Mahmoud Khalil describes pain of missing son's birth in latest court filing
Mahmoud Khalil, the detained Columbia University graduate and Palestinian activist, has said in a new court filing that the 'most immediate and visceral harms' he has experienced during his nearly three-month detention have been missing the birth of his son and being separated from his wife.
'Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone,' Khalil said. 'I listened to her pain, trying to comfort her while 70 other men slept around me. When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep.
'To not be able to see them, hold them, speak with them freely, enjoy everything I imagined our first days as a family would be like, is devastating,' he wrote about the birth in late April.
The declaration, filed on Wednesday night and made public on Thursday, is part of new evidence submitted by Khalil's legal team in New Jersey federal court in support of his request for a preliminary injunction requesting his immediate release.
Related: Mahmoud Khalil finally allowed to hold one-month-old son for the first time
It comes a week after a US district judge said in a lengthy order that the use by the secretary of state, Marco Rubio, of a rarely invoked law to detain and attempt to deport Khalil was probably unconstitutional.
The judge wrote that the government's justification for deporting Khalil – that his beliefs may pose a threat to US foreign policy – could lead to vague and arbitrary enforcement.
The judge, however, stopped short of ordering Khalil's release, and requested additional information before ruling further.
On Wednesday night, Khalil's legal team filed a brief and dozens of declarations and expert reports describing the 'irreparable harm' they say that Khalil 'and others will continue to suffer as long as he remains illegally detained in Louisiana and until and unless the Rubio Determination is overturned'.
His attorneys argue that Khalil's arrest and detention is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to suppress constitutionally protected speech and are challenging Rubio's determination.
In a letter to the court made public on Thursday, Khalil's attorneys write that Khalil is suffering 'irreparable harm from his arrest and detention' including the 'loss of Mr Khalil's liberty; the chilling of his First Amendment protected activities; the separation from his family, particularly his wife and newborn child; and psychological harm specific to his arrest and detention'.
They also accuse the government of damaging Khalil's reputation 'by baselessly identifying him as a risk to the foreign policy of the United States, marking him and his family as targets for harassment and notoriety and severely undermining his ability to pursue a career in international diplomacy and human rights advocacy'.
In Khalil's declaration, he says that the harms he has suffered as a result of the government's actions include 'dignitary and reputational harm, personal and familial hardship, including constant fear for personal safety, continued detention, restrictions on my freedom of expression, and severe damage to my professional future'.
At a news conference on Thursday, Veronica Salama, a staff attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union who is working on Khalil's case, said that Khalil's declaration was the 'first time' that Khalil 'is speaking directly to the court about the harms that he is facing'.
She noted that before his arrest, Khalil had accepted a position at Oxfam International, but that the offer was rescinded on 3 April – a decision she said was a 'direct result' of the government's accusations against him and the public stigma that has followed.
Other filings on Wednesday night included letters from attorneys, a declaration from Khalil's wife, Dr Noor Ramez Abdalla, as well as declarations from students and professors at Columbia University, a former state department official, legal service providers and more.
Abdalla wrote that the end of her pregnancy and labor 'was extremely stressful because I was separated from Mahmoud due to his ongoing detention.
'Though I had immense support from family and friends in those early days, nothing could replace Mahmoud's presence,' she said. 'Those are days our little family will never get back. Mahmoud will never be part of bringing our first baby home from the hospital, awkwardly carrying the baby carrier, and figuring out how to hold such a tiny baby, and all of the other fun, hard, and challenging parts of adjusting to having a newborn. This reality of all we have missed and will never get back is a weight that constantly sits on me.'
Related: To my newborn son: I am absent not out of apathy, but conviction | Mahmoud Khalil
The ACLU said on Thursday that Khalil was 'still waiting for a full and final ruling on the preliminary injunction motion, in addition to his pending motions for release on bail and for him to be returned to New Jersey'.
The new filings and the news conference on Thursday came a day after Khalil's case was raised during the New York City Democratic mayoral primary debate.
The former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, the current frontrunner, called Khalil's detention 'a continuation of Trump eroding democracy, chipping away at due process'.
Khalil, Cuomo said, 'should be released, he should be released immediately' adding: 'He shouldn't have been detained in the first place.'
The Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, who is polling in second place, said that Khalil 'should be set free', adding that Khalil 'should be at home with his wife Noor and their young child'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
39 minutes ago
What to know about debate over protesters and ICE agents wearing masks amid immigration crackdowns
CHICAGO -- President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly called for mask-wearing at protests to be banned and for protesters whose faces are covered to be arrested, with the most recent push following demonstrations in Los Angeles over immigration raids. Legal experts told The Associated Press there are a variety of reasons people may want to cover their faces while protesting, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas. With legislative action happening across the U.S., they say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. Protesters, meanwhile, have voiced anger over footage of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents covering their faces at immigration raids and masked officers at the Los Angeles protests, calling it a double standard. Here are some things to know about the debate over face masks: At least 18 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings in some way, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, according to the center. Many of these laws date back to the 1940s and '50s when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and the Republican president's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters, sometimes inconsistently. Trump's calls to arrest protesters for wearing masks came as federal agents were seen donning masks while conducting raids in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities. Democratic lawmakers in California have introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks amid concerns that ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct during high-profile immigration raids. The issue also came up at a congressional hearing on June 12, when Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Republican federal officials have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable." Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the right to free speech includes the right to speak out anonymously. But he said how it should apply to protesters wearing masks remains 'an unresolved First Amendment question.' For Stone, that raises a key question: Why should protesters and ICE agents be subject to different rules? 'The government doesn't want them to be targeted because they engaged in their responsibilities as ICE agents,' Stone said. 'But that's the same thing as the argument as to why you want demonstrators to wear masks. They want to wear masks so they can do their 'jobs' of engaging in free speech properly. The same rationale for the officers wearing masks should apply to the protesters.'
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What to know about debate over protesters and ICE agents wearing masks amid immigration crackdowns
CHICAGO (AP) — President Donald Trump and his allies have repeatedly called for mask-wearing at protests to be banned and for protesters whose faces are covered to be arrested, with the most recent push following demonstrations in Los Angeles over immigration raids. Legal experts told The Associated Press there are a variety of reasons people may want to cover their faces while protesting, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas. With legislative action happening across the U.S., they say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. Protesters, meanwhile, have voiced anger over footage of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents covering their faces at immigration raids and masked officers at the Los Angeles protests, calling it a double standard. Here are some things to know about the debate over face masks: Legislative efforts target masked protesters At least 18 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings in some way, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, according to the center. Many of these laws date back to the 1940s and '50s when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and the Republican president's immigration policies, Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters, sometimes inconsistently. Concerns over masked ICE agents Trump's calls to arrest protesters for wearing masks came as federal agents were seen donning masks while conducting raids in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities. Democratic lawmakers in California have introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks amid concerns that ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct during high-profile immigration raids. The issue also came up at a congressional hearing on June 12, when Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Republican federal officials have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable.' Unresolved First Amendment question Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that the right to free speech includes the right to speak out anonymously. But he said how it should apply to protesters wearing masks remains 'an unresolved First Amendment question.' For Stone, that raises a key question: Why should protesters and ICE agents be subject to different rules? 'The government doesn't want them to be targeted because they engaged in their responsibilities as ICE agents,' Stone said. 'But that's the same thing as the argument as to why you want demonstrators to wear masks. They want to wear masks so they can do their 'jobs' of engaging in free speech properly. The same rationale for the officers wearing masks should apply to the protesters.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
How covering your face became a constitutional matter: Mask debate tests free speech rights
CHICAGO (AP) — Many of the protesters who flooded the streets of Los Angeles to oppose President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown wore masks or other face coverings, drawing scorn from him. 'MASKS WILL NOT BE ALLOWED to be worn at protests,' Trump posted on his social media platform, adding that mask-wearing protesters should be arrested. Protesters and their supporters argue Trump's comments and repeated calls by the Republican president's allies to ban masks at protests are an attempt to stifle popular dissent. They also note a double standard at play: In Los Angeles and elsewhere, protesters were at times confronted by officers who had their faces covered. And some U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have worn masks while carrying out high-profile raids in Los Angeles and other cities. All of which begs the question: Can something that covers your mouth protect free speech? Protesters say the answer is an emphatic yes. Several legal experts say it's only a matter of time before the issue returns to the courts. 'What do these people have to hide, and why?' Trump's post calling for a ban on masks came after immigration raids sparked protests , which included some reports of vandalism and violence toward police. 'What do these people have to hide, and why?' he asked on Truth Social on June 8. The next day, Trump raged against the anti-ICE protests, calling for the arrest of people in face masks. It's not a new idea. Legal experts and First Amendment advocates warn of a rising number of laws banning masks being wielded against protesters and their impacts on people's right to protest and privacy amid mounting surveillance. The legal question became even more complicated when Democratic lawmakers in California introduced legislation aiming to stop federal agents and local police officers from wearing face masks. That came amid concerns ICE agents were attempting to hide their identities and avoid accountability for potential misconduct. 'The recent federal operations in California have created an environment of profound terror,' state Sen. Scott Wiener said in a press release. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the California bill 'despicable.' 'While ICE officers are being assaulted by rioters and having rocks and Molotov cocktails thrown at them, a sanctuary politician is trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxed and targeted by known and suspected terrorist sympathizers,' McLaughlin said in a statement. State restrictions on mask-wearing At least 18 states and Washington, D.C., have laws that restrict masks and other face coverings, said Elly Page, senior legal adviser with the International Center for Not-For-Profit Law. Since October 2023, at least 16 bills have been introduced in eight states and Congress to restrict masks at protests, the center says. The laws aren't just remnants of the coronavirus pandemic. Many date back to the 1940s and '50s, when many states passed anti-mask laws as a response to the Ku Klux Klan, whose members hid their identities while terrorizing victims. Amid protests against the war in Gaza and Trump's immigration policies , Page said there have been attempts to revive these rarely used laws to target protesters. Page also raised concerns about the laws being enforced inconsistently and only against movements the federal government doesn't like. In May, North Carolina Senate Republicans passed a plan to repeal a pandemic-era law that allowed the wearing of masks in public for health reasons, a move spurred in part by demonstrations against the war in Gaza where some protesters wore masks. The suburban New York county of Nassau passed legislation in August to ban wearing masks in public. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, last month sent a letter to the state's public universities stating protesters could be charged with a felony under the state's anti-mask law. Administrators at the University of North Carolina have warned protesters that wearing masks violates the state's anti-mask law, and University of Florida students arrested during a protest were charged with wearing masks in public. An unresolved First Amendment question People may want to cover their faces while protesting for a variety of reasons, including to protect their health, for religious reasons, to avoid government retaliation, to prevent surveillance and doxing, or to protect themselves from tear gas, said Tim Zick, law professor at William and Mary Law School. 'Protecting protesters' ability to wear masks is part of protecting our First Amendment right to peacefully protest,' Zick said. Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago law professor, said the federal government and Republican state lawmakers assert that the laws are intended not to restrict speech but to 'restrict unlawful conduct that people would be more likely to engage in if they can wear masks and that would make it more difficult for law enforcement to investigate if people are wearing masks.' Conversely, he said, First Amendment advocates oppose such laws because they deter people from protesting if they fear retaliation. Stone said the issue is an 'unresolved First Amendment question' that has yet to be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court , but the court 'has made clear that there is a right to anonymity protected by the First Amendment.' Few of these laws have been challenged in court, Stone said. And lower-court decisions on mask bans are mixed, though several courts have struck down broader anti-mask laws for criminalizing peaceful expression. Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the right to speak anonymously has 'deep roots in the nation's founding, including when anonymous pamphlets criticizing British rule circulated in the colonies.' Federal agents wearing masks 'The right to speak anonymously allows Americans to express dissenting or unpopular opinions without exposing themselves to retaliation or harassment from the government,' Terr said. First Amendment advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have called the masks an attempt by ICE agents to escape accountability and intimidate immigrants. During a June 12 congressional hearing, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, a Democrat, criticized ICE agents wearing masks during raids, saying: 'Don't wear masks. Identify who you are.' Viral videos appeared to show residents of Martha's Vineyard in Massachusetts confronting federal agents , asking them to identify themselves and explain why they were wearing masks. U.S. Rep. Bill Keating, a Democrat who represents Cape Cod, decried 'the decision to use unmarked vehicles, plain clothed officers and masks' in a June 2 letter to federal officials. Republican federal officials, meanwhile, have maintained that masks protect agents from doxing. 'I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line and their family on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is,' ICE acting Director Todd Lyons said. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
