- Federal judge approves deportation under 1952 immigration law
- Ruling cites unverified State Department foreign policy concerns
- Case could affect 400+ international students facing similar charges
In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications, Louisiana immigration judge Jamee Comans authorized the removal of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil on Friday. The ruling marks the first application of a Cold War-era statute to campus activism since 2001, raising alarms among civil liberties groups nationwide.
Legal analysts note the administration's reliance on Section 237(a)(4)(D) of the Immigration and Nationality Act circumvents traditional evidentiary requirements. This 72-year-old provision allows deportations based solely on Cabinet member assertions about foreign policy impacts – a mechanism previously used against Cold War diplomats and 9/11 detainees.
The New Orleans courtroom erupted in distress as Comans accepted Secretary Rubio's two-page memorandum as sufficient evidence. This creates dangerous precedent, explains Georgetown immigration law professor Alicia Cortez. Essentially, any foreign-born critic of U.S. ally policies could now be deemed a diplomatic liability.
Khalil's case intersects with growing tensions over campus protests, particularly at Ivy League institutions. Since October 2023, ICE has detained 17 student organizers from top universities under enhanced visa reviews – a 340% increase from 2022 levels according to Cato Institute data.
Notably, the ruling contradicts ongoing federal proceedings in New Jersey where Judge William Martini maintains a stay on Khalil's deportation. This jurisdictional conflict mirrors 2017 litigation involving Iranian students at MIT, though with heightened political stakes during an election year.
As Khalil's legal team prepares emergency appeals, immigrant advocacy groups warn of chilling effects. The Louisiana Center for Civil Rights reports 83 inquiries from international students since Friday's decision – triple their typical weekly volume. Many express concerns about participating in lawful protests or academic debates.
The administration's evidence gap remains contentious. Despite submitting 47 pages of social media posts and protest flyers, prosecutors provided no intelligence reports or diplomatic cables substantiating foreign policy harm. They're criminalizing dissent under cover of national security, argues ACLU senior counsel David Cole.
With Khalil's wife expecting their first child next month, the human costs amplify legal debates. Asylum applications citing academic freedom concerns have risen 22% since March according to TRAC Immigration data – a trend likely to intensify following this precedent-setting decision.
