Case Summary and Outcome

The LaSalle Immigration Court of Louisiana ruled to affirm the removal of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian activist, from the United States. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security detained Khalil after his involvement in campus protests at his alma mater, which the Secretary of State claimed created adverse foreign policy consequences. The Court accepted that the Secretary’s determination—delivered in a two-page memorandum— despite its general nature, met the legal standard and that the Court had no jurisdiction to question the Secretary’s foreign policy judgment. As a result, Khalil was deemed removable, though his deportation remains barred by a separate federal court order while his constitutional and procedural challenges continue.

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression could not identify the official legal and government records on the case. Therefore, the information contained in this report was derived from secondary sources. It must be noted that media outlets may not provide complete information about this case. Additional information regarding this legal matter will be updated as an official source becomes available. 

Facts

In the spring of 2024, during the height of the U.S.-based student mobilization around the war in Gaza, Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate of Columbia University and lawful U.S. permanent resident, became a prominent student organizer and public spokesperson for pro-Palestine campus protests at his alma mater, in which calls criticizing Israel’s military attacks on civilians in Gaza and a demand for a ceasefire were made. These demonstrations received substantial national media coverage. Throughout his involvement, Khalil consistently framed the protests as peaceful expressions of solidarity with Palestinian civilians and explicitly condemned antisemitism, stating that Jewish students were “an integral part” of the campus coalition and that the movement opposed bigotry in all forms. The U.S. government described Khalil’s actions as “activities aligned to Hamas” and “siding with terrorists.” [p. 5]

In early March 2025, Khalil became the subject of a referral from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the U.S. Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently issued a memorandum invoking the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i)-(ii), determining that Khalil’s continued presence in the United States could have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. The memorandum cited Khalil’s participation in protests—which were allegedly inconsistent with U.S. foreign policy objectives, including efforts to combat antisemitism. This provision permits the removal of a noncitizen when “the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe that the alien’s presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” 

On March 8, 2025, around 8.30 p.m., DHS agents arrived at Khalil’s university-owned apartment near Columbia’s campus in New York City and arrested him. When Khalil asked why he was being arrested, the agents replied that his visa had been revoked. After informing them that he is a lawful permanent resident, an agent replied that his green card had also been revoked. Khalil was taken into federal custody, held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in New York, and subsequently transported to the Elizabeth Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey, where he was booked at 3:20 a.m. 

The following day, on March 9, 2025, the government issued a Notice to Appear charging Khalil with removability, citing Secretary Rubio’s determination. That same day, Khalil filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus—a legal procedure by which a report can be made to a court alleging the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual—before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Khalil v. Joyce, 3:25-cv-01963. Khalil argued that his arrest and attempted deportation violated his rights under the First and Fifth Amendments—the former protects freedom of speech and the latter guarantees due process.

Within hours after the filing, Khalil was transferred to the LaSalle Detention Facility in Jena, Louisiana. In response, Judge Jesse M. Furman issued a notice on March 10 prohibiting the DHS from removing Khalil from the U.S. without his authorization. At a March 12 hearing, the government moved to dismiss for improper venue or transfer the case to New Jersey or Louisiana. Khalil opposed and requested to be returned to New York for the proceedings. 

On March 13, Khalil filed an amended petition adding a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that challenged Secretary Rubio’s designation as arbitrary. On March 19, Judge Furman ruled that the Southern District of New York lacked jurisdiction, transferring the case to the District of New Jersey, where Khalil had been booked and his petition was filed. Judge Furman rejected Louisiana as a proper venue, arguing that the confusion about the location was the result of the DHS’s refusal to disclose Khalil’s whereabouts and preserved the March 10 order barring Khalil’s removal. Judge Farbiarz of the District of New Jersey was assigned to the case. On April 1, he denied the government’s renewed motion to transfer Khalil to Louisiana, reaffirming New Jersey as the proper venue.

In the parallel immigration court proceedings, Khalil was charged under the INA’s Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i)-(ii) before the LaSalle Immigration Court (Judge Jamee E. Comans). Under the INA and the Code of Federal Regulations, immigration judges maintain authority to adjudicate removability even when a district court injunction suspends only the execution of a removal—not the hearing itself. Accordingly, a removal hearing before the LaSalle Immigration Court commenced on April 11, 2025.

Separately, on March 25, 2025, the Knight First Amendment Institute and the American Association of University Professors, along with affiliated campus chapters, filed a lawsuit (American Association of University Professors v. Rubio, No. 1:25-cv-10685) challenging Trump administration’s “policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting noncitizen students who participate in pro-Palestinian activism.” [p. 1] The suit argued that this policy deters speech and deprives U.S. academic communities of noncitizen perspectives. Citing the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the complaint described a broader climate of self-censorship among noncitizen scholars. It claimed that the policy, referred to as “ideological deportation,” violated the First Amendment, was unconstitutionally vague, and breached the APA.

Constitutional challenges regarding Khalil’s case are still ongoing. Meanwhile, he continues to be held in ICE custody in Louisiana, though his deportation was blocked by the New Jersey District Court’s continuing order.

Decision Overview

Immigration Judge Jamee E. Comans of the LaSalle Immigration Court issued a ruling affirming the removal of Mahmoud Khalil from the United States. The central issue for the Court was whether the U.S. Secretary of State’s determination that Khalil’s presence posed a potential risk to U.S. foreign policy, under the INA’s Section 237, was sufficient to warrant deportation.

The central piece of evidence submitted by the government in support of the removal was an undated memorandum authored by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which formally invoked his authority under the INA’s Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i)-(ii). He stated that when the underlying conduct, that allegedly justifies removal, involves expressive activity that is “otherwise lawful”, the statute requires a personal determination that the individual’s presence would compromise a “compelling” U.S. foreign policy interest.

Rubio’s memorandum purports to satisfy both statutory requirements. It asserts that Khalil’s “past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations,” [p. 5] in connection with pro‑Palestinian demonstrations—although not unlawful in themselves—, undermine key U.S. foreign policy objectives. Specifically, the Secretary claimed that Khalil’s leadership in these events “foster[ed] a hostile environment for Jewish students” [p. 6] and was inconsistent with the United States’ commitment to combating antisemitism both domestically and abroad. These findings, the memorandum concludes, constituted a “reasonable ground to believe” that Khalil’s continued presence in the country could have “potentially serious foreign policy consequences.” [p. 6]

Mr. Khalil’s counsel contended that the government’s case rested on conclusory assertions contained in Rubio’s memorandum, unsupported by specific evidence in the record. They moved to compel the cross‑examination of Secretary Rubio to probe the broad allegations found within the memorandum. Counsel further requested a continuance to permit review of undisclosed evidence referenced by the government.

Judge Comans denied both motions, ruling that the Court lacked authority to compel the testimony of the Secretary and declining to delay the proceedings. Judge Comans held that she “was neither inclined nor authorized” to review the Secretary’s foreign‑policy judgment or to entertain constitutional challenges to the named provision, stating, “[t]his court is without jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the validity of this law under the Constitution.” She considered that Secretary Rubio’s determination was “presumptive and sufficient evidence,” asserting she had no power to overrule the Secretary’s finding. Judge Comans concluded that the burden of proof was met by the government and thus granted the government’s motion for removal.

Following the ruling, Judge Comans set an April 23, 2025, deadline for Mr. Khalil to submit any applications for relief from removal. Parallelly, U.S. District Judge Farbiarz’s injunction in New Jersey remains in force, preventing actual removal pending resolution of Khalil’s constitutional challenges.