In a dramatic turn of events, a federal judge has overridden a state judge’s decision that deemed the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil—an influential figure in the pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University—unlawful. This ruling has reignited discussions around immigration laws and the political motivations behind them.
On September 17, court documents indicated that U.S. Judge Jamee Comans ordered the deportation of Khalil, a Columbia graduate, after determining that he had intentionally left out critical details in his green card application. Khalil, now 30, may face deportation either to Syria, where he was born in a Palestinian refugee camp, or to Algeria, where he also holds citizenship.
Khalil’s legal team has signaled their intent to appeal this order, asserting that a federal district court’s prior rulings currently protect him from immediate deportation while the case unfolds. They argue that the government’s actions are an overreach and politically motivated.
During the ruling, Judge Comans remarked that Khalil had “willfully misrepresented material fact(s) for the sole purpose of circumventing the immigration process.” The implications of this ruling touch not just on Khalil’s fate but also on broader discussions of free speech and activism in the United States.
Earlier this year, Khalil found himself behind bars for over 100 days as the Trump administration sought to deport him, citing his vocal opposition to Israel’s policies and his support for Palestinian rights. Khalil contends that he is being targeted due to his activism, particularly following his involvement in high-profile protests against the war in Gaza.
In a further twist, Khalil has filed a claim for $20 million in damages against the Trump administration, alleging false imprisonment and a concerted effort to damage his reputation as an anti-Semite and suppress his activism. This claim is a precursor to a potential lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which allows for redress against unlawful actions by government officials.
The personal toll of these events is stark; Khalil’s wife, a U.S. citizen, was pregnant at the time of his detention, and he missed the birth of their child. The emotional and familial implications of such legal battles are profound, highlighting the human cost of immigration enforcement policies.
Upon his release on June 20, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz had previously ruled that penalizing an individual for civil immigration issues raised constitutional concerns. Importantly, Khalil has not been charged with any crime.
Many groups—ranging from human rights advocates to some Jewish organizations—have criticized what they perceive as an unwarranted conflation of legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. They argue that this conflation stifles free speech and unfairly targets activists.
Allegations
In a statement reflecting on his situation, Khalil asserted, “It is no surprise that the Trump administration continues to retaliate against me for my exercise of free speech. When their first effort to deport me was set to fail, they resorted to fabricating baseless and ridiculous allegations in a bid to silence me for speaking out and standing firmly with Palestine, demanding an end to the ongoing genocide.”
Concerns have been raised over the administration’s attempts to cut federal funding to universities where protests have occurred, further complicating the landscape of free speech in academic settings. Columbia University was at the forefront of protests in 2024 calling for divestment from companies supporting Israel.
Recent reports from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry claim that over 64,718 Palestinians have died since the war began, with the Israeli government contesting these figures. The conflict reignited following a Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 Israelis and the capture of around 250 hostages.
When challenged for justification of Khalil’s deportation, the federal government provided a memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, claiming that Khalil’s activities could pose “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the U.S. While the memo did not allege any criminal conduct, it suggested that Khalil could be expelled based on his beliefs and associations alone. Rubio further claimed that allowing Khalil to remain in the U.S. would undermine efforts to combat anti-Semitism globally and protect Jewish students domestically.
If you found this article interesting, please consider supporting traditional journalism
Our first edition was published 25 years ago from a basement in Atlanta. Today, The Epoch Times brings fact-based, award-winning journalism to millions of Americans.
Our journalists have been threatened, arrested, and assaulted, but our commitment to independent journalism has never wavered. This year marks our 25th year of independent reporting, free from corporate and political influence.
That’s why you’re invited to a limited-time introductory offer — just $1 per week — so you can join millions already celebrating independent news.
