Akashma Online News

By Akashma News
June 23, 2025 

NEW YORK — Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-American legal permanent resident and former Columbia University graduate student, walked free from a Louisiana immigration detention center on June 20, 2025, after more than three months in custody. His release, ordered by U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz, marked a significant rebuke of the Trump administration’s attempt to deport him for his pro-Palestinian activism, deemed likely unconstitutional. Khalil’s case, a flashpoint in the debate over free speech, highlights the First Amendment’s protections for all residents and raises alarms about the administration’s broader immigration crackdown targeting American citizens, legal residents, visa holders, and undocumented individuals.

A Retaliatory Arrest Sparks Outrage
Khalil, 30, was arrested on March 8, 2025, by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in the lobby of his Columbia University residence in New York. A prominent negotiator in the university’s pro-Palestinian protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, Khalil faced no criminal charges. Instead, the Trump administration invoked Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a rarely used Cold War-era provision allowing the Secretary of State to deport non-citizens whose presence is deemed to pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited Khalil’s activism as undermining U.S. efforts to combat antisemitism, though no evidence of criminal conduct or Hamas support was presented.

The arrest, the first in a series targeting pro-Palestinian students, drew swift condemnation from free speech advocates. “The government cannot abuse immigration law to punish speech it disfavors,” said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which supported Khalil. Critics, including 14 House Democrats and New York Attorney General Letitia James, called the detention an “illegal abduction,” arguing it violated Khalil’s constitutional rights.

“There is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use immigration proceedings here to punish the petitioner, and of course that would be unconstitutional,” Judge Farbiarz said, ruling Khalil’s detention likely violated due process.

Constitutional Protections for Free Speech
Khalil’s case centers on the First Amendment, which guarantees free speech to all individuals in the U.S., regardless of citizenship status. Courts have consistently upheld that non-citizens, including legal permanent residents like Khalil, visa holders, and undocumented persons, enjoy First Amendment protections. In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952), the Supreme Court affirmed that aliens are covered by the First Amendment, though it narrowly interpreted those protections in the context of communist affiliations. Legal scholar Ilya Somin argues the First Amendment limits government conduct, not just citizen rights, reinforcing its applicability to Khalil.
Judge Farbiarz’s rulings underscored this principle. On May 28, 2025, he declared the use of Section 237 unconstitutional as applied to Khalil, citing its vagueness and potential for arbitrary enforcement. “An ordinary person would have had no real inkling that a Section 237 removal could go forward in this way,” Farbiarz wrote, noting the law’s failure to define prohibited conduct clearly. On June 20, he ordered Khalil’s release on bail, finding his detention “highly, highly unusual” and likely retaliatory for his protected speech.

“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,” Khalil’s legal team said.

The administration’s reliance on unverified tabloid journalism and a two-page memo from Rubio, which lacked evidence of criminality, further weakened its case. An NBC News analysis found the government’s claims about Khalil’s work history “clearly erroneous,” bolstering arguments of First Amendment retaliation.
Trump Administration’s Broader Crackdown

Khalil’s detention is part of a wider Trump administration campaign targeting pro-Palestinian activists, including American citizens, legal residents, visa holders, and undocumented individuals. Since March 2025, ICE has detained students like Mohsen Mahdawi (Columbia), Rümeysa Öztürk (Tufts), and Badar Khan Suri (Georgetown), all of whom were released after judges found similar constitutional violations. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the arrests, accusing Khalil of distributing “pro-Hamas fliers” and “siding with terrorists,” claims his lawyers called “nonsense.”

The administration’s actions extend beyond non-citizens. In a related case, the Supreme Court ruled on June 10, 2025, that the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man with legal protected status, was wrongful due to an “administrative error.” This pattern suggests a broader strategy to suppress dissent, raising concerns about due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which guarantee equal protection and fair hearings for all persons, including undocumented individuals. In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court limited indefinite detention of non-citizens, reinforcing due process rights.

“If Mahmoud can be targeted in this way, simply for speaking out for Palestinians and exercising his constitutionally protected right to free speech, this can happen to anyone over any issue the Trump administration dislikes,” said Marc Van Der Hout, Khalil’s attorney.

Supreme Court Precedents and Implications for the Republic
Khalil’s case echoes historical Supreme Court rulings on free speech and immigration. In Massieu v. Reno (1996), Judge Maryanne Trump Barry ruled Section 237 unconstitutional for its vagueness and lack of due process, though the Third Circuit reversed the decision on procedural grounds without addressing constitutionality. The Supreme Court’s Harisiades decision, while allowing deportations for political affiliations, upheld First Amendment protections for non-citizens, a precedent Khalil’s legal team cites.
These rulings highlight the tension between executive power and constitutional safeguards. The Trump administration’s use of vague statutes risks creating a “chilling effect” on free speech, as Farbiarz noted, threatening the Republic’s democratic foundations. Constitutional law professor Gloria J. Browne-Marshall warned that Khalil’s case could set a “dangerous precedent” for suppressing dissent, particularly when the government targets individuals without evidence of criminality.

“It is chilling to all speech rights when the federal government’s memo sets out no criminal charges against Mahmoud but seems to say one person can affect American foreign policy through student protests,” Browne-Marshall said.

For the Republic, Khalil’s release underscores the judiciary’s role as a check on executive overreach. However, the administration’s ongoing appeals and plans to deport Khalil signal a continued legal battle. Posts on X reflect polarized sentiment, with some celebrating the ruling as a victory for free speech @mmpadellan, @AttorneyNora
and others, like @MilaLovesJoe, arguing it undermines national security. If escalated to the Supreme Court, the case could redefine the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional rights, shaping the Republic’s commitment to free expression.

A Family Reunited, a Fight Ongoing
Khalil’s release reunited him with his wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, and their newborn son, Deen, in New York. “After more than three months, we can finally breathe a sigh of relief,” Abdalla said. “We know this ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family.” Khalil, speaking to reporters, vowed to continue his activism: “Trump and his administration chose the wrong person for this. There is no right person who should be detained for protesting a genocide.”

As Khalil’s legal team prepares to challenge his deportation in immigration and federal courts, his case remains a litmus test for the Republic’s values. “All Americans should be grateful that Mahmoud had the fortitude to defend basic First Amendment principles,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. With the judiciary upholding constitutional protections, Khalil’s victory signals hope for those facing similar targeting—but the fight for free speech and due process is far from over.

Sources: The article draws from provided web results (e.g., Reuters, The Guardian, NPR, ACLU) and critically examines the administration’s narrative, noting the lack of evidence for claims like Hamas support. X posts are used to gauge sentiment but treated as inconclusive per guidelines.

Constitutional Analysis: The First Amendment protects speech for all, as affirmed in Harisiades and Massieu. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ensure due process, relevant to Khalil’s detention and broader targeting of citizens and non-citizens.

Supreme Court Context: Limited direct rulings on Section 237 exist, but Harisiades and Zadvydas provide precedent for non-citizen rights. The Abrego Garcia case highlights ongoing issues with wrongful deportations.


Critical Examination: The administration’s reliance on vague laws and unverified claims suggests political motivations, countered by judicial oversight protecting constitutional norms.

End Note: “This article was compiled with assistance from Grok, an AI tool created by xAI.”