Conservative Legal Minds Decry Latest Mahmoud Khalil Decision

On Wednesday, a federal district judge indicated that the Trump administration’s attempt to deport Mahmoud Khalil might violate constitutional rights; however, certain conservative legal scholars remain unconvinced.

Khalil is an advocate for Palestine and opposed to Israel, having organized demonstrations at Columbia University. Recently, an immigration judge suggested his potential deportation; however, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz from the District of New Jersey stated that this directive might be overturned due to being “unconstitutionally vague.” Nonetheless, Khalil will stay detained.

The district court confirmed what was previously understood: Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio’s use of immigration laws as a tool to penalize Mahmoud and similar individuals is probably unconstitutional. lawyers for Khalil mentioned following the judge's decision.

FEDERAL JUDGE STATES THAT THE ATTEMPT TO DEPORT ANTI-ISRAEL LEADER MAHMOUD KHALIL COULD VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

Nevertheless, several conservative legal authorities contest the judge's opinion.

"A judge recently provided Hamas with a victory on U.S. soil. Mahmoud Khalil deceived authorities to enter our nation, hid connections to an overseas government, and subsequently orchestrated a pro-Hamas control shift at Columbia University. Now, a judicial activist aims to prevent his deportation? This isn’t justice—it’s national self-destruction. President Trump possesses the constitutional power and ethical duty to eliminate such dangers as Khalil," states the Republican lawyer. Mehek Cooke stated to Fox News Digital in an interview.

EXPLORE CONTENT IN THE FOX NEWS MOBILE APPLICATION

CLICK HERE TO EXPLORE ADDITIONAL IMMIGRATION NEWS

The Supreme Court has explicitly outlined this power. In Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Court supported the wide-ranging authority of the executive branch in handling immigration issues. This jurisdiction was reinforced in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) when the Court determined that the President possesses extensive powers to bar individuals from entering who are considered harmful to U.S. interests,” she went on to say.

LEADER OF THE ANTI-ISRAEL GROUP, MAHMOUD KHALIL, SEEKS TO HAVE HIS FIRST AMENDMENT CASE AGAINST THE U.S. GOVERNMENT CONSIDERED BY A JUDGE

By deeming the Immigration and Nationality Act "unconstitutionally vague,” Judge Farbiarz isn’t merely interpreting the statute; he’s essentially redrafting it. This infringes upon the principle of separating governmental powers and unduly restricts the authority of our President. Being granted citizenship is an honor—not a refuge for deceitful individuals or supporters of Hamas. I trust this decision will be reversed when reviewed on appeal, “ Cooke further stated.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, described it as a "preposterous and unfounded allegation made by an erratic federal judge." He also stated that despite Kahlil being a lawful resident of the U.S., he may still encounter repercussions.

Immigrants do not possess any constitutional rights regarding their presence in the U.S. Furthermore, according to federal immigration laws outlined in 8 U.S.C. 1227, immigrants such as Khalil—including those with permanent residency—can be deported if they ‘endorse or promote terrorist activities’ or provide backing to ‘terrorist organizations.’ Given Khalil’s clear endorsement of Hamas, which has been labeled a terrorist group, this renders him eligible for immediate deportation. He described this decision as yet another example of an unfairly partial, politically motivated judge who is disregarding federal immigration statutes and overstepping into areas reserved for presidential powers defined both constitutionally and statutorily.

ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE ANTI-ISRAEL ACTIVIST FROM COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, MAHMOUD KHALIL, CRITICIZE RUBIO'S EVIDENCE LETTER: "ONLY TWO PAGES"

The White House also condemned the ruling , continuing its ongoing conflicts with federal judges regarding immigration policy.

Mahmoud Khalil had the chance to come to America for studies, yet he wasted this opportunity by aligning himself with Hamas terrorists and orchestrating protests that interrupted university classes and intimidated Jewish-American students. According to Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, Secretary of State Rubio is justified in revoking green cards or visas from anyone deemed hostile to U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.

Anders Hagstrom and Sarah Rumpf-Whitten from Fox News have contributed to this report.

Original article source: Conservative legal scholars criticize the most recent Mahmoud Khalil decision.