Immigration Judge Orders Mahmoud Khalil Deported Amid Free Speech Debate

A Louisiana immigration judge has ordered the deportation of prominent pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil to either Algeria or Syria, citing alleged misrepresentations on his green card application. The ruling, issued on September 12, 2025, by Judge Jamee Comans, states that Khalil "wilfully misrepresented material fact(s)" for the purpose of circumventing the immigration process. Khalil, a legal permanent resident and former Columbia University graduate student, maintains the order is politically motivated retaliation for his free speech.

Khalil's legal team has vowed to appeal the deportation order, emphasizing that separate federal court rulings currently prohibit the government from immediately deporting or detaining him while his civil rights case proceeds. In a statement to the American Civil Liberties Union, Khalil asserted, "It is no surprise that the Trump administration continues to retaliate against me for my exercise of free speech. Their latest attempt, through a kangaroo immigration court, exposes their true colors once again."

This deportation order follows a period of significant legal and public scrutiny for Khalil, who was a visible leader in pro-Palestinian campus protests. He was detained for three months starting in March 2025 under a rarely invoked provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows for the deportation of legal residents if their presence is deemed to have "serious adverse foreign policy consequences." A federal judge in New Jersey, Michael Farbiarz, had previously ordered Khalil's release in June, ruling he was neither a flight risk nor a threat.

Khalil, who is married to a U.S. citizen and has a U.S.-born son, was born in Syria and is an Algerian citizen. His lawyers argue that the administration's actions weaponize immigration law to suppress dissent and infringe upon his First Amendment rights. The case has drawn widespread attention from civil liberties groups and human rights organizations, who view it as a critical test of free speech protections for non-citizens in the United States.