Law Used to Detain Mahmoud Khalil is Likely ‘Unconstitutional’
Federal Judge Says statute being used was “unconstitutionally vague.”
NEWS WIRE via The Liberty Beacon
Palestinian activist and Columbia graduate, Mahmoud Khalil, was targeted for deportation because of his criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
He is still held in a Louisiana immigration detention facility with two appeals pending….
Santul Nerkar and Jonah E. Bromwich report for the New York Times
Two weeks after Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University, was detained and set for deportation, the government quietly added new allegations to its case.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio had first invoked a rarely cited law, saying Mr. Khalil’s presence in the United States facilitated the spread of antisemitism.
The new allegations were more mundane: that Mr. Khalil had failed to disclose his membership in several organizations, including a United Nations agency that provides relief to Palestinian refugees, when he applied for permanent residency.
On Wednesday, the government’s strategy appeared to have worked. Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of Federal District Court in New Jersey declined to release Mr. Khalil from an immigration facility in Louisiana, even though he found that the use of the foreign policy law in Mr. Khalil’s detention was most likely unconstitutional.
Mr. Khalil’s case is playing out in two courts. Judge Farbiarz has the power to free him and to determine the broad constitutionality of the administration’s attempts to deport him. An immigration court judge in Louisiana is considering the more narrow question of whether the United States has satisfied the basic legal requirements for a deportation.
Mr. Khalil’s lawyers had sought a preliminary injunction that, in addition to ordering his release, would block the Trump administration from using the law to deport other noncitizens who had spoken out in support of Palestinians, or had been critical of Israel.
In his 101-page ruling, Judge Farbiarz wrote that Mr. Khalil was “likely to succeed” on the argument that the federal statute being used was “unconstitutionally vague.”
The foreign policy law was “unconstitutional as applied” to Mr. Khalil, who “acted solely within the United States,” Judge Farbiarz wrote. The judge wrote further that Mr. Rubio had failed to “affirmatively determine” that Mr. Khalil’s actions had affected U.S. relations with another country. Deporting him under the statute, the judge wrote, would be “unprecedented.”
But he stopped short of freeing Mr. Khalil, writing that Mr. Khalil had yet to put forth evidence about “the various other things he must prove.”
Mr. Khalil’s defense, Judge Farbiarz wrote, had not made a “substantial argument” on the second set of allegations against him. In fact, he wrote that Mr. Khalil was “not likely to succeed” in challenging the efforts to remove him for failing to disclose his membership in certain organizations.
In a statement, Mr. Khalil’s lawyers cast the decision as a victory.
“The district court held what we already knew: Secretary Rubio’s weaponization of immigration law to punish Mahmoud and others like him is likely unconstitutional,” they wrote. “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.”
Mr. Khalil, who was detained in March, was a prominent leader of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on Columbia University’s campus last year. He is being held in a facility in Jena, La., where an immigration judge in April ruled that the Trump administration had met the basic legal requirements to deport him on the foreign-policy accusation. That judge, Jamee E. Comans, has not yet ruled on the second set of allegations against Mr. Khalil…
Continue this analysis at NYT
Header featured image (edited) credit: A crowd gathers in Foley Square, outside the Manhattan federal court, in support of Mahmoud Khalil (AP)
••••
••••
Stay tuned…
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply