Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Attempt to Deport Columbia Protester Mahmoud Khalil

Mahmoud Khalil arrested at Columbia

| Published June 13, 2025

A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration cannot deport Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, temporarily blocking the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from proceeding with the removal. The case centers around a controversial legal provision invoked on foreign policy grounds, rarely used in modern immigration enforcement.

Khalil, a 30-year-old lawful permanent resident of Palestinian descent, was arrested at his New Jersey residence in March following his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations on Columbia’s campus. The administration sought to deport him under Section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which permits the Secretary of State to order removal if a non-citizen’s presence is deemed to cause “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”

In this case, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a formal determination, stating that Khalil’s actions, including speeches and organizing, aligned with the objectives of Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. The administration claimed this posed risks to U.S. relations with key allies and contributed to antisemitic threats on college campuses.

However, Judge Michael Farbiarz, presiding in the District of New Jersey, issued a preliminary injunction after reviewing the government’s justification. He ruled that the deportation attempt raises substantial constitutional concerns, particularly related to First Amendment protections. The judge found the foreign policy provision potentially “unconstitutionally vague” and likely to infringe on Khalil’s right to political expression.

The court also considered Khalil’s ongoing habeas corpus petition, which challenged the lawfulness of his detention. Judge Farbiarz stated that the statute, if interpreted as the government proposed, may not survive constitutional scrutiny. He ordered Khalil’s release from ICE custody but paused enforcement of that decision until Friday, giving the government time to file an appeal.

Legal experts note that Section 237(a)(4)(C) has rarely been invoked and seldom upheld in court. The government is expected to argue that immigration enforcement involving foreign policy determinations lies within the executive branch’s authority and deserves deference from the courts.

Khalil’s legal team asserts that his protest activities fall squarely under constitutionally protected speech, and no evidence was presented suggesting material support for terrorist organizations. The government’s attempt to use political speech as a basis for deportation, they argue, lacks precedent.

The Department of Justice has not yet announced whether it will appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals. If appealed, the case may become a significant test of the limits of executive power in immigration and foreign policy enforcement.

Khalil remains detained in a Louisiana ICE facility pending the final resolution of the stay order. His attorneys say he has missed the birth of his child and a scheduled academic ceremony while in custody.

The case has drawn widespread attention from immigration rights groups, legal scholars, and advocacy organizations on both sides of the debate. A full hearing on the constitutionality of the statute is expected in the coming months.

1. The Legal Basis for Deportation

• INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i): Empowers the Secretary of State to revoke a green card and initiate deportation if the alien’s presence is seen as causing “serious adverse foreign policy consequences”.

• Government claims: Secretary of State Marco Rubio and DHS assert Khalil’s organizing of pro‑Palestinian protests at Columbia—borrowing language from Columbia’s own descriptions—as evidence of activities aligned with Hamas, harming U.S. foreign policy and creating an allegedly hostile environment for Jewish students.

2. First Amendment and Procedural Challenges

• Free‑speech concerns: Federal Judge Michael Farbiarz (NJ) issued a preliminary injunction, concluding the government’s foreign‑policy deportation rationale likely infringes on Khalil’s First Amendment rights and causes irreparable harm to his personal and professional life.

• Due‑process and vagueness issues: The judge deemed INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i) “rarely used” and likely unconstitutional under precedent, pointing to its vague delegation of broad authority.

• Alternative grounds dismissed: The administration also cited alleged omissions on Khalil’s green card application, but the judge found such omissions “rarely justify detention” and likely not the primary basis for the action.

3. Status of the Injunction and Detention

• Immediate effect paused: The judge stayed the block on deportation through Friday to give the government time to file an appeal.

• Personal toll: Khalil remains detained and misses key family events, including the birth of his child and graduation ceremonies.

4. What a Government Appeal Could Do

• Targeting appellate court deference: The government is expected to argue that district courts lack jurisdiction to question foreign‑policy determinations, which should be granted deference.

• Reinforcing statutory authority: DHS and the Trump administration will contend that Rubio’s finding—that Khalil’s presence undermines U.S. antisemitism policy—is legally permissible and supported by high constitutional grounds.

• Reframing burden of proof: The government may argue the standard is “facially reasonable” foreign‑policy harm, not criminal culpability—and that political speech tied to Hamas‑support qualifies under that obscured standard .

• Potential for judicial review: Depending on the appeals outcome, the case might proceed to circuit courts or potentially the Supreme Court, testing the balance between foreign‑policy prerogatives and free‑speech protections .

5. Why Deportation Remains Challenging

Here’s a breakdown of the pros and cons surrounding the situation in which the Trump administration cannot deport Mahmoud Khalil under current judicial rulings:

✅ Pros

1. Protection of Constitutional Rights

• Preserves First Amendment freedoms, especially for lawful permanent residents exercising political speech.

• Prevents abuse of vague laws that could be weaponized against dissent or unpopular opinions.

2. Judicial Oversight of Executive Power

• Ensures checks and balances on executive actions tied to national security and foreign policy.

• Courts uphold the idea that not all “foreign policy consequences” justify deportation without clear standards.

3. Precedent for Immigrant Rights

• Sets a legal standard that immigration enforcement must follow due process, not just political discretion.

• May protect other green card holders from indiscriminate or overly broad deportation triggers.

❌ Cons

1. Limits Executive Foreign Policy Authority

• Weakens tools available to the administration for addressing individuals perceived as threats to U.S. diplomacy or alliances.

• Could signal to adversaries that foreign influence via domestic protest movements faces minimal legal pushback.

2. Public Safety and Security Concerns

• Critics argue this decision could enable extremists or radicals to remain despite open affiliations or sympathies.

• The case blurs the line between protected protest and tacit support of foreign terror groups like Hamas.

3. Inconsistencies in Immigration Enforcement

• If speech‑related grounds are off‑limits, the government may find it harder to apply uniform standards for deportation.

• Encourages legal challenges to other deportation statutes that depend on broad or discretionary authority.

Conclusion

Khalil’s deportation is legally blocked for now due to the preliminary injunction. An appeal by the government will probe three main areas:

1. Constitutionality of the foreign‑policy deportation statute,

2. Whether free speech rights were improperly curtailed,

3. Procedural propriety and jurisdictional authority.

A higher court could uphold the block, narrow—or redefine—executive power under § 237(a)(4)(C)(i), or require Congress to clarify the standard. The case may ultimately escalate to the Supreme Court, setting a landmark precedent on the limits of immigration control versus constitutional freedoms.

SOURCES: DAILY MAIL ONLINE – Judge says government must release Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil, but has until Friday to appeal

THE GATEWAY PUNDIT – HERE WE GO AGAIN: Judge Rules Trump Admin Cannot Deport Radical Pro-Hamas Activist Mahmoud Khalil

AP NEWS – Judge says government must release Columbia protester Mahmoud Khalil, but has until Friday to appeal