Mahmoud Khalil case: Trump administration doubles down on bid to deport Columbia activist
2-minute read
An immigration court judge is expected to rule whether the United States can deport Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil in a decision that his attorneys said could have "momentous" implications for immigrants across the country.
The Trump Administration's evidence is a two-page letter declaring that the Secretary of State can deport noncitizens — even those who have not been accused of any crime — if their presence would have “adverse foreign policy consequences” under the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.
In the letter obtained by the Associated Press, Secretary of State Marco Rubio alleges that Khalil participated in "antisemitic protests and disruptive activities" that "undermine U.S. efforts to combat anti-Semitism."
Khalil, a 30-year-old legal U.S. resident who was active in pro-Palestinian campus protests, is not accused of any crime. A Palestinian born in a refugee camp in Syria, he served as a spokesman for protesters and has rejected allegations of antisemitism. He was arrested March 8 in the lobby of his student apartment building in New York City.
His lawyers argue that the Trump Administration is targeting Khalil for constitutionally protected activity amid a Trump administration crackdown on speech critical of Israel.
Immigration Judge Jamee Comans had ordered the government to produce evidence ahead of a hearing April 11 that Khalil should be deported. If evidence does not support deportation, Comans said she would rule for his release.
At issue: Can someone be deported for 'otherwise lawful' actions that harm U.S. interests?
At issue in the case before the court in Louisiana, where Khalil is being detained, is whether the government can deport a person over legal conduct, his attorneys said. In the letter, Rubio writes that he has the authority to deport noncitizens who harm foreign policy interests even if their beliefs, statements or associations are "otherwise lawful."
“The public actions and continued presence of Khalil in the United States undermine U.S. policy to combat anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States, in addition to efforts to protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States,” Rubio wrote.
Khalil’s legal team has slammed the government’s position as unconstitutional, infringing on the rights to free speech and due process with the aim of suppressing political speech that criticizes Israel.
The government cited a rarely used provision of the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that the secretary of state can move to deport any noncitizen whose presence “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Rubio's letter has nothing to do with foreign policy, said Marc Van Der Hout, lead attorney in the immigration case in Louisiana.
“Rubio cites no real foreign policy issues or evidence whatsoever,” Van Der Hout said, “and it is critically important to note that the U.S. government is always constrained by the Constitution, regardless of what its officials might think."
“There is not a single shred of proof that Mahmoud’s presence in America poses any threat," he said. "Rather, what the government presented consists of Mahmoud’s role as a negotiator between Columbia University and hundreds of other diverse students, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, who spoke out against Israel’s slaughtering of innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the U.S. support and funding of that slaughtering.”
Khalil and others involved in the protests have rejected allegations of antisemitism. He has a related lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that his detention violates his civil rights, including the right to free speech and due process.
The ruling's potential impact
The outcome of the hearing in immigration court in Louisiana "has momentous implications [on] whether the government can act in violation of the Constitution to deport someone is front and center, and our position is that it cannot," said attorney Johnny Sinodis of Van Der Hout LLP.
They also said the short window given to respond to the government's evidence, submitted Wednesday afternoon, undermined Khalil's right to due process.
Each sides is expected to appeal if the ruling does not come down in their favor.
President Donald Trump has equated pro-Palestinian speech and protest activity with antisemitism and support for terrorism. On April 9, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced in a news release that it will begin screening social media for “antisemitic activity” to block immigration benefits. The announcement didn’t indicate how antisemitism would be defined, or whether that would include criticism of Israel or its siege of Gaza and the West Bank.
(This story was updated to add new information.)