JENA, La. — A federal immigration court in Louisiana is facing a tight deadline imposed by the judge to provide evidence against Mahmoud Khalil, a former graduate student at Columbia University. The government claims Khalil’s activism supports Palestinian causes that may be linked to terrorism. The judge’s demand sets a pivotal stage in a case reflecting broader tensions over immigration and free speech.
On Tuesday, Judge Jamee Comans ordered the Trump administration to present its case within 24 hours, asserting that if the evidence is insubstantial, she will dismiss the case and order Khalil’s release. Khalil has been detained at the Central Louisiana ICE processing facility since March 9 following his arrest.
Khalil, clad in a prison uniform, attended the court proceedings via video call, requesting that his pregnant wife be allowed to participate as well. Judge Comans approved his request. Legal representatives for Khalil, who maintained their stance through virtual attendance, are fighting to prove that his activities are protected under free speech, arguing that the government’s actions are unconstitutional.
During the hearing, the atmosphere was tense both inside and outside the courtroom. Supporters, including some donned in Palestinian keffiyeh scarves, gathered, displaying solidarity with Khalil. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security assured the court of their readiness to comply with the evidence submission deadline.
Marc Van Der Hout, Khalil’s attorney, has criticized the quick pace set by the court for deciding the case, which he says could undermine Khalil’s right to a fair trial. “This leaves us practically no time to contest the evidence thoroughly,” Van Der Hout protested during the proceedings. His concerns highlight the complex balance courts must maintain between national security interests and individual constitutional rights.
This case comes as part of a wider push by the Trump administration to take a hard stance against noncitizens involved in activism that is deemed contrary to U.S. interests. According to administration officials, such measures are necessary to prevent foreign policy repercussions. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has explicitly revoked Khalil’s green card citing a law that allows for deportation if an individual’s presence in the U.S. could have serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
The charges against Khalil are extensive, accusing him of withholding information related to his involvement with pro-Palestinian groups and his employment history with a United Nations agency on his 2024 green card application. These charges, all civil, were denied on Khalil’s behalf by Van Der Hout at the hearing.
As the legal battle unfolds, Khalil’s struggle illuminates the broader debate over the bounds of free speech and the extent of government surveillance on immigrant activists. The outcome of this case could set a significant precedent for how activism by noncitizens is treated under U.S. law moving forward, especially under an administration that has been vocally critical of movements opposed to its policies.
Van Der Hout, in a recent interview, vowed to appeal should the deportation order be issued, labeling the charges as “baseless” and the case as heavily politicized: “This is about silencing dissent,” he stated, underscoring the political undercurrents of Khalil’s predicament.
The developments in Khalil’s case are being closely watched by civil liberties organizations and immigrant rights advocates, setting up a legal showdown that questions the intersection of national security, immigration law, and free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.
Disclaimer: This article was automatically written by AI. The information, including facts, figures, and circumstances, may be inaccurate. Requests for removal, retraction, or correction can be made by contacting [email protected].