Importance Score: 55 / 100 🔵
Judge Affirms Jurisdiction in Detention Case of Pro-Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil
A New Jersey federal judge has rejected a bid from the government to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent pro-Palestinian activist. In an order issued Tuesday, the court declared it possesses jurisdiction over the habeas corpus petition, a legal action contesting the legality of his confinement. This ruling marks a significant step in the ongoing legal battle concerning Khalil’s detention and potential deportation.
Government’s Claim of Lacking Jurisdiction Rejected
Federal authorities contended that Judge Michael Fabiarz, a Biden administration appointee, lacked the authority to preside over the case. They filed a motion seeking dismissal of the habeas petition, arguing that the court’s jurisdiction was not properly established. However, Judge Fabiarz refuted this argument, setting the stage for further proceedings in New Jersey.
New Jersey Court’s Rationale for Maintaining Jurisdiction
Judge Fabiarz asserted the court’s jurisdiction is valid because Khalil, a U.S. permanent resident facing deportation due to his activism at Columbia University, was physically present in New Jersey when his legal representatives initially filed the petition in New York. The judge’s order emphasized that Khalil was in custody within New Jersey at the time of filing, thereby establishing the court’s legal purview.
Petition Alleges Violation of Due Process and First Amendment Rights
Khalil’s petition asserts that his ongoing detention constitutes a violation of his constitutional rights, specifically his due process and First Amendment protections. The legal challenge argues that the government’s actions infringe upon Khalil’s fundamental liberties, particularly his right to freedom of speech and association.
Legal Precedent and Timeline Cited in Jurisdiction Ruling
“The Petitioner was in custody in New Jersey as of March 9 at 4:40am,” Judge Fabiarz stated in the order, referencing the timeline of events. “And under a federal statute, the Petition, though filed in New York, must be considered as having been filed in New Jersey on March 9 at 4:40am. Therefore, this Court possesses jurisdiction.” This legal interpretation of federal statutes and the timing of Khalil’s detention were central to the judge’s decision.
Khalil’s Legal Team Celebrates Ruling as Setback to Government Tactics
Attorneys representing Khalil welcomed the court’s decision. In a statement released Tuesday, they asserted the ruling “sends a strong message to other courts nationwide confronting government attempts to manipulate jurisdictions by relocating individuals detained on unconstitutional immigration charges, thereby complicating attorneys’ efforts to secure their clients’ immediate release.” The legal team views this decision as a rebuke to strategies they believe are designed to obstruct due process.
DOJ Sought Case Transfer to Louisiana, Citing Brief NJ Detention
During a recent hearing, August Flentje, a senior official at the Justice Department, argued that Khalil’s presence in New Jersey was transient, lasting only a few hours. Flentje proposed that transferring the case to Louisiana would be the “most prudent course of action.” This argument underscored the government’s effort to shift the legal proceedings to a different jurisdiction.
Khalil’s Detention and Allegations of Hamas-Linked Activities
Khalil has been held in a detention facility in Louisiana since shortly after his arrest on March 8. Immigration authorities apprehended him based on allegations of involvement in activities “aligned to Hamas,” a group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States. Despite these allegations, Khalil has not been formally charged with any criminal offense.
Absence of Criminal Charges and Rebuttal of Terrorism Links
An attorney for Khalil has stated that there is no substantiating evidence to suggest he has provided any form of support to a terrorist organization. The defense maintains that the allegations are unsubstantiated and are being used to justify his detention and potential deportation.
Immigration Law Provision Invoked for Deportation
Administration officials have cited a rarely utilized provision within immigration law. This provision grants the Secretary of State authority to deport individuals deemed to have potentially adverse consequences for U.S. foreign policy. This clause forms the stated legal basis for the government’s deportation efforts against Khalil.
Government Alleges Misrepresentation on Visa Application
Justice Department lawyers further claimed that Khalil, originally from Syria and an Algerian citizen who entered the U.S. on a student visa in December 2022 and later obtained permanent residency, failed to disclose his affiliation with Columbia University Apartheid Divest or his role as a political officer for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. These alleged omissions are presented as additional justification for his deportation.
Defense Dismisses Allegations and Reaffirms First Amendment Defense
Baher Azmy, Khalil’s attorney, characterized these allegations as “frivolous,” stating they reveal the government’s awareness that the purported “foreign policy” grounds for Khalil’s removal are “absurd and unconstitutional.” Azmy contends these newly raised claims fail to mask the government’s acknowledged intent to punish Khalil for his constitutionally protected speech in an “autocratic manner.”
New York Judge Previously Raised Concerns About Deportation
Prior to the case moving to New Jersey, a federal judge in New York who initially reviewed Khalil’s petition characterized the allegations as “serious” and warranting meticulous examination. This judge also issued a temporary stay, preventing Khalil’s deportation while legal proceedings remain active. This initial judicial review underscores the gravity of the issues raised in Khalil’s case.