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

Better Breathing Through Bureaucracy: The FDA’s Half-Century Phenylephrine...

November 8, 2024

More than Just a Tax Cut: the Case...

October 30, 2024

Friday Feature: Masterpiece Academy

June 28, 2024

Top 5 Reasons to End the US Department...

March 21, 2025

Content Creators, Entrepreneurship, and Tech Policy

May 1, 2025

Friday Feature: A One-Room Schoolhouse

July 5, 2024

How to Upgrade House Stablecoin Bill 2.0 to...

May 17, 2023

My Year’s Worth (or Two) of Election Law...

January 22, 2024

“Foreign Debt” or “Foreign Investment”? How the Trade...

April 25, 2023

The SEC as ‘Everything Regulator’ Strikes Again

February 2, 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

    • Musk feud presents ‘unprecedented’ dynamic compared to past Trump disputes: expert

      June 7, 2025
    • Snub of Musk’s NASA nominee ally preceded sudden ‘big, beautiful bill’ criticism, Trump feud

      June 6, 2025
    • Supreme Court rules DOGE can access Social Security information

      June 6, 2025
    • US sanctions money laundering network aiding Iran as regime faces nuclear reprimand at IAEA

      June 6, 2025
    • From Tariffs to Tech: Where Smart Money’s Moving Right Now

      June 6, 2025
    • Your Weekly Stock Market Snapshot: What It Means for Your Investments

      June 6, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,149)
    • Investing (2,019)
    • Politics (15,556)
    • Stocks (3,134)
    • 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