial outlook. Tuition at the Twin Cities campus will rise by at least 6.5 percent. But the university is also pursuing cuts of 7 percent. Academic units have been asked to come up with millions of dollars in 'reallocations' that could lead to program changes and fewer materials in the Law Library, among other things. More than 350 jobs could be eliminated. 'Making these kinds of cuts here is new to us in Minnesota,' Rebecca Cunningham, the university's president, said during a board meeting Wednesday. 'It is unfortunate, but indeed we are not alone.' They are not. The University System of Maryland's chancellor, Jay A. Perman, bluntly told employees in a video this month that the schools would absorb a 7 percent cut for the coming fiscal year. Advertisement 'A 7 percent cut simply can't be achieved on every campus in a way that doesn't touch any of our people,' Perman said. Private universities often say far less about their finances than public institutions, but similar signs of immense strain are emerging. Duke University is seeking about $350 million in cuts, amounting to roughly 10 percent of its budget. Harvard University, which has clashed bitterly with the Trump administration, is urgently seeking contributions from donors and has been making cuts, partly because billions of dollars in its endowment have restricted uses. And in a statement Wednesday ominously titled 'a message on financial austerity,' leaders at Cornell, which also has a substantial endowment, described a dire landscape.
