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

Election Policy Roundup

June 23, 2025

The Fed’s Questionable CBDC Campaign

June 12, 2023

The 2023 Bitcoin Policy Summit: Shining a Light on...

May 1, 2023

Benjamin Anderson (1949): The Crowning Financial Folly of...

April 8, 2025

Venezuelans Have a Right to Regain Their Freedom

October 25, 2024

Trump Issues Fresh Tariff Threats Amid Dearth of...

July 9, 2025

What “Threads” Tells Us about Social Media Competition

July 7, 2023

Did Global Population Really Surpass 8 Billion Last Year?

July 31, 2023

Lorie Smith’s Rights—and Ours

June 30, 2023

A Cato Plan to Cut Tax Rates to...

June 17, 2024

    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

    • National Wealth Fund commits £200m to UK battery storage push

      August 28, 2025
    • XRP price prediction hits new highs, GMO Miner helps you earn $6,800 a day

      August 28, 2025
    • West End retailers lose £310m from VAT-free shopping ban in first half of year

      August 28, 2025
    • Dollar slips as Trump moves to sack Fed governor Lisa Cook in unprecedented clash over central bank independence

      August 28, 2025
    • CDC Director Susan Monarez refuses to be fired as other officials call it quits

      August 28, 2025
    • Bill Gates met with Trump to talk ‘importance of US global health programs and health research’: spox

      August 28, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,901)
    • Investing (2,246)
    • Politics (16,503)
    • Stocks (3,228)
    • 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