A U.S. immigration judge ruled on Friday that Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil can be deported, clearing the way for the Trump administration’s efforts to remove the Columbia University student from the U.S. Khalil, who was arrested in New York City last month, faces deportation despite not being charged with any crime.
Judge Jamee Comans of the LaSalle Immigration Court in Louisiana issued the ruling but noted that it was not a final decision. This marks a significant step in the Trump administration’s push to deport pro-Palestinian students, like Khalil, who are legally in the U.S.
The ruling comes after U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, appointed by President Trump, invoked the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, stating that Khalil could pose a risk to U.S. foreign policy interests due to his activism. Rubio’s decision to revoke Khalil’s legal status was based on his “otherwise lawful” speech and activism.
In her ruling, Comans stated that she lacked the authority to overturn the decision made by the Secretary of State. The judge also denied a request from Khalil’s legal team to subpoena Rubio and question the grounds for his determination.
The decision followed a tense 90-minute hearing inside a facility run by private contractors in rural Louisiana. Khalil, who has become a key figure in Columbia University’s pro-Palestinian movement, holds Algerian citizenship and was granted lawful permanent residency in the U.S. last year. His wife is an American citizen.
Although Khalil remains in jail pending further proceedings, his legal team has until April 23 to seek relief before the judge can issue a deportation order. There is also a parallel legal challenge in New Jersey, where U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz has blocked deportation, considering whether Khalil’s arrest violated his First Amendment rights to free speech.
Khalil Addresses the Court
At the close of the hearing, Khalil was given a brief opportunity to address the court. He voiced his concerns about the fairness of the process, quoting Comans’ earlier remarks about the importance of due process and fairness.
“Clearly, neither of these principles were present today or in this entire process,” Khalil said. “This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, a thousand miles away from my family.”
Khalil’s attorneys expressed frustration with the expedited handling of the evidence presented against him, especially Rubio’s undated letter, which they had less than 48 hours to review. Khalil’s lead attorney, Marc Van Der Hout, argued for a delay in the hearing, but Comans reprimanded him for deviating from the hearing’s purpose, accusing him of having “an agenda.”
In the letter, Rubio criticized Khalil for his involvement in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities,” claims that Khalil strongly disputes. Rubio did not accuse Khalil of breaking any laws but suggested that his actions could harm U.S. foreign policy interests. Rubio’s letter also stated that even lawful speech could lead to the revocation of an immigrant’s legal status.
Khalil’s lawyers maintain that the Trump administration is targeting him for expressing opposition to U.S. foreign policy, particularly its support for Israel’s actions in Palestinian territories. Khalil has publicly condemned antisemitism and other forms of prejudice.
After the hearing, some of Khalil’s supporters were visibly upset, while Khalil smiled and made a heart symbol with his hands to show solidarity with them.
Khalil’s legal team has decried the case as a violation of his constitutional rights, calling it a “weaponization of immigration law to suppress dissent.”
The U.S. immigration court system is overseen by the Justice Department, and its judges are appointed by the president, distinguishing it from the judiciary branch of the U.S. government.