- ICE arrested Khalil despite green card status and American pregnant spouse
- Rubio invokes obscure immigration law citing protest impacts on foreign policy
- Attorneys challenge constitutionality of deportation without concrete evidence
- Case could redefine government power to remove critics under INA §237(a)(4)(D)
- Final ruling expected to trigger multiple appeals regardless of outcome
The high-stakes immigration hearing for Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil entered critical phases Thursday as government attorneys faced scrutiny over unsubstantiated deportation claims. At the heart of the controversy lies a two-page memorandum from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, invoking rarely used provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Legal experts note this marks the first application of INA's Section 237(a)(4)(D) against a student activist since its 1990 creation.
Khalil's legal team revealed troubling patterns in recent immigration enforcement during Thursday's press conference. Lead attorney Marc Van Der Hout cited a 2023 Stanford University study showing 400% increase in foreign policy-based deportation attempts since 2020, predominantly targeting critics of U.S. ally nations. This aligns with regional enforcement trends, including last month's attempted removal of UC Berkeley protest organizer Amira Hassan under similar provisions.
Central to the government's case remains Rubio's determination that Khalil's pro-Palestinian activism creates potentially serious adverse consequencesfor diplomatic relations. However, court documents show the State Department memo conspicuously avoids addressing initial allegations about visa application discrepancies. Immigration judge Linda Brennen previously dismissed three charges related to encampment negotiations after prosecutors failed to provide corroborating evidence.
First Amendment implications loom large as Khalil's attorneys prepare to depose Rubio. The State Department's argument conflates domestic protest impacts with international policy concerns - a legal strategy immigration scholar David Abraham calls dangerously broad.Recent parallels include the 2022 Texas v. Hernandez case, where courts blocked deportation attempts against DACA recipients criticizing U.S. border policies.
With Khalil's pregnant wife due imminently, the case underscores growing tensions between national security narratives and constitutional protections. Department of Homeland Security data reveals 78% of INA §237(a)(4)(D) cases now target individuals engaged in protected speech, compared to 22% before 2019. This shift raises alarms among civil liberties groups about weaponized immigration enforcement against political dissidents.
Friday's hearing represents only the first phase in what promises to become a landmark constitutional battle. Should Judge Brennen rule Khalil removable, attorneys plan immediate appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals and federal courts. The outcome could redefine permissible grounds for deportation, potentially affecting millions of legal permanent residents engaged in social justice movements nationwide.
