One of the least pleasant aspects of being principled is that you have to defend people whose ideology you find repugnant or idiotic. But that’s the test of principle, whether you’re prepared to fight for the rights you demand for the favored for those you despise. I despise Khalil. Free him.
Mahmoud Khalil was a graduate of Columbia who was deeply involved in the anti-Israel encampment and other related conduct. Whether you prefer to characterize it as anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian or pro-Hamas, Khalil has been convicted of no crime for his actions. It may be that he has engaged in criminal conduct. If so, then he should be arrested and prosecuted for what he did, and if it can be proven, then convicted. That’s how it works here, or at least how it’s supposed to work here.
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Following my previously signed Executive Orders, ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come. We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it. Many are not students, they are paid agitators. We will find, apprehend, and deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country — never to return again. If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America’s Colleges and Universities to comply. Thank you!
10.9k ReTruths 48.7k Likes Mar 10, 2025, 1:05 PM
Contrary to early reporting when Khalil was first nabbed by ICE and disappeared into the morass of our immigration detention sinkhole, Khalil was not here on a student visa, but was a legal permanent resident, married to an American citizen. Not only does he enjoy the same First Amendment rights as an American citizen, but he enjoys the right to due process as well. The Trump administration, however, doesn’t see it that way.
Immigrant students who express sympathy for Hamas will have their visas and green cards revoked so that deportation proceedings may be brought against them, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted to X on Monday. The State Department, which began carrying out the “catch and revoke” program last week, will use artificial intelligence to sift through foreign nationals’ social media accounts for pro-Hamas sympathies. Rubio said the U.S. has “zero tolerance for foreign visitors who support terrorists” and vowed to deport “violators of U.S. law.” While the constitutionality of the program is dubious, it is unambiguously un-American to punish people for political speech.
But what about the law, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3), allowing for the refusal of entry or deportation of “any alien who…endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization”? This was expressly relied upon by Trump in his Executive Order Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. While the constitutionality remains untested, it may well be that the activists for Palestinians also espouse support for a terrorist organization. Many of the protests have expressly supported the actions of Hamas on October 7th. Even worse, they continue to call for, and justify, violence by Hamas in furtherance of Palestinian liberation.
Ilya Somin argues that this should be unconstitutional from a policy perspective.
A standard response to this view is the idea that, even if non-citizens have a right to free speech, they don’t have a constitutional right to stay in the US. Thus, deporting them for their speech doesn’t violate the Constitution. But, in virtually every other context, it is clear that depriving people of a right as punishment for their speech violates the First Amendment, even if the right they lose does not itself have constitutional status. For example, there is no constitutional right to get Social Security benefits. But a law that barred critics of the President from getting those benefits would obviously violate the First Amendment. The same logic applies in the immigration context.
While the scope and breadth of free speech for non-citizens that involves support for terrorists may be less than clear, the analogy to denying social security to critics of the president doesn’t seem apt, there being no element of violence toward others involved. Denying benefits to critics of the president seems quite different from a non-citizen, essentially a guest in the United States, coming or remaining here while espousing terrorism. The analogy doesn’t work for me, even if the law seems too vague and overbroad to be constitutionally applied.
The putative charge against Khalil is strikingly vague.
The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that Khalil’s arrest was “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism.” The agency alleged that Khalil “led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization,” but did not provide any details.
What does “led activities aligned to Hamas” mean? It might mean something that would violate the law, or it might mean his pro-Palestinian activities were related to Hamas by logical extension. Or it might mean nothing. Who knows?
It remains unclear whether Khalil engaged in either criminal activities or activities that violated 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3), assuming the constitutionality of the law. Some are arguing that his seizure is purely a free speech violation, and as of now, that’s very much the case although it is also possible that there is other conduct that is not protected and violates the law. But if so, then charge Khalil with that conduct. If it’s not purely about free speech, it’s up to the government to make that case, not just snatch him and throw him into immigration custody.
As of now, based upon the Truth Social twit by Trump, however, it appears that the government’s seizure is based on nothing more than Mahmoud Khalil’s protected First Amendment activities, and that is both chilling and unconstitutional, no matter how stupid and despicable his speech may be. Free Mahmoud Khalil.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“…supposed to work here.” That gets a loud laugh out of me. But you are a lawyer, and that is what you bought into. While I am a civilian client/defendant and have a different take on it. Ahem!
Yes, free Khalil.
Another bit of grandstanding in the frenzied activity of Trump 2.0, but it remains to be seen how much of it is actually going anywhere.
seems to have parallels to these sames type of folks in merry ol England.
Free the man and let him have his say. We all know people who gave theirs lives for this basic fundamental dignity..
What does “led activities aligned to Hamas” mean?
The student group he led stated, “We are Westerners fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization.” They aren’t shy about saying the quiet part aloud and he was front and center on camera at many of the illegal protests, so it is quite possible they have the proof they need. Of course, they need to show it. It’s only because I haven’t been able to see any of the underlying papers (if you have them, please share), that it’s unclear if I could say if the Trump Admin and Justice Department have presented charges sufficient to warrant removal. Until then, the order by Judge Furman to delay the deportation seems like the right balance — give the Gov’t a chance to show why this is legal or the Petitioner gets his day and due process was served.
Ilya’s conception doesn’t work – you, I and every rational person could disagree with Trump and vocally do so for four years without our Country suffering any structural damage. But that’s not true for the likes of Khalil Mohmoud.
Our society protects free speech because it’s foundational to our existence as free people. Khalil’s speech (and actions) are direct attacks on our society’s foundations.
The destruction of Western society in favor of a Hamas inspired caliphate is incompatible with our basic existence as a pluralistic free society. Yes, curtailing speech under strict scrutiny should be a nearly insurmountable task, and therefore removal based on speech should be nearly impossible. I don’t know if this is the one that gets over the bar, but Khalil and the people like him trying to inspire the insipid idiots at our universities are striking at the heart of what allows you to make a Free Speech argument in his defense.
I understand the principle you’re standing up for here, and maybe it’s my bias that blinds me to as to whether the person torching the principle is the one deserving of its protection.
I know it’s not our system — but maybe some people need to be judged by the structure they advocate for.
Ugh – It sure was easier to be principled back when the Democrats would just rendition you back to some black hole. Of course, back then, everyone had to switch sides.
“Ugh – It sure was easier to be principled back when the Democrats would just rendition you back to some black hole. Of course, back then, everyone had to switch sides.”
When did the Democrats do this? Are you referring to the Republican administration of 2001-2009 when they were operating CIA black sites for enhanced interrogation?
The law in question allows for the deportation of individuals who endorse or espouse terrorism. Simply put: that law limits speech. So the real question isn’t whether Mr. Khalil has free speech rights—he certainly does—but whether this particular law is sufficiently narrowly-tailored to withstand strict scrutiny. (Not the “normal scrutiny” Rudy Giuliani once famously requested.) Saying “Khalil has been convicted of no crime” misses the point. Deportation doesn’t require a criminal conviction; one can be deported for [far] less. (And now the left can be glad that we don’t have to [Chevron-] defer to the executive about what endorsement/espousal really means!) Mr. Khalil deserves his day in court. Whether he should be “free” until then is another question entirely.
[Ed. Note: There is a sequence in law. Formally accuse first, then prosecute, then seek detention or bond, then prosecute some more, then convict or find deportable. Process matters.]
good morning, and feel free to trash, as this is a comment to you (but share if you like),
I’ve been watching in silent amazement these last few weeks as you continue to write in these very f’ed up times. You are like Niagara Falls: an unrelenting force of nature. I, on the other hand, have relented! I been driven to silence by despair. (If only my wife knew how to replicate that trick on me) That said, I always thought the north star of this site was: don’t make people stupider. And invoking “he was charged with/ convicted of no crime” does just that. Proof? Chuckles Schumer tweeted the same point. As for the editor’s note: I think this may be a case of the curse of knowledge. You’re a CDL, and that’s how it’s done in criminal law. But in immigration, the executive has plenary powers that snicker at due process. The Secretary of State can say the brucha, “persona non grata,” and someone effectively vanishes. (If only my wife knew that trcik for a few of our family members.) From my reading, criminal standards simply don’t apply here. (And yes, I get it: I write from behind the shield of vague anonymity, which incentivizes a bit of Trumpification (i.e., saying things without fully accounting for their truth value). But in this case, I made a good-faith effort to learn the underlying law. (and that sent me down the rabbit hole of the 2005 real id act, which can be forgiven, maybe, only because 2005 is not that far from 2001.) IN any case, let me echo the commenter below: it’s time to hit the tip jar with a lagniappe. (I know money is fungible, but to the extent possible, please do not use my contribution for Schumer-adjacent messaging.)
You seem to think that legal permanent residents can be renditioned off the streets of the United States and disappeared upon the secretary of state’s say-so. There is an analogous process for deportation. They do not just vanish.
You are correct and your point is well taken—thank you. I was engaging in a bit of Trumpification, and you’re absolutely right to call me on it. But compared to the full “accuse, investigate, detain, prosecute, convict” route of criminal procedure, the word “vanish” has a certain directional correctness—meant to be taken seriously, not literally. (Ugh—I’m emulating Trump. As if I didn’t have enough to despair about already!)
My take on this is that non-citizens should not have the same constitutional protections of US citizens. When you come here like he did, then you should not be protesting here. If you don’t like the United States, then go home. I could care less if you have a green card or not
[Ed. Note: The law doesn’t care about your feelings.]
Being an anarchist on the right is no different than being an anarchist on the left. If you hate law, then don’t complain when it’s not there when you need it. You can’t have it both ways.
Time to hit FIRE’s tip jar again.