Federal Judge Blocks Deportation of Anti-Israel Activist Mahmoud Khalil on Constitutional Grounds
A federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration’s efforts to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent anti-Israel activist, declaring that the government cannot justify his continued detention based on foreign policy arguments that may violate the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz issued a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, halting the deportation of Khalil, 30, who has been held at a detention facility in Louisiana. The Biden-appointed judge found that the legal justification for Khalil’s detention — a memorandum from Secretary of State Marco Rubio claiming his presence “compromises a compelling foreign policy interest” — was not sufficient to override constitutional protections.
“The government cannot claim an interest in enforcing what appears to be an unconstitutional law,” Farbiarz wrote in his decision, pointing specifically to First Amendment concerns raised by Khalil’s case.
Khalil, a Columbia University student and activist, drew national attention for his leadership role in pro-Palestinian campus protests. He became a focal point of Trump administration crackdowns on demonstrators alleged to have ties to hostile foreign groups or to have incited anti-Israel sentiment.
His supporters argue he has been unfairly targeted for his political speech, while administration officials say his activism crosses into territory that jeopardizes U.S. diplomatic interests.
The judge’s order temporarily blocks both Khalil’s continued detention and his removal from the country, criticizing the administration’s use of foreign policy as a blanket justification for deportation.
The court noted that using Khalil’s political views as a basis for immigration enforcement “raises serious First Amendment concerns.”
However, Judge Farbiarz did not order Khalil’s immediate release. Instead, the ruling puts the case on pause until Friday morning, giving the government time to appeal the decision.
The Department of Justice has not yet indicated whether it plans to challenge the injunction in a higher court. Legal analysts say the case could shape how far the federal government can go in using diplomatic concerns to override individual constitutional rights in immigration cases.
Khalil’s attorneys have called the ruling a “crucial step toward protecting freedom of expression,” while critics argue the court has undermined national security considerations.
“This is about silencing dissent,” Khalil said in a brief statement last week. “But I will not be intimidated.”
With input from Fox News
