Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

Politically Motivated Deportations: The Mahmoud Khalil Test Case

by March 12, 2025
March 12, 2025
Politically Motivated Deportations: The Mahmoud Khalil Test Case

Patrick G. Eddington

As I noted elsewhere on March 11, the Trump regime, via Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is seeking to deport Palestinian political activist and US legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil on the grounds that his “presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made Khalil’s Notice to Appear summons public today. The language in Khalil’s Notice to Appear is drawn directly from Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. 

Earlier today, the New York Times reported that Khalil’s lawyers had effectively been denied the opportunity to speak privately with their client by DHS officials. Published reports indicate that Khalil was arrested at his New York home, transferred temporarily to a DHS facility in New Jersey, and then rendered to yet another facility in Louisiana. While any actual deportation proceeding for Khalil would take place before an immigration judge, his treatment and statements by Trump and other of his officials will almost certainly figure in First Amendment and related due process claims Khalil’s lawyers seem likely to file.

It’s worth noting that the INA provision being employed against Khalil has rarely been used, and its sweepingly broad language may well be challenged on constitutional grounds.

Trump’s own statement that Khalil’s deportation under Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) was “to be the first of many” was inherently prejudicial and would also seem to raise potentially serious constitutional and statutory red flags that might significantly impact judicial review of Khalil’s case. Such a statement suggests a predetermined enforcement campaign targeting multiple individuals rather than individualized determinations based on specific evidence.

The 1886 Supreme Court decision in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, established that arbitrary enforcement, even of facially neutral laws, violates due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. A little-used statutory provision now being employed against at least one Palestinian political activist and possibly in the future other Palestinian political activists would seem to be heading into “arbitrary enforcement” territory.

The First Amendment implications of Trump-directed actions against Khalil are also ominous. 

In the Times piece referenced above, the paper noted that White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt had said on Tuesday that “Mr. Khalil had sided with terrorists and accused him of participating in protests at which pro-Hamas fliers were handed out. She did not respond to an email requesting clarification as to whether Mr. Khalil passed out the fliers himself.”

Mahmoud Khalil, center.

In its 2010 decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court made clear that the federal “material support” statute governing terrorism investigations and crimes (18 U. S. C. §2339B(a)(1)) “does not prohibit independent advocacy or membership” in a group alleged or known to be a U.S. government designated terrorist organization. To date, federal officials have produced no documentary evidence that Khalil’s conduct has involved anything other than the political advocacy the nation’s highest court has said is First Amendment-protected speech. 

If Justice Department officials have evidence that Khalil is an agent of a foreign power or acting on the basis of directions received from a foreign power (read Hamas), then they would be on far stronger ground in this case. They have produced no such evidence, and given Trump’s intemperate public statements about Khalil and pro-Palestinian activists generally, there’s at least a fair chance that the federal government’s case against Khalil will get above-average scrutiny from any federal judge involved in this case. And it should.

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
How to Spot a Market Rebound Before Everyone Else Does
next post
Labor Secretary Chavez-DeRemer’s first memo calls on staff to comply with Trump policies: ‘Let’s get to work’

You may also like

No CBDC, Says Canadian, Australian, and Colombian Central...

September 24, 2024

Are Libertarians Pro-Union or Anti-Union?

December 9, 2024

The Original Sin of U.S. Health Policy

July 24, 2023

Diamond and Dybvig and the Panic of 1907

December 6, 2022

Missouri AG Investigates Private Group’s Advocacy

December 18, 2023

Citizen Initiatives Must Be Able to Overcome Government...

July 20, 2023

Court’s ICWA Ruling Doesn’t Reach Individual Rights Claims

June 15, 2023

Depicting K-12 Productivity, Continued

April 14, 2025

Friday Feature: Institute for Catholic Liberal Education

July 21, 2023

Getting It Half-Baked: The Real Cause of Cannabis...

June 6, 2025

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Senate shuts down Kaine’s attempt to check Trump’s war powers

      June 28, 2025
    • 3 Stock Setups for the Second Half of 2025

      June 28, 2025
    • Trump touts administration’s progress on peace deals, says world leaders ‘respect our country again’

      June 27, 2025
    • Venezuelan opposition member details harrowing 400-day captivity at UN

      June 27, 2025
    • Anxious Republicans turn to Trump amid divisions over ‘big, beautiful bill’

      June 27, 2025
    • JD Vance poised to clinch victory for Trump’s landmark bill as GOP finalizes strategy

      June 27, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,329)
    • Investing (2,081)
    • Politics (15,842)
    • Stocks (3,176)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved