The case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University activist being held in a Louisiana detention center, is rapidly turning into a contentious debate over freedom of speech. Khalil is an outspoken pro-Palestinian activist who has taken a leadership role in the increasingly volatile campus protests. Precisely who the Columbia graduate is – a US green card holder turned cause célèbre for constitutionally protected speech or an agitator for a terrorist organization that threatens Jewish students on campus – is at issue.
Born in Syria to Palestinian refugees, Mahmoud Khalil came to the US in 2022, attended Columbia, and is set to graduate this May. However, his on-campus involvement in Columbia protests put him on the Trump Administration's radar as federal authorities worked to quell campus unrest. Khalil was taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on March 8 and is now the subject of a political and legal tug-of-war.
Khalil in the Crosshairs
Having a green card - or a student visa, for that matter - is not the same as being an American citizen. It comes with conditions, and it is these very provisions that the government alleges Mr. Khalil defied. Section 237(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified in 8 U.S. Code § 1227, reads, “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made the case that Khalil is violating his green card status by being involved in the Columbia protests. Still, sympathizers contend that the university student is being singled out for punishment by a rarely used law.
Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley made the case on Fox News that the government has a strong case against Khalil: “There are free speech issues here – legitimate ones. People are allowed to protest for Palestine. What they’re not allowed to do is to engage in trespass and property damage and threatening behavior.” Legal commentator Andrew McCarthy chimed in, saying the issue is not so much about free speech as it is about unlawful behavior. He likened the situation to when he was a federal prosecutor and litigated cases against the mob: “In all my years prosecuting them, I never heard a defense lawyer claim that, when the boss told the button to ‘whack that guy,’ he was simply exercising his free speech rights.”
The legal case against Mr. Khalil is tricky and may come down to a matter of interpretation. Immigration law expert David Leopold told CBS News: “’The law requires that the government make its proof by clear and convincing evidence,’ which is the highest standard in civil law, but not as high as beyond a reasonable doubt, required in criminal cases.”
Nevertheless, the rhetoric is ratcheting up about what to do with Khalil: keep him, deport him? Perhaps the real end game is to make an example of him. As the president posted on his Truth Social account: “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.”
Free speech or not, this is likely President Trump’s end game. By making an example out of Mahmoud Khalil, it puts those who are not US citizens on notice: If they cross the line from protesting to inciting violence, ICE will be waiting for them.
Liberty Vault: The Bill of Rights
