Most student activists targeted for deportation by the Trump administration for their pro-Palestine speech have successfully fought their cases. Mahmoud Khalil, still, remains at risk of re-detention and deportation to Algeria, a country he has never lived in.
A New Legal Battle
Following a recent federal court ruling that dealt a setback to his case, Khalil is now appealing his deportation order in immigration court. Earlier this month, his legal team requested the case be moved from Louisiana, where he was held for three months, back to New York, where he initially was detained and currently resides with his wife, Noor Abdalla, and their 10-month-old son, Dean, who was born while Khalil was incarcerated.
If successful in relocating the case, Khalil’s attorneys plan to present new evidence alleging government retaliation, with the goal of dismissing his deportation. A February 13 motion, obtained by The Intercept, details what the legal team argues were inequities in how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) handled Khalil’s proceedings last year.
Government’s Shifting Justification
Khalil’s legal team intends to utilize recently released government documents—materials previously denied to them in Louisiana courts—to bolster their case. Among these is a newly unsealed March 2025 legal memo from DHS revealing the Trump administration initially lacked evidence to support its deportation case beyond a rarely used provision of immigration law related to foreign policy. The government anticipated legal challenges, according to the memo.
The government later added a charge of immigration fraud, alleging Khalil omitted details about a United Nations internship and pro-Palestine Columbia group membership from his 2024 green card application. Khalil’s legal team argues this second charge was added because the initial justification “would not pass constitutional muster” and was motivated by “retaliatory animus.”
A Pattern of Activist Targeting
Khalil’s case is being compared to those of other student activists who have won relief from deportation, including Rümeysa Öztürk, a recent Tufts University graduate, and Mohsen Mahdawi, a former Columbia University student. Both Öztürk and Mahdawi benefited from a landmark ruling finding the government violated the constitutional rights of pro-Palestinian activists, including Khalil, when they were initially detained. A judge dismissed Öztürk’s case in late January, citing this ruling, and Mahdawi’s deportation case was dismissed last week after the judge found the government failed to properly certify a key document.
Uncertain Future
The legal battle is unfolding in both federal and immigration courts. The Department of Homeland Security has until March 23 to respond to Khalil’s filing with the immigration appeals board. Khalil also has until March 31 to appeal a recent adverse ruling in federal court. Despite remaining free since last June, Khalil fears imminent deportation, stating, “I can’t buy any piece of furniture because I could be deported any day.” He continues to advocate for Palestinian rights and remains in contact with other activists who faced similar challenges.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the basis for the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Mahmoud Khalil?
Initially, the administration claimed Khalil’s campus activism harmed U.S. Foreign policy, conflating his advocacy for Palestine with support for Hamas and antisemitism. They later added a charge of immigration fraud, alleging he omitted information on his green card application.
What is Khalil’s legal team arguing?
Khalil’s attorneys argue the deportation case is not about immigration violations, but about silencing criticism of Israel and is retaliatory. They are seeking to present new evidence of government misconduct and have requested the case be moved from Louisiana to New York.
What is the status of other similar cases?
Recent Tufts University graduate Rümeysa Öztürk and former Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi have both had their deportation cases dismissed, benefiting from a landmark ruling protecting the constitutional rights of pro-Palestinian activists.
What are the implications of this case for free speech and immigration enforcement?
