Federal Judge Halts Deportation of Columbia Activist Amid Free Speech Concerns
A federal judge in New York has temporarily blocked the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and Columbia University alumnus, following his arrest by federal immigration authorities. Khalil's legal status will remain unchanged until a court conference takes place, as stipulated in a Monday court filing.
Khalil, who recently completed his master’s degree, was arrested at his university-owned apartment by plainclothes Department of Homeland Security agents acting on a State Department order to revoke his green card. The agents claimed his legal status had been rescinded, although Khalil's attorneys argue that only an immigration judge holds authority to revoke a green card.
The case comes amid an intensifying crackdown on pro-Palestinian student protests, with Khalil’s arrest cited as one of the first steps in a broader federal initiative against such activism. His lawyers emphasize that the arrest raises concerns about the use of immigration enforcement to suppress political expression. Meanwhile, hundreds of supporters have rallied in Manhattan, demanding his release.
Khalil, a prominent figure in Columbia University's anti-war movement, was previously under investigation by a university committee for his activism related to Gaza. Legal experts note that the statute under which Khalil is being detained allows for the deportation of legal residents if their actions are deemed to have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States. This statute, while rarely invoked, has raised alarms over potential misuse to stifle dissent.
Khalil’s case has attracted widespread attention, with advocates questioning the legality of using immigration law to target political speech. Critics describe the actions against Khalil as a disturbing precedent, calling for transparency and due process.
As of now, Khalil is being held at a detention center in Louisiana, complicating his access to legal representation and family. His lawyers are challenging this transfer, arguing that it undermines the court’s jurisdiction.
