Pro-Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil Released

A federal judge on Friday ordered the immediate release of Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent pro-Palestinian activist and former Columbia University graduate student who had been held in immigration detention for more than three months as the Trump administration sought his deportation. The ruling marks a significant victory for civil liberties advocates who argued that Khalil was being punished for constitutionally protected speech.

U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz of New Jersey determined that Khalil, a legal permanent resident, posed neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community, calling the government's continued efforts to detain him "highly, highly unusual". Khalil walked free from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Jena, Louisiana, at 7:00 PM local time on Friday, wearing a Palestinian keffiyeh and pumping his fists in celebration.

From Campus Activist to Detention Target

Khalil's ordeal began on March 8, 2025, when immigration agents arrested him in the lobby of his Manhattan apartment building near Columbia University's campus. The arrest made him the first known target of President Donald Trump's promised crackdown on foreign nationals participating in pro-Palestinian protests, which the administration has characterized as antisemitic.

As a graduate student in international affairs at Columbia, Khalil served as a prominent negotiator and spokesperson for pro-Palestinian student activists during campus demonstrations against Israel's military actions in Gaza. Despite his high-profile role in the protests, Khalil was never charged with any crime and was not among those arrested during the campus demonstrations.

The Trump administration initially sought Khalil's deportation on foreign policy grounds, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoking a 1950s-era law arguing that Khalil's presence could undermine American foreign policy interests. When the court struck down that justification, the government shifted to alleging inaccuracies in Khalil's green card application, accusations that Khalil disputes.

Legal Battle and Court Ruling

During Friday's hour-long telephonic hearing, Judge Farbiarz sharply criticized the government's case for continued detention. "What all that evidence adds up to is a lack of violence, a lack of property destruction, a lack of anything that might be characterized as incitement to violence," the judge said, referencing the evidence presented about Khalil's activities.

The judge emphasized that Khalil has no criminal history and noted the government failed to provide evidence of his involvement in violence or property damage. "Petitioner is not a flight risk, and the evidence presented is that he is not a danger to the community. Period, full stop," Farbiarz stated during the hearing.

Farbiarz also suggested the government was using immigration law as a punitive measure, writing: "There is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner—and of course, that would be unconstitutional".

The judge found that the government had "clearly not met" the standards required for continued detention. He denied the government's motion to stay the ruling for seven days, ordering Khalil's immediate release.

Personal Impact and Family Reunion

Khalil's detention had profound personal consequences for his family. His wife, Noor Abdalla, a Michigan-born dentist and U.S. citizen, gave birth to the couple's first child while Khalil remained in custody. The newborn son, also a U.S. citizen, had never met his father due to the detention.

"We can finally breathe a sigh of relief and know that Mahmoud is on his way home," Abdalla said following the judge's ruling. She acknowledged that while the decision represented a victory, it did not address the broader injustices inflicted by the Trump administration's policies.

Speaking to reporters outside the Louisiana detention centre, an emotional Khalil expressed both relief and frustration. "Although justice prevailed, it's long, very long overdue, and this shouldn't have taken three months," he said. He added that he couldn't wait to reunite with his wife and meet his newborn son for the first time.

Civil Rights Implications and Constitutional Questions

The case has become a focal point for civil liberties organizations challenging what they view as the Trump administration's attempt to weaponize immigration law against political dissent. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Khalil, framed the case as a fundamental First Amendment issue.

"This is a joyous day for Mahmoud, for his family, and for everyone's First Amendment rights," stated ACLU lawyer Noor Zafar1. She emphasized that the ruling reinforced a crucial constitutional principle: "the government cannot misuse immigration law to suppress undesirable speech."

Khalil's attorney, Alina Das, argued that the case represented clear retaliation for protected political expression. "The government's latest actions confirm what we've alleged in this petition all along, that retaliatory detention is the government's goal, that the purpose of every step that the government has taken in this case has been to ensure that Mr. Khalil remains locked away until he is deported as retaliation and punishment for his speech and viewpoint," Das said during the hearing.

Government Response and Appeal

The Trump administration pushed back firmly against the court's decision. The Department of Homeland Security criticized Judge Farbiarz's ruling as an example of how "out-of-control members of the judicial branch are undermining our national security".

Government attorney Dhruman Sampat had argued during the hearing that Congress has granted the executive branch broad authority over deportations and that courts should not interfere. However, Judge Farbiarz rejected these arguments, stating firmly, "I don't think any of that is right."

The government filed notice Friday evening that it would appeal Khalil's release. Additionally, on the same day as the federal court ruling, an immigration judge in Louisiana denied Khalil's bond and ordered his removal, creating a complex legal situation that his attorneys will need to navigate.

Broader Context of Immigration Enforcement

Khalil's case represents part of a broader Trump administration strategy targeting foreign nationals involved in pro-Palestinian activism. The administration has argued that such activists pose national security threats and should be expelled from the country, citing their views as antisemitic.

Civil rights groups and protesters strongly dispute this characterization, arguing that the administration is deliberately conflating legitimate criticism of Israeli policies with antisemitism to silence dissent. They point to Khalil's case as evidence of this strategy, noting that he was targeted despite having no criminal record and no involvement in violence.

The use of a 1950s-era national security law to justify deportations has raised concerns among legal experts about the potential for overreach. Secretary of State Rubio's invocation of this law marked an escalation in the administration's approach to handling campus activism related to Middle East politics.

Release Conditions and Ongoing Legal Challenges

While Khalil's release represents a significant victory, he remains under strict conditions. He must surrender his passport and face travel restrictions. However, he is allowed to travel to New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Washington D.C., and Louisiana, where his immigration proceedings will continue.

Under the terms of his release, Khalil cannot leave the United States except for "self-deportation," effectively trapping him in the country while his legal case proceeds. The government continues to pursue deportation based on the alleged inaccuracies in his green card application, charges that Khalil maintains are false.

Judge Farbiarz's ruling specifically blocked deportation based on the government's foreign policy claims while allowing proceedings to continue on the green card allegations. This creates a bifurcated legal process that could extend for months or years.

Impact on Campus Activism and Academic Freedom

Khalil's detention has had a chilling effect on campus activism, particularly among international students and non-citizen residents. His case became symbolic of broader concerns about academic freedom and the right to political expression on university campuses.

As a graduate student in international affairs, Khalil had been pursuing his education while engaging in political activism that many viewed as legitimate academic and political discourse. His detention raised questions about whether foreign-born students and researchers could safely express political views that conflict with current U.S. foreign policy positions.

The case has also highlighted the vulnerable position of legal permanent residents, who, despite having established roots in American communities, remain subject to deportation proceedings based on their political activities.

Media Coverage and Public Response

Khalil's case attracted significant media attention, both domestically and internationally. His visibility during the Columbia protests and his willingness to serve as a public spokesperson made him a recognizable figure, which likely contributed to his targeting by the Trump administration.

The Palestinian keffiyeh he wore upon his release became a powerful symbol, representing both his cultural identity and his continued commitment to the cause that led to his detention. Images of him pumping his fists outside the Louisiana detention centre were widely circulated, becoming iconic representations of resistance to what supporters viewed as political persecution.

Continuing Legal Battle

Despite his release, Khalil faces an uncertain future. The government's appeal of the release order and the ongoing immigration proceedings mean that his legal battle is far from over. The Department of Homeland Security has made clear its intention to continue pursuing his deportation.

Speaking after his release, Khalil remained defiant about his activism and optimistic about his legal prospects. "Justice will prevail, no matter what this administration may try to portray," he said. He also made clear that his detention had not diminished his commitment to Palestinian rights, telling reporters that "Trump and his administration, they chose the wrong person for this" and that "there's no right person who should be detained for actually protesting a genocide".

The case is likely to have broader implications for how courts interpret the intersection of immigration law and First Amendment protections. Judge Farbiarz's strong language about the constitutional violations inherent in using immigration enforcement for political punishment could influence future cases involving similar issues.