Trump admin likely violated Constitution in bid to deport Columbia University activist, judge says

Supporters of Mahmoud Khalil rally outside the federal courthouse in Newark on March 28, 2025. (Reena Rose Sibayan for New Jersey Monitor)
A federal judge said Wednesday that attempts to deport a pro-Palestinian Columbia University activist likely violate the Constitution, dealing a potential blow to efforts by the Trump administration to kick political student activists out of the country.
But U.S. Judge Michael Farbiarz stopped short of releasing Mahmoud Khalil, a legal resident of the U.S., from the Louisiana jail where he is being held. Farbiarz directed Khalil's legal team to present more arguments on why he should be released.
The judge added that while Khalil may be successful in challenging the government's 'vagueness' regarding his detention, the government may still be justified in detaining him based on their allegation that he lied on his green card application. Khalil contends he is a political prisoner detained in violation of his free speech rights.
'If an immigration court holds that the Petitioner did not have to disclose the allegedly omitted information, that could fully dispose of the underlying ground for removal, without any need for a federal court to reach a potentially complex First Amendment question,' Farbiarz wrote in the 106-page decision.
Khalil was arrested by federal immigration agents in New York City on March 8 and has been held in immigration detention in Louisiana since. He was among the first in a wave of pro-Palestinian legal residents who have been arrested by federal authorities as the Trump administration has ramped up mass deportation and tested the limits of immigration law.
While Khalil hasn't been charged with a crime, he's facing removal based on two claims: inaccuracies on his green card application and a determination by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Khail's presence in the country would have 'serious adverse foreign policy consequences' and 'compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.'
Khalil's legal challenge to his detention is playing out in two courts — immigration court in Louisiana, where a judge said she had no authority to question the government's decision to remove Khalil, and in federal court in New Jersey, where Khalil was temporarily held while his attorneys filed a petition for his release.
Farbiarz's ruling says Rubio likely overstepped his authority when he invoked a rarely used provision of federal law called section 1227 to target Khalil and other student activists for deportation. The statute allows for the deportation of non-citizens if the secretary of state determines their 'presence or activities … would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences.'
'The petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that section 1227 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him through the SoS's determination,' Farbiarz wrote.
Removal of this kind, he added, would be 'unprecedented.'
The judge asked for additional briefings on the government's claims surrounding Kahlil's green card application. He also said he would soon issue another order with the next steps in the case.
The American Civil Liberties Union, part of the legal team representing Khalil, said in a statement they vow to keep fighting for his release.
'We will work as quickly as possible to provide the court the additional information it requested supporting our effort to free Mahmoud or otherwise return him to his wife and newborn son. Every day Mahmoud spends languishing in an ICE detention facility in Jena, Louisiana, is an affront to justice, and we won't stop working until he is free,' his legal team said.
Khalil is protected from being deported immediately under a previous order from Farbiarz that bars the government from removing him while his fight to be released from detention proceeds.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

29 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Mahmoud Khalil vows to continue protesting Israel and the war in Gaza after release from detention

Advertisement Joining Khalil at the airport, Ocasio-Cortez said his detention violated the First Amendment and was 'an affront to every American.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'He has been accused, baselessly, of horrific allegations simply because the Trump administration and our overall establishment disagrees with his political speech,' she said. 'The Trump administration knows that they are waging a losing legal battle,' Ocasio-Cortez added. 'They are violating the law, and they know that they are violating the law.' Khalil, a 30-year-old legal resident whose wife gave birth during his 104 days of detention, said he also will speak up for the immigrants he left behind in the detention center. 'Whether you are a citizen, an immigrant, anyone in this land, you're not illegal. That doesn't make you less of a human,' he said. Advertisement Khalil was not accused of breaking any laws during the protests at Columbia. However the administration has said noncitizens who participate in such demonstrations should be expelled from the country for expressing views it considers to be antisemitic and 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Khalil was released after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said it would be 'highly, highly unusual' for the government to continue detaining a legal resident who was unlikely to flee and had not been accused of any violence. The government filed notice Friday evening that it was appealing Khalil's release. Ramer reported from Concord, New Hampshire.

Boston Globe

an hour ago

• Boston Globe

Second Read trial comes to an end

Winthrop The verdict in the second Karen Read trial demonstrates serious distrust of the police. Small law-enforcement misdeeds add up over time. The result: systemic distrust. Stephen Jacobson Eastham Often, when prosecutors charge a person with a crime, the defense tries to essentially shrink the evidence — to get the court to exclude it, or to argue that it shouldn't be believed, so there won't be enough left to find the defendant guilty. Advertisement At a minimum, for the good of the Commonwealth, this trial demands that law enforcement reread the law, reread the Constitution, and reread their oaths. Jape Shattuck Advertisement Newport, R.I.

Boston Globe

2 hours ago

• Boston Globe

Democrats, and some Republicans, question Trump's unilateral attack

Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'The foreign minister of Israel said Friday night that its own bombing campaign had set the Iranian nuclear program back 'at least two or three years,'' Kaine noted on 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. 'There was no urgency that suggested, while diplomatic talks were underway, that the U.S. should take this unilateral action by President Trump's orders yesterday.' Advertisement He disagreed with the assertions of Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stressed on Sunday shows that the U.S. is not at war with Iran. 'Would we think it was war if Iran bombed a U.S. nuclear facility? Of course we would,' Kaine said. Advertisement A few Republicans are also breaking with the president on the issue. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky), who this month introduced a resolution alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-California) to require congressional approval before any strike, said Sunday that there had been 'no imminent threat' to the U.S. to justify Trump's unilateral actions against Iran. The U.S. House, Massie noted, was on recess last week. If the situation in Iran was as urgent as the Trump administration has made it seem, the White House should have called lawmakers back to Washington. 'Frankly, we should've debated this,' Massie told CBS's 'Face the Nation.' 'Instead of staying on vacation and doing fundraisers and saying, 'Oh, well, the president's got this under control, we're going to cede our constitutional authority.'' Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) on Saturday also questioned the legality of Trump's attacks, saying on social media, 'it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional.' As news of the strikes broke Saturday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia), who has also opposed U.S. intervention in Iran, posted on X that 'this is not our fight.' Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) called on the Senate to enforce the War Powers Act - the measure that would reaffirm Congress's right to declare war. Schumer urged Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) to bring the act to a vote on the floor 'immediately.' Schumer said Saturday that confronting Iran's 'ruthless campaign of terror' requires 'strategic clarity.' Trump, he said, must be held accountable by Congress. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' he said. Advertisement But Trump's defenders pointed to other authority in the Constitution, with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) pointing to Article II, which allows the president some war powers. 'You can't have 535 commander in chiefs,' Graham said, referring to the number of lawmakers in the House and Senate. 'If you don't like what the president does in terms of war, you can cut off the funding.' Graham, in an interview on NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday, argued that while Congress has declared war only a handful of times in U.S. history, and has not since World War II, other presidents have launched military operations without congressional authorization. In 2011, for example, President Barack Obama ordered a military intervention in Libya without lawmakers' approval. In other instances, Congress has given the president the power to order limited military attacks by passing an Authorization for the Use of Military Force, or AMUF. Some point out that the 2002 authorization, which gave the president the authority to use armed forces against 'the continuing threat posed by Iraq,' is still active, despite efforts by some lawmakers in recent years to rescind the authority. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday that congressional leaders were informed of the attack soon after the U.S. planes left Iranian airspace. Various lawmakers also argued that Trump should not have bombarded Iranian nuclear facilities because U.S. intelligence did not show that the country was at risk of an Iranian attack. 'You don't want to take an action like this without a strong basis - that is, that Iran was imminently pursuing a bomb, and we simply don't have the intelligence or, if we do, it hasn't been shared with the Congress,' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-California) said Sunday on CNN's 'State of the Union.' Advertisement The top two Republicans in Congress - House Speaker Mike Johnson (Louisiana) and Thune - were quick to praise what they said was Trump's decisiveness even though the president made the decision to attack Iran without Congress's input. Both Thune and Johnson were briefed ahead of the strike, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive military operation. Johnson said Trump's attack should serve as a 'clear reminder to our adversaries and allies' that Trump 'means what he says.' 'President Trump has been consistent and clear that a nuclear-armed Iran will not be tolerated. That posture has now been enforced with strength, precision and clarity,' Johnson said. Other lawmakers warned about the strikes snowballing into a prolonged conflict, as Iran has asserted that it reserved 'all options' to act in self-defense. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Arizona), who served in the Marines, warned the nation should not be 'dragged into another endless war in the Middle East.' 'I would know. I saw close friends die next to me serving as a Marine in a high-combat unit in Iraq,' he said in a statement. 'Each of these deaths was needless.' A few House Democrats called for Trump's impeachment over the strikes. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) wrote on X. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' But Schiff - who served as impeachment manager during Trump's first impeachment trial - told CNN that congressional Republicans have made it clear that they have a 'high bar' for impeachment processes against Trump. Advertisement 'The better remedy, frankly, is - if Republicans will show any backbone whatsoever - to pass a war powers resolution to prevent any further military action,' he said. At least one Senate Democrat, however, openly applauded Trump's actions on Saturday night. 'As I've long maintained, this was the correct move by [Trump],' Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pennsylvania) said. 'Iran is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I'm grateful for and salute the finest military in the world.' Marianna Sotomayor, Amy B Wang and Niha Masih contributed to this report.