Mahmoud Khalil ordered released by federal judge

A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to release pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil from immigration custody.
Khalil, whose plight has been center stage of Trump's vow to crack down on opponents of Israel's incursion into Gaza, has been in the custody of immigration agents since March 8.
Government attorney Dhruman Sampat had argued that Congress has given the executive branch sweeping powers to determine who could be removed from the county.
The courts should not have the authority to interfere, Sampat said.
"I don't think any of that is right," U.S. District Court Judge Michael Farbiarz said during the remote hearing.
The judge added that there's "very strong and uncontested record" that Khalil is not a flight risk and poses no danger to the public.
"I'm going to exercise the discretion that I have to order the release of the petitioner in this case," added Farbiarz, who is based in New Jersey.
Farbiarz declined a government request to put a seven-day stay on his order to give the government more time to possibly fight it.
But it wasn't immediately clear in the minutes after Farbiarz's ruling when Khalil could be set free, from his current hold at a detention center in Jena, Louisiana.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has cited an obscure provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 to justify Khalil's removal, arguing he poses a national security risk.
The Cold War-era statute gives the secretary of state authority to "personally determine" whether Khalil should remain in the country, the administration has argued.
But Khalil's backers have insisted that the government's actions are meant to stifle free speech on college campuses and silence opponents of Israel's ongoing military action in Gaza.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Fox News

34 minutes ago

• Fox News

Issa floats constitutional amendment to let Congress, SCOTUS remove president after Biden health 'cover-up'

Rep. Darrell Issa on Friday suggested that the House should consider taking up a constitutional amendment to make it easier to remove a president who is unable to perform the job in response to the alleged cover-up of former President Joe Biden's declining mental state. Issa, R-Calif., who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said that actions taken by Biden administration officials to keep Americans in the dark about his health show that the provisions in the 25th Amendment may be insufficient. That amendment allows the Vice President and the Cabinet to remove a president from his role if he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." "The initiation was always intended to be the vice president and the cabinet based on the assumption that they would take their oath and their observation seriously and that they were closest to the president to know if that event was needed," Issa told Fox News. "It now looks as though their impartiality can be questioned." Issa added: "If that's the case, the other two branches need to be brought in in some way into the process of asserting that the president may be unable to perform his duties and determining that in a fair and, if necessary, public way." The other two branches in this case would likely be Congress and the Supreme Court. Issa's comments come as the House Oversight Committee is set to interview three Biden administration officials next week about the former president's decline. Former Domestic Policy Council Director Neera Tanden will meet with the committee Tuesday. Former Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the First Lady Anthony Bernthal will meet with the committee Thursday. Former White House Physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor will testify under subpoena on Friday. The committee also has interviews scheduled with former administration officials Annie Tomasini and Ashley Williams. And it's seeking interviews with several officials in the Biden inner circle, including former Chief of Staff Ron Klain and former Senior Advisor to the President for Communications Anita Dunn. Also among the questions investigators will have is whether any Biden officials used the autopen to authorize executive actions without the president's permission. The results of that investigation, according to Issa, could help inform exactly how to write this potential constitutional amendment. "What Chairman Comer is doing is extremely important because he's basically doing the fact-finding for the Judiciary Committee, which is going to undoubtedly take up a possible amendment to the 25th Amendment," Issa said. There is a very high threshold to amend the Constitution – a two-thirds vote in each chamber and ratification by three-quarters of states. So, if an amendment does materialize from the Judiciary Committee, it would face a tough road to make it through Congress, even with unified Republican control. But Issa says it's worth making an effort to improve the system. "Since it didn't work, we have to ask, is there another way to make it work better in the future?" he asked.

Politico

42 minutes ago

• Politico

The gerontocracy gets a big test

SENIOR MOMENT — Keep an eye on the internal election in the House Democratic Caucus next week — it will have far bigger stakes than it might seem. The race to be the top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has important near-term political ramifications since the victor will serve as the foil to Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) on a panel that has seemed as interested in investigating former President Joe Biden's age as current President Donald Trump. But there are also significant institutional implications. The contest will be a test of the future of the seniority system which has been a key feature of how Congress has governed itself for centuries. There are four Democratic contenders, two congressional veterans in their 70s and two congressional newcomers in their 40s. The old guard are 70-year-old Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) was first elected to Congress in 2001 and 76-year-old Rep Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.) who has spent 15 years on Capitol Hill in two stints nearly 25 years apart. The upstarts are 47-year-old Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) and 44-year-old Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), both of whom were first elected in 2023. The candidates will first try to make their case Monday to the House Democrats' Steering Committee, which will make a recommendation for the full caucus to ratify on Tuesday. At a time when, particularly among Democrats, there is a circular firing squad over issues surrounding age in the aftermath of Biden's presidency and failed reelection campaign, the idea of a system that benefits the old over the young, has drawn scorn in some quarters. After all, some progressives are still embittered over the fact that 74-year-old Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) beat out 35-year-old Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) for this position at the end of the last Congress, shortly after Connolly was diagnosed with cancer. Connolly, who was first elected in 2008, had a positive prognosis at the time. However, within months the cancer proved untreatable and he stepped down as the top Democrat on the committee in March. The Virginia Democrat died in May. Seniority, the concept that the longest tenured member of a committee should be its chair, is not written in any formal congressional rules. It's as much a custom whose strength has ebbed and flowed. It only rigidly determined who became a committee chair for a little over half a century —- the period from the overthrow of the iron fisted Speaker Joe Cannon in 1911 to the post Watergate era in 1974, when rebellious House Democrats ousted three veteran committee chairmen, the youngest of whom was 73. Since then, the seniority system has held increasingly less sway on Capitol Hill. Republicans have imposed term limits for committee chairman whereas Democrats have proved increasingly willing to oust older chairmen who are viewed as enfeebled or simply inadequate. Yet the notion of seniority still has a certain persuasive power in internal debates. As former Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.) argued in an essay 60 years ago (written when he had served a mere 38 years in the House and was in his sixth year as chair of the House Judiciary Committee) argued 'the seniority criterion for selecting committee chairmen has the added virtue of being objective. It automatically eliminates the intrigues, deals, and compromises that characterize election campaigns.' It does, though, inherently favor those members in safe seats who face little opposition in primaries or general elections. In the mid 20th century, this made seniority a bugaboo among those reformers in the Democratic Party who wanted to push progressive legislation, particularly on civil rights. After all, the Democrats most likely to be easily reelected year after year were conservative white southerners. Now though, in the third decade of the 21st century, those members of the caucus who most benefit from it are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who are often in safe districts, many of which are protected from gerrymandering as well by the Voting Rights Act. The question is whether seniority's appeal will continue to dwindle on Capitol Hill next week in the vote. It wouldn't be the first time that Democrats have rejected the committee's most senior member to lead it —- Lynch has already been passed over twice and is considered likely to be rejected yet again. But, of the two top contenders, the difference between passing over Lynch for a veteran like Mfume or newcomers like Garcia and Crockett is significant. House Democrats have elected a number of less tenured members of their conference to top committee slots in recent years but going with Garcia or Crockett, who are only in their second terms in Congress, would set a new benchmark for doing it and further mark the transformation in how congressional power is accumulated and held. After all, for generations, the surest path to power on Capitol Hill was a slow and steady apprenticeship before finally wielding a gavel. More and more, that's not the case. Instead, as Congress has become an increasingly enervated legislative body, the value of playing 'the inside game' has diminished. Seniority's value was that it served as the most objective available proxy to determine legislative gravitas. It was never exact but it was better than the alternatives. No alternative has since emerged for the imperfect system of simply relying on length of tenure. In a social media age, legislative gravitas isn't the only thing that matters anymore — cable news hits and viral posts, both of which are valuable currencies today, can be measured far more precisely. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's author at bjacobs@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @Bencjacobs. What'd I Miss? — Judge orders pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from jail: A federal judge today ordered pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil released from immigration detention, more than three months after the Trump administration jailed him while attempting to deport him on foreign policy grounds. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz determined that Khalil isn't a flight risk or a danger to the community, and lightly rebuked the government, calling its effort to continue seeking his detention 'highly, highly unusual.' — Parliamentarian nixes key pieces of Tim Scott's megabill proposal: The Senate parliamentarian ruled today that several key provisions in Banking Chair Tim Scott's proposed contribution to the GOP's 'big beautiful bill' violate the upper chamber's rules for the budget reconciliation process, according to Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley's office. Scott's proposals to zero out funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, slash some Federal Reserve employees' pay, cut Treasury's Office of Financial Research and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board are all ineligible to be included in a simple-majority budget reconciliation bill. — Majority of staff axed at Voice of America: The Trump administration today sent out termination notices to hundreds of employees at Voice of America. Included in that group are employees working for the network's Persian-language service who were called back from administrative leave just last week in the wake of Israel's attack on Iran, according to two people familiar with the decision. The move — which makes official what has long been expected since hundreds of contract employees got termination notices in early May — is a part of the Trump administration's sweeping target to downsize the government and remake America's role in the global order. — Supreme Court revives lawsuits seeking to hold Palestine Liberation Organization liable for terrorist attacks: The Supreme Court has revived lawsuits against the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority over terrorist attacks that killed and injured Americans. The justices today unanimously overturned a ruling from a federal appeals court that Congress violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process by enacting a 2019 law that expanded the jurisdiction of U.S. courts to hear terrorism-related suits against the PLO and PA. AROUND THE WORLD IN BREACH — Israel's actions in Gaza may have violated the terms of the country's agreement with the EU, the bloc's diplomatic corps found. 'On the basis of the assessments made by the independent international institutions … there are indications that Israel would be in breach of its human rights obligations under Article 2 of the EU-Israel Association Agreement,' the European External Action Service (EEAS) concluded, according to a leaked document seen by POLITICO. The EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, was asked to lead a review after more than a dozen countries requested the European Commission look into the potential political and legal ramifications of the conflict. The EU-Israel Association Agreement establishes close relations between the bloc and the Middle Eastern nation, governing cooperation in key industries and bilateral trade. While tearing up the pact entirely would require unanimous support from all 27 EU member countries, four officials confirmed to POLITICO that interim measures, such as paring back trade ties, are being considered and could be passed by a qualified majority of countries. CRISIS MANAGEMENT — Ursula von der Leyen is facing the biggest challenge yet to her authority as European Commission president after political groups threatened to withdraw support over her decision to cancel climate-friendly legislation. 'We are on the brink of an institutional crisis,' Valérie Hayer, chair of the liberal Renew Europe group, told POLITICO. Von der Leyen is from the center-right European People's Party. Although it's the biggest group in the European Parliament, it relies on votes from the Socialists and liberals to get its way. The Commission's ability to introduce EU laws risks being blocked if the groups refuse to play ball. The Commission announced today that it was pulling the Green Claims directive ― a landmark law that would hold companies accountable for unfounded environmental claims ― even though it has already passed through many stages of the legislative process. That move, which the EPP group in Parliament requested the Commission make on Wednesday, was applauded by the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists and the far-right Patriots for Europe, the group of France's Marine Le Pen and Hungary's Victor Orbán. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP TRASH OR TREASURE — For centuries, Londoners have combed the banks of the River Thames in search of ancient ceramics and medieval accessories. Known as mudlarkers, they are now documenting their hunts on TikTok. The activity, once done by just a few hobbyists, gained popularity during the pandemic as new enthusiasts began sharing their finds on social media. Now, longtime mudlarkers say they feel pushed out. The permit waitlist now sits at over 10,000 people for just 4,000 spots. Elizabeth Anne Brown reports on the hobby and its future for National Geographic. Parting Image Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.

Fox News

an hour ago

• Fox News

Federal appeals court rules Louisiana Ten Commandments school law is unconstitutional

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled that a Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in all public-school classrooms and state-funded universities in the state is unconstitutional. Three federal appellate judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana said they affirmed a lower district court's ruling that the statute was "facially unconstitutional." Last June, a group of parents sued the state over concerns the law that went into effect in January violates the separation of church and state. The district court issued a preliminary injunction on the law last November in the five school districts that involve plaintiffs. "H.B. 71 is plainly unconstitutional. The district court did not err," the appeals court said on Friday, referring to the statute. "H.B. 71's minimum requirements provide sufficient details about how the Ten Commandments must be displayed. Plaintiffs have shown that those displays will cause an "irreparable" deprivation of their First Amendment rights." The law was passed by Louisiana's Republican-controlled legislature last year and says the text of the Ten Commandments must be written in "large, easily readable font." "The Ten Commandments must be displayed with a 'context statement' about the 'History of the Ten Commandments in American Public Education,' and 'may' be displayed with 'the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, and the Northwest Ordinance,'" the statute says. "We are grateful for this decision, which honors the religious diversity and religious-freedom rights of public school families across Louisiana," Rev. Darcy Roake, a plaintiff in the case represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said. "As an interfaith family, we believe that our children should receive their religious education at home and within our faith communities, not from government officials." Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a statement: "This ruling will ensure that Louisiana families – not politicians or public-school officials – get to decide if, when and how their children engage with religion. It should send a strong message to Christian Nationalists across the country that they cannot impose their beliefs on our nation's public-school children. Not on our watch." Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement on Friday that she and her office "strongly disagree" with the ruling, according to "We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the U.S. Supreme Court," she added. Fox News Digital has reached out to Murrill for comment. Arkansas has a similar law and other Republican states are on the verge of similar laws.