Today, the Associated Press published the letter sent by Secretary of State Marco Rubio regarding the State Department’s case against Mahmoud Khalil, seeking his deportation from the United States. This comes after weeks of the US government ignoring Mr. Khalil’s immigration attorneys’ requests for production of evidence in his immigration case. His lead immigration attorney, Marc Van Der Hout, said in a statement that the government “has provided no proof or evidence that these charges bear any viability against Mahmoud.” Van Der Hout’s complete statement is below.
For the past month, Khalil has been held in detention in Louisiana in retaliation for protected speech in support of Palestinian rights.
Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, New York University Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the ACLU of New Jersey, and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The following are quotes from Mr. Khalil’s legal team:
Marc Van Der Hout, Van Der Hout LLP:
“After a month of hiding the ball since Mahmoud’s late-night unjust arrest in New York and taking him away to a remote detention center in Louisiana, immigration authorities have finally admitted that they have no case whatsoever against him. Instead, the government is clearly going after Mahmoud and persecuting him for exercising his First Amendment rights. The government has charged Mahmoud with a rarely-used provision of the immigration laws targeting the deportation of even lawful permanent residents like Mahmoud — but Secretary of State Marco Rubio has provided no proof or evidence that these charges bear any viability against Mahmoud. Further, Secretary Rubio has shown that this is merely about targeting Mahmoud’s free speech rights about Palestine. An immigration judge would have to find that the Secretary of State has “reasonable ground” to believe that the immigrant’s presence or activities in the U.S. “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” and that his presence—though he has only engaged in lawful conduct that is protected by the First Amendment—“compromise[s] a compelling United States foreign policy interest,” which purportedly justifies the government’s ability to override the U.S. constitution’s Free Speech Clause. But Rubio cites no real foreign policy issues or evidence whatsoever, and it is critically important to note that the U.S. government is always constrained by the Constitution, regardless of what its officials might think.
"There is not a single shred of proof that Mahmoud’s presence in America poses any threat. Rather, what the government presented consists of Mahmoud’s role as a negotiator between Columbia University and hundreds of other diverse students, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, who spoke out against Israel’s slaughtering of innocent Palestinians in Gaza and the U.S. support and funding of that slaughtering.
"The other late-filed additional false charges DHS is asserting against Mahmoud regarding his application for permanent residency are also completely baseless, as will be shown in court.
"What this case is really about is whether lawful permanent residents — and other immigrants to this country — can speak out about Israel’s brutal attacks on Gaza, or any other important matters of discussion in the national discourse, without fear of deportation for expressing beliefs that the First Amendment completely protects. Are US citizens going to be next?”
Molly Biklen, interim legal director, NYCLU:
“This document underscores that the government has ripped Mahmoud Khalil from his home and nine-months pregnant wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, solely because it disagrees with his speech. Controversial speech is not illegal, and political speech that criticizes the Israeli government or U.S. foreign policy is constitutionally protected. If anything, this document only underscores the startling escalation of Trump’s war on dissent and efforts to remove people who disagree with him or U.S. policy. It’s nothing more than a naked attack on all of our free speech rights.”
Ramzi Kassem, co-director, CLEAR and Professor of Law at the City University of New York:
“The two-page Rubio Memo is the only evidence the government offers to support its lead claim that Mr. Khalil is deportable. This makes plain that the Trump Administration believes it needs nothing more than Rubio’s say so to place a U.S. permanent resident in removal proceedings simply because it dislikes that person’s outspoken opposition to U.S. and Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights. Contrary to Rubio’s claim, this does not put Americans first—quite the opposite, in fact, it undermines free speech rights for all.”
Samah Sissay, Center for Constitutional Rights:
“This document shows that the Secretary of State’s determination that Mr. Khalil is deportable is based solely on his free speech activities as he has alleged in his habeas litigation. The government has not stated any legitimate foreign policy interest that is negatively impacted by Mr. Khalil but instead erroneously attributes prejudiced views to him for participating in the student encampment at Columbia University and speaking out against the United State’s support of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. The government has not met its burden and Mr. Khalil should be released.”
