Mahmoud Khalil, a 30-year-old Palestinian organizer. His highly politicized immigration case has generated considerable national and even international outrage over the state of pro-Palestinian activism in the United States. On International Women’s Day, March 8, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers arrested Khalil in New York City. He’s been held at a facility in Jena, Louisiana, for more than a month at this point. It’s poignant, of course, that his case signals the beginning of a new cresting wave of ICE arrests. These arrests are clearly aimed at silencing activists who take pro-Palestinian positions.
Khalil first made headlines for his part in organizing pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University last fall. He has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States, but now he faces the threat of deportation. Much of this is due to the foreign policy priorities underscored by the Trump administration. A memo authored by Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited Khalil’s “current or expected beliefs, statements or associations” as being contrary to U.S. foreign policy interests, which was utilized as evidence to support his removal.
On April 10, Immigration Judge Jamee Comans issued a groundbreaking decision. She concluded that the memo established “presumptive and sufficient evidence” to remove Khalil from the United States. Advocates for Khalil, including his parents, are rightfully outraged over this ruling. They maintain that the entire legal process leading to his imminent death penalty has denied him due process rights.
Khalil’s attorneys mounted a vigorous defense against the removal proceedings. They called for a postponed and dismissal of the suit, but their goalline stand eventually crumbled. Public interest New Jersey judge has stepped in to stop that. He directed the government to stop Khalil’s deportation while his case is considered in federal court. Khalil’s removal proceedings will now resume in Jena. At the same time, another important legal battle will play out in New Jersey.
Khalil’s personal situation make this legal fight an even more emotional one. His wife, Noor Abdalla, is expecting to deliver their first child later this month. As the couple plans for this milestone life event, they are not sure what their future holds together.
“Today’s decision feels like a devastating blow to our family,” – Noor Abdalla
Khalil shared his frustrations with the legal process at a recent federal court hearing. He focused on how his case demonstrates systemic issues with asylum policy. These laws have a profound effect on those who dance in the margins of acceptable political dissent.
“Clearly what we witnessed today, neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process,” – Mahmoud Khalil
His defense further focused on the deeply distressing precedent of weaponizing immigration laws as a tool for quelling dissent. Khalil said he has felt as though he has been targeted for his activism. He underscored how shady conditions had resulted in his separation from both his family and community.
“This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, 1,000 miles away from my family,” – Mahmoud Khalil
Khalil’s immigration attorney, Marc van der Hout, shared similar sentiments to Khalil, calling the judicial process inherently flawed and an absurdity. He threw into sharp relief the implications for everyone else who shares these experiences to their core.
“Today, we saw our worst fears play out: Mahmoud was subject to a charade of due process, a flagrant violation of his right to a fair hearing, and a weaponization of immigration law to suppress dissent,” – Marc van der Hout
This was the central quandary that Judge Comans agreed was at issue. It is particularly important because it directly undercuts the authority of immigration judges on matters of foreign policy. As he explained, Congress clearly did not intend for an immigration judge or the attorney general to have authority to overrule the Secretary of State on these issues. There is just no evidence of that purpose.
“There is no indication that Congress contemplated an immigration judge or even the attorney general overruling the secretary of state on matters of foreign policy,” – Judge Jamee Comans
As Khalil’s case continues to develop, advocates are becoming more and more alarmed. They fear the precedent it would set for pro-Palestinian activists and scholars here in the United States. This legal fight affects far more than Khalil alone. It truly brings to the forefront important questions of freedom of expression and the due process rights in the context of immigration law.
It’s unclear what the future holds for Khalil as he continues to fight through this tangled legal web. His ongoing detention and pending deportation serve as stark reminders of the challenges faced by those who engage in political activism in today’s polarized environment.