In a controversial decision on Friday, a Louisiana immigration judge ruled that Mahmoud Khalil, a 30-year-old Columbia University graduate student and Palestinian activist, can be deported. The ruling comes amid heightened scrutiny of international students under the Trump administration’s immigration policies and has sparked widespread criticism from civil rights advocates.
Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was arrested on March 8 at his university-owned apartment in New York City. Federal authorities cited his involvement in pro-Palestinian protests on campus as grounds for his removal. He has been detained since his arrest at a facility in Jena, Louisiana, over 1,000 miles from his pregnant wife, who is a U.S. citizen. The Trump administration alleges that Khalil’s activism and associations pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy, invoking a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify his deportation123.
Judge Jamee Comans determined that the government provided sufficient justification to proceed with Khalil’s deportation. The administration argued that Khalil’s activities could create “negative foreign policy implications” and foster a hostile environment for Jewish students in the U.S., citing his leadership in campus protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza456. Secretary of State Marco Rubio submitted a memo earlier this week asserting that Khalil’s beliefs and activism undermine efforts to combat antisemitism globally57.
Khalil’s attorneys have until April 23 to file for relief or appeal the decision. If they fail to do so, a final removal order will be issued, potentially deporting him to Syria—his birthplace—or Algeria, where he holds citizenship138.
Khalil’s legal team has condemned the ruling as a violation of his constitutional rights, particularly his First Amendment protections. His attorney, Marc van der Hout, described the proceedings as “a façade of due process” and accused the administration of weaponizing immigration law to silence dissent14. Civil liberties advocates warn that this case sets a dangerous precedent for targeting activists based on their political beliefs.
The Trump administration’s reliance on Cold War-era immigration statutes has drawn criticism for its broad interpretation of national security concerns. The provision used in Khalil’s case grants the Secretary of State significant discretion to deport noncitizens whose presence is deemed detrimental to U.S. foreign policy57. Critics argue that such measures could be used to suppress free expression and intimidate immigrant communities.
Speaking after the ruling, Khalil decried the lack of fairness in the proceedings. “Neither due process nor fundamental fairness were present today,” he told the court. “This is exactly why the Trump administration brought me here—1,000 miles away from my family”13. His case has garnered significant attention from activists and legal scholars who view it as emblematic of broader efforts to stifle dissent under the guise of national security.
Khalil’s case is part of a larger crackdown on international students and activists by the Trump administration. Civil rights groups have expressed concern over what they describe as an increasingly hostile environment for immigrants advocating for controversial causes. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for other foreign nationals facing similar accusations49.
As Khalil’s legal team prepares its next steps, the case continues to spark debate about the balance between national security and constitutional rights in America’s immigration system.
