Olympic Torch Touches Down in San Francisco Today

NEW YORK — After Mahmoud Khalil appealed an immigration judge’s decision finding him removable, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) today issued a “final” administrative removal order in his case in retaliation for his speech in support of Palestinian rights. The order does not change the status quo and will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Khalil still cannot lawfully be detained or deported while his separate, ongoing federal habeas corpus case continues in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. “I am not surprised by this decision from the biased and politically motivated Board of Immigration Appeals. I have committed no crime. I have broken no law. The only thing I am guilty of is speaking out against the genocide in Palestine — and this administration has weaponized the immigration system to punish me for it,” said Mahmoud Khalil. “My family is here. My life is here. I reject any attempt to intimidate me out of my home based on lies and ideological attacks. This is not justice. This is just another attempt to retaliate against me. I will continue fighting for my rights in court, and I will not be deterred — for me, my family, and all immigrants in this country who want to speak out against injustice.” The BIA, like all immigration courts, is controlled by the Executive Branch. Since taking office, the Trump administration has gutted the BIA, cutting it nearly in half and transforming it into a tool for accelerating deportations. Nearly all BIA decisions in recent months have resulted in a negative outcome for the noncitizens facing removal. The BIA’s decision in Mr. Khalil’s case was based on both of the government’s immigration charges against him, which Mr. Khalil has argued are unconstitutional retaliation against his speech. The first part of the BIA’s order relies on the so-called “Rubio determination” under the “foreign policy ground” of the Immigration and Nationality Act, despite the fact that a federal district court in New Jersey ruled it was likely an unconstitutional basis for Mr. Khalil’s deportation and enjoined it from being used as a basis for a removal order. The BIA also upheld a meritless second charge, added only after Mr. Khalil challenged the foreign policy ground. A tranche of internal government documents from the AAUP v. Rubio trial last year showed the government itself found no basis for the second charge before detaining him. “In all my decades as an immigration lawyer, I have never seen such a baseless and politically motivated decision. The BIA's decision has absolutely no support in the record, violates a federal court order, and we’ll be fighting it until the end,” said his lead immigration attorney Marc Van Der Hout. “Federal courts have already agreed that Mahmoud was targeted for his speech, and there is likely much more evidence of the government’s unlawful retaliation that has yet to come to light. This is a clear continuation of the administration’s retaliation against Mahmoud for exercising his First Amendment rights.” The New Jersey district court’s orders prohibiting the government from re-detaining or deporting Mr. Khalil as his federal case proceeds remain in effect. In the Third Circuit, Mr. Khalil has asked the full appeals court to consider his case, after a split decision from a three-judge panel found that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the habeas petition seeking his release. The Third Circuit’s panel decision has not taken effect and does not alter the district court’s injunction and bail order while his habeas appeals continue. “The only thing keeping the government from accomplishing its unconstitutional goals is the intervention of a federal district court last summer,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “Without the protection of a habeas court, the government could do this to anyone, which is why today’s decision is an important reminder of the stakes of Mahmoud’s habeas case. We will continue to use all legal levers available to protect our client and defend the First Amendment against this cruel and relentless campaign.” Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), and the ACLU of New Jersey.

PHILADELPHIA — Today, Mahmoud Khalil’s legal team asked the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals to re-consider the three-judge panel’s 2-1 decision overturning a lower court’s orders releasing Mr. Khalil on bail and barring the government from detaining or deporting him based on Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s vague and unsupported assertion that Mr. Khalil’s lawful protected speech would “compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” The panel decision would effectively block anyone in immigration proceedings from challenging their detention on First Amendment grounds in federal court until those proceedings are complete, no matter how long they may take or how unconstitutional the basis for their detention. “There is no world in which Mahmoud should be torn away from his family for a second time and sent back behind bars for his protected speech,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel in the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “In this country, the government cannot punish people just because they don’t like what they have to say, and it is imperative that federal courts are immediately available to halt unconstitutional detentions. That’s what the district court did here, and we think those orders should and will be upheld in the end.” Back in June, the court found that Mr. Khalil was likely to succeed on the merits of his constitutional challenge to his detention and attempted deportation on the Foreign Policy Ground, and it ordered his release on bail based on the extraordinary circumstances of his detention, including the government’s failure to produce any evidence of flight risk or dangerousness. A federal judge granted Mr. Khalil’s request for a preliminary injunction after concluding that he would continue to suffer irreparable harm if the government continued efforts to detain and deport him on the basis of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s determination. In January, two judges on the Third Circuit panel ruled that the lower court’s order should be overturned, without evaluating the merits of his constitutional claims, but because they held the federal court did not have jurisdiction to even consider ordering Mr. Khalil's release for the months or years his immigration proceedings remained ongoing. However the third judge, the Honorable Arianna Freeman dissented, concluded that under Third Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, a federal court can hear Mr. Khalil’s “now-or-never claims” because without immediate federal review, Mr. Khalil will suffer irreparable harm from detention that cannot be remedied after the executive branch’s own administrative immigration process runs its course. As Judge Freeman further explains, the majority opinion “renders meaningful review hollow," and “only this habeas petition can provide Khalil meaningful review of the First Amendment harms from his detention.” The Trump administration and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) illegally arrested and detained Mr. Khalil in direct retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights at Columbia University. Shortly after, DHS transferred him 1,300 miles away to a Louisiana detention facility — ripping him from his then eight-months pregnant wife and legal counsel. During the 104 days he remained in ICE custody, Mr. Khalil missed the birth of his first child. “Federal courts must have the power to step in when the government exploits our country’s immigration system to punish people for their protected speech,” said Bobby Hodgson, Assistant Legal Director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “This case goes to the heart of what the First Amendment protects: if the Trump administration can target, arrest, and deport Mahmoud for his speech, they can do it to anyone expressing an opinion they disagree with.” Earlier this month, Mr. Khalil’s legal team filed an appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is controlled by the Department of Justice, asking that it reverse a lower immigration court’s unprecedented decision to sustain a baseless, after-the-fact charge related to his green card application and asking that it terminate the proceedings entirely. As detailed in their appeal, this charge was retaliatory and only added after Mr. Khalil challenged the government’s violations of his constitutional rights. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the ACLU of New Jersey, and the ACLU of Louisiana. For all case materials, please see here, here, and here.

Legislation includes a “duty of loyalty” of participants in an ID system to individuals