Table of Contents
June 20 EST: In a sharply worded rebuke to the federal government, a U.S. judge has ordered the release of Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student and legal U.S. resident who was swept up in a sweeping crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism. His detention — and now, release — has become a political flashpoint in a broader war over dissent, speech, and the legal machinery used to suppress both.
A Law From the Cold War, A Case for the Present
Judge Michael Farbiarz, a federal appointee with a measured record, issued the order Friday, saying the Biden administration had failed to justify Khalil’s three-month imprisonment under immigration law. The ruling is the latest twist in a case that has tested both the limits of presidential immigration powers and the fragility of First Amendment protections in a post-October 7 political landscape.
Khalil, 26, had already become a quiet symbol in legal and activist circles — the first known student detained under an obscure provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, a statute originally designed to root out suspected Communists. That law allows the Secretary of State to deport non-citizens if their presence is deemed harmful to U.S. foreign policy.
In March, federal authorities invoked that Cold War-era tool to detain Khalil, who had helped lead the pro-Palestinian student encampments at Columbia last year. It was the first time in decades the statute had been used this way. His detention followed a White House push — largely behind the scenes — to stifle what officials viewed as extremist rhetoric and “foreign-aligned” messaging on American campuses, particularly as the Gaza conflict inflamed domestic politics.
A Judge’s Sharp Critique
In his decision, Farbiarz didn’t just question the legal basis for Khalil’s continued detention. He condemned it outright. The judge said the government’s justifications — including claims Khalil misrepresented facts in his green card application — lacked weight. Even if taken at face value, he wrote, they didn’t warrant prolonged confinement without trial.
Farbiarz’s language was unambiguous: keeping Khalil locked up under the pretext of national security appeared “punitive,” not preventive. Worse, it seemed driven by Khalil’s political views — a red line in American constitutional law, even for non-citizens. His case, the judge wrote, posed a real risk of turning immigration law into a blunt instrument for punishing speech.
The ruling builds on Farbiarz’s earlier injunction blocking Khalil’s deportation, which had already raised eyebrows for its constitutional scope. But Friday’s decision cuts deeper, striking at the heart of a legal strategy many see as an overreach by the Biden administration — or more precisely, by a faction within it willing to flex legal authority against voices critical of U.S. foreign policy.
The Administration’s Quiet Escalation
Though President Biden has said little publicly, his administration has reportedly leaned on aggressive legal interpretations to combat what it sees as a surge in foreign-influenced activism. Officials insist Khalil’s case isn’t about free speech — it’s about misrepresentation and national security. But they’ve yet to produce public evidence to support those claims.
The Department of Justice has signaled it will appeal Farbiarz’s decision, arguing the court “lacks jurisdiction” over immigration detention matters tied to national security. That framing — jurisdiction over justice — is telling. It hints at a broader internal conflict within the administration: how far to go in quashing what some officials view as dangerously destabilizing protest movements.
Still, Khalil’s release marks a rare victory for civil liberties groups that have watched the post-October 7 climate with mounting concern. His legal team says he’ll be reunited with his wife and newborn child in New York today, after 105 days behind bars.
A Chilling Template, A Slippery Slope
What makes this case especially alarming to legal observers isn’t just that it happened. It’s that it was so easily rationalized — that a legal resident could be held indefinitely, without criminal charges, largely for participating in campus protest and allegedly filling out a visa form wrong.
Khalil was never accused of violence. No ties to terrorist organizations were publicly alleged. His arrest was not conducted in secrecy, but the legal tools used against him were crafted in eras more synonymous with political purges than modern immigration policy. And yet, here they are, repurposed for 2025.
There’s no telling how far this precedent could extend. Civil rights lawyers warn that using foreign policy “harm” as a justification for deportation invites a chilling elasticity: what counts as harmful? Who decides? And when protest turns unpopular, can it be retroactively criminalized?
The Biden administration may yet succeed on appeal. But politically, the damage is done. The Khalil case has already become a rallying cry among progressives, civil rights attorneys, and students who fear they could be next — especially if future administrations choose to expand the same logic.
This wasn’t just a legal defeat for the government. It was a warning shot for a White House that insists it stands for civil liberties, even as it quietly tests their boundaries.
New Jersey Times Is Your Source: The Latest In Politics, Entertainment, Business, Breaking News, And Other News. Please Follow Us On Facebook, Instagram, And Twitter To Receive Instantaneous Updates. Also Do Checkout Our Telegram Channel @Njtdotcom For Latest Updates.
