Pro-Palestinian student faces deportation after judge rules in Trump-era immigration case

Immigration judge rules against Mahmoud Khalil, a US permanent resident and student protester, fueling controversy over free speech and national security.

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators march through Washington, D.C., calling for a cease-fire and an end to the ongoing violence in Gaza, on April 5, 2025. Photo by Probal Rashid/LightRocket

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

Pro-Palestinian student Mahmoud Khalil faces deportation after a US immigration judge ruled Friday that he can be removed from the country, marking a major escalation in a Trump-era case that has drawn national scrutiny over free speech and immigration law.

Khalil, a US permanent resident and student at Columbia University, became a prominent figure in the wave of pro-Palestinian protests across US campuses following Israel's military actions in Gaza. His activism, now under federal scrutiny, has landed him at the center of what critics say is a politically motivated crackdown on student dissent.

The ruling came from Assistant Chief Immigration Judge Jamee Comans, based in Louisiana, who concluded that the US government met its legal threshold to justify Khalil’s deportation. His lawyer, Marc Van Der Hout, strongly condemned the decision, calling it “a charade of due process” and accusing the administration of weaponizing immigration law to suppress political expression.

"This is not over," Van Der Hout said. "Our fight continues."

Protest, detention, and legal battle

Khalil's case began when he was arrested earlier this year amid a growing federal crackdown on pro-Palestinian student activism. He was detained and transferred to Louisiana, a move that sparked protests and legal outcry from activists and civil liberties groups. His marriage to a US citizen and permanent resident status did not protect him from being held under immigration law.

The government argued that Khalil’s actions—his public presence at student rallies and leadership roles in protest organizing—posed a threat to national security. Judge Comans asked for clarification on those claims before making her decision, ultimately siding with the government.

In an undated letter to the court, Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed those concerns, saying Khalil’s actions were “disruptive” and “fostered a hostile environment for Jewish students.” Rubio did not claim Khalil was linked to Hamas, despite government officials previously telling journalists they believed otherwise.

No criminal charges, but accusations of incitement

One key element that has drawn criticism is the fact that Khalil has not been charged with any crime. While his protests were described as anti-Semitic by government officials, no evidence of direct threats, violence, or illegal activity has been presented in court.

Speaking after the hearing, Khalil said, “There’s nothing more important to this court than due process rights and fundamental fairness. But what we witnessed today, neither of these principles were present.”

This statement echoed the sentiments of many who see Khalil’s case not only as an immigration matter but as a broader challenge to civil liberties and protest rights.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, posting to social media after the ruling, wrote: “When you advocate for violence, glorify and support terrorists, and harass Jews, you should not be in this country.” Her statement further fueled the divide between those who view Khalil as a threat and those who consider him a victim of state repression.

Meanwhile, Khalil’s legal team is preparing an appeal and has until April 23 to seek a waiver from deportation. At the same time, a separate court in New Jersey is hearing a related case brought by his lawyers to challenge his detention.

According to his attorneys, dozens of high-profile legal experts and civil rights organizations have joined the defense. They believe Khalil’s situation is a litmus test for the limits of dissent and protest in the United States, especially under the shadow of Trump-era immigration enforcement.

Support and outrage at Columbia and beyond

At Columbia University, where Khalil studied, support for him remains strong. Faculty members, students, and free speech advocates have rallied in his defense.

David Pozen, a law professor at Columbia, said during a teach-in event Friday, “The Trump administration’s actions against universities, their researchers and their students have no recent precedent in US history. American democracy is in crisis.”

Ramya Krishnan, a senior staff attorney with the Knight First Amendment Institute, was even more direct: “The administration has unleashed, to put it bluntly, a campaign of terror on immigrants in this country. And it seems that no one is safe.”

The university itself has not released an official statement on Khalil’s case but has been under pressure from both sides of the political aisle. Some lawmakers have accused the school of allowing radicalism, while others see the attacks on its students as part of a broader campaign to stifle opposition to US foreign policy.

Parallel cases and a pattern of enforcement

Khalil is not alone. Immigration officers have similarly detained and sought to deport other foreign students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, including Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish student at Tufts University, and Yunseo Chung, a South Korean-born permanent resident also studying at Columbia.

So far, courts have temporarily blocked their deportations, but the pattern has alarmed advocacy groups who say the government is targeting foreign-born students based on political activity.

The Department of Homeland Security has declined to comment on individual cases but has maintained that it acts in accordance with national security priorities. Critics argue that the real agenda is to make examples out of vocal dissenters and deter others from joining political causes.

Khalil's lawyers say they will appeal the Louisiana judge's ruling once the written opinion is issued in full. They are expected to argue that the decision violates constitutional protections for political expression and due process.

The court has given them until April 23 to file a waiver request, a potential temporary reprieve. However, without broader intervention, the threat of deportation looms.

If deported, Khalil could be forced to return to Algeria, the country of his birth, despite having lived in the United States for years and being married to a US citizen.

“This is about much more than one student,” said Van Der Hout. “This is about whether we, as a country, still believe in freedom of speech and in justice for all.”

For now, Khalil remains in legal limbo, caught between an immigration system shaped by political pressure and a protest movement determined to stand its ground.