A U.S. immigration judge has ruled that Mahmoud Khalil, a 30-year-old Palestinian organizer and Columbia University graduate, is eligible for deportation, marking a significant development in his ongoing legal battle. The decision, made during a tense court hearing on Friday in central Louisiana, has sparked controversy and raised questions about the intersection of immigration law and free speech.
Khalil, who was arrested on March 8, 2025, by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in New York, is accused of being a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests due to his pro-Palestinian activism. This ruling comes after a memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, dated without a specific time frame, was presented as the main piece of evidence against Khalil. The memo claims that Khalil’s beliefs, associations, and actions are contrary to U.S. foreign policy, specifically concerning Palestinian rights and advocacy.
During the court proceedings, Khalil’s legal team attempted to delay the ruling and terminate the deportation proceedings, arguing that the evidence presented by the government, particularly the memo, was too vague. They also requested the opportunity to cross-examine Rubio himself, but these arguments were rejected by the judge.
Judge Jamee Comans, who oversaw the hearing, sided with the U.S. government’s position, ruling that the memo from Rubio constituted sufficient evidence for Khalil’s deportation. “There is no indication that Congress contemplated an immigration judge or even the Attorney General overruling the Secretary of State on matters of foreign policy,” she stated in her ruling.
The ruling also noted that Khalil’s deportation was based on foreign policy considerations rather than any criminal conduct. While the decision is a blow to Khalil, it also highlights a broader shift in U.S. immigration law under the previous Trump administration, which had escalated actions against individuals associated with pro-Palestinian movements.
In response to the ruling, Khalil, who remained silent during most of the proceedings, asked to speak before the court. He took the opportunity to criticize the fairness of the process. “Clearly, what we witnessed today, neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process,” Khalil said, referring to due process and fundamental fairness. His comments underscored the ongoing debate about the treatment of individuals in immigration proceedings, particularly those linked to political causes.
Khalil’s case is not an isolated one but part of a broader trend of increasing scrutiny of pro-Palestinian activists in the U.S. His involvement in organizing pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University last year is cited as a key factor in his detention. After his arrest, Khalil was transferred to a detention facility in Jena, Louisiana, where he has been held for over a month. His legal team has condemned the detention as politically motivated and a violation of his constitutional right to free speech.
The decision to move forward with Khalil’s deportation has also sparked public outcry from supporters and human rights advocates. Khalil’s wife, Noor Abdalla, who is due to give birth to their first child later this month, issued a statement condemning the ruling. “Today’s decision feels like a devastating blow to our family. No person should be deemed ‘removable’ from their home for speaking out against the killing of Palestinian families, doctors, and journalists,” the statement read. Abdalla expressed her determination to continue advocating for her husband’s release until he is reunited with her and their child.
The ruling has raised concerns over the use of foreign policy as a basis for deportation and the potential for this precedent to be used against other activists. Marc van der Hout, Khalil’s immigration lawyer, criticized the decision, calling it a violation of due process. “We saw our worst fears play out today: Mahmoud was subject to a charade of due process, a flagrant violation of his right to a fair hearing, and a weaponization of immigration law to suppress dissent,” van der Hout said. He further warned that if Khalil could be targeted for his activism, others could also be at risk of deportation for engaging in politically controversial activities.
In the wake of the ruling, Khalil’s legal team is planning to file an appeal. Van der Hout indicated that the team would continue to fight the decision in federal court, where they are also challenging the legality of Khalil’s detention. “This is not over,” he said. “We will continue working tirelessly until Mahmoud is free and rightfully returned home to his family and community.”
The ruling also has implications for broader discussions around the First Amendment and its protections in the context of U.S. immigration law. Critics argue that deporting Khalil for his political beliefs sets a dangerous precedent that could be used to silence other activists and suppress dissent against U.S. foreign policy. In addition to the appeal, Khalil’s legal team may seek asylum, arguing that he faces persecution due to his political views.
Meanwhile, a separate case in federal court in New Jersey is examining the constitutionality of Khalil’s detention. The New Jersey court has temporarily halted his deportation pending the outcome of this case, which focuses on whether it is lawful to deport individuals for engaging in protected free speech, particularly when that speech is deemed to conflict with U.S. foreign policy.
The New Jersey judge has also scheduled a hearing for later on Friday, and Khalil’s supporters are holding vigil outside the detention facility in Louisiana. The support for Khalil, who has become a symbol of resistance for many pro-Palestinian activists in the U.S., has continued to grow, with interfaith clergy leading prayer vigils and calling for his immediate release.
