A federal judge has ordered the release of Mahmoud Khalil—a Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian activist—from ICE detention after more than three months behind bars, signaling a notable check on the Trump-era immigration strategy.
At a Glance
- Khalil was detained on March 8 under a rarely used immigration provision that allowed the State Department to deem him harmful to U.S. foreign policy
- U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz determined Khalil poses no flight or public danger risk and criticized the unusual nature of his continued detention
- He’s the first of several pro-Palestinian international students arrested under this policy; others have since been released or relocated
- The government’s other basis—alleged omissions on his green-card application—remains contested as the deportation case continues
- Khalil, a lawful permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen, will remain in the U.S. and ideally near his wife and newborn son
Supreme Court–Style Clarity on Free Speech Detentions
Farbiarz’s ruling noted that using this foreign-policy provision to detain a peaceful activist was “highly, highly unusual.” He further flagged potential First Amendment and due-process issues, stating the government had “clearly not met” its burden, as reported by The Guardian.
Broader Movement: Student Activists in the Crosshairs
Khalil’s case is part of a broader pattern: pro-Palestinian student activists across several campuses facing similar detentions. Three others—Rumeysa Öztürk, Badar Khan Suri, and Mohsen Mahdawi—have been released. More have fled U.S. jurisdiction or entered hiding, according to AP News.
Personal Toll and Legal Implications
Now allowed to return closer to his family in New York or New Jersey, Khalil missed his Columbia graduation and the birth of his first child. He will remain free on bail as immigration authorities pursue their case, as noted by Axios. His release may trigger broader legal scrutiny of the government’s use of obscure immigration provisions against dissenting voices.
National Policy at a Crossroads
This decision marks a significant legal rebuke to aggressive immigration enforcement tactics against student activism. If upheld, it could rein in similar detentions and reinforce constitutional protections. But it also underscores the ongoing tension between national security justifications and First Amendment rights.
