Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil’s case heads to court

(NewsNation) — A judge will hear arguments Wednesday about the arrest of a Columbia University graduate student who helped lead pro-Palestinian protests on campus.

Mahmoud Khalil, who was born in Syria and raised in a Palestinian refugee camp there, holds legal permanent resident status in the United States. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Khalil on Saturday and transferred him to a detention center in Louisiana.

The court on Wednesday will hear arguments alleging Khalil was wrongfully detained for his role in last year’s protests at Columbia University. A judge will examine his habeas corpus petition at 11:30 a.m. ET.

The hearing is the first challenge to President Donald Trump’s January executive order prohibiting antisemitism on college campuses and using that as justification for deportation.

According to Khalil’s lawyer, Amy Greer, ICE officers said his student visa was revoked under Trump’s executive order. When Khalil showed them he was not in the country on a student visa but rather as a legal permanent resident, the officers said that was also revoked, Greer said.

“I think we ought to get them all out of the country,” Trump said about Khalil’s arrest Tuesday. “They’re troublemakers, they’re agitators. They don’t love our country. We ought to get them the hell out. I think that guy — I heard his statements too. They were plenty bad, and I think we had to get him the hell out of the country.”

Khalil’s lawyer argues that ICE’s actions violate his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights.

A federal judge in Manhattan blocked Khalil’s deportation earlier this week. Khalil is a green card holder, which allows him due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Can ICE take away Mahmoud Khalil’s green card?

Khalil was one of the most visible activists at Columbia University’s pro-Palestinian rallies in 2024. The Department of Homeland Security has accused him of “leading activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”

The agency is sanctioned to initiate deportation proceedings against green card holders for a broad range of alleged criminal activity.

But according to immigration experts, the detention of a legal permanent resident who has not been charged with a crime marked an extraordinary move with an uncertain legal foundation.

“I would gather that anyone that has a political view or has protested and also has a green card would be nervous,” Rosanna Berardi, managing partner at Berardi Immigration Law, told NewsNation.

“If this is any indication of the administration’s position on green card holders that their own agency vetted at a super-high level and gave a green card … and this is the behavior of the administration, I would be gravely concerned,” Berardi said.

NewsNation has reached out to Khalil’s lawyer, the Justice Department, DHS and Columbia University for comment but has not yet heard back.

Mahmoud Khalil case first ‘of many to come’

Trump himself said Khalil’s arrest was the first of many during his second term. The administration is not only targeting students who participated in protests but also the universities themselves.

The Department of Education sent letters to 60 universities warning they were under investigation for alleged antisemitic discrimination and harassment for allowing pro-Palestinian protests to occur on school grounds.

Following the letters, the University of California, Los Angeles — the site of a large pro-Khalil protest Tuesday — announced it is starting a new initiative to combat antisemitism on campus.

The Trump administration has already canceled $400 million worth of grants to Columbia University as of Friday. The school’s response to pro-Palestinian protests on its New York City campus was explicitly cited as the reason behind the funding changes.

Harvard University announced a faculty and staff hiring freeze Monday due to “substantial financial uncertainties driven by rapidly shifting federal policies.”

Related articles

‘The bell of stupidity’: Conservative’s Christmas video lampoons Trump’s latest speech



President Donald Trump was supposed to prioritize the economy at a MAGA rally last week — but instead rambled about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and other familiar foes.

In a Christmas-themed video, The Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson (a Never Trump conservative former GOP strategist) and journalist Molly Jong-Fast brutally mocked the speech for failing to get the desired economic message across.

Jong-Fast told Wilson, "Let's talk about how positively b----- the whole thing is. It was meant to be a rally on affordability. Here's what was not discussed: affordability. Here's what was discussed: Marjorie Taylor Greene. He calls her Marjorie Traitor Brown."

Wilson, sounding amused, interjected, "And I'm also intrigued by how she's somehow a leftist."

Jong-Fast told the Never Trumper, "It has really been a week for Trump."

Wilson laid out a variety of ways in which Trump and the MAGA movement are having a bad Christmas, from the Epstein files to the economy.

"There is no unringing this bell of stupidity," Wilson told Jong-Fast. "They have f----- it up. They have made a giant mistake."

- YouTube www.youtube.com

Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce still didn’t announce pregnancy, despite AI rumors

Baseless claims following their engagement announcement in August 2025 swirled online.

Trump Supreme Court battle could be dismantled by Congress members’ own history



New evidence is emerging that could deal a major blow to President Donald Trump's case for stripping birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

The president has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to restore “the original meaning” of the 14th Amendment, which his lawyers argued in a brief meant that “children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth," but new research raises questions about what lawmakers intended the amendment to do, reported the New York Times.

"One important tool has been overlooked in determining the meaning of this amendment: the actions that were taken — and not taken — to challenge the qualifications of members of Congress, who must be citizens, around the time the amendment was ratified," wrote Times correspondent Adam Liptak.

A new study will be published next month in The Georgetown Law Journal Online examining the backgrounds of the 584 members who served in Congress from 1865 to 1871. That research found more than a dozen of them might not have been citizens under Trump’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, but no one challenged their qualifications.

"That is, said Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia and an author of the study, the constitutional equivalent of the dog that did not bark, which provided a crucial clue in a Sherlock Holmes story," Liptak wrote.

The 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," while the Constitution requires members of the House of Representatives to have been citizens for at least seven years, and senators for at least nine.

“If there had been an original understanding that tracked the Trump administration’s executive order,” Frost told Liptak, “at least some of these people would have been challenged.”

Only one of the nine challenges filed against a senator's qualifications in the period around the 14th Amendment's ratification involved the citizenship issue related to Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship, and that case doesn't support his position.

"Several Democratic senators claimed in 1870 that their new colleague from Mississippi, Hiram Rhodes Revels, the first Black man to serve in Congress, had not been a citizen for the required nine years," Liptak wrote. "They reasoned that the 14th Amendment had overturned Dred Scott, the 1857 Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship to the descendants of enslaved African Americans, just two years earlier and that therefore he would not be eligible for another seven."

"That argument failed," the correspondent added. "No one thought to challenge any other members on the ground that they were born to parents who were not citizens and who had not, under the law in place at the time, filed a declaration of intent to be naturalized."

"The consensus on the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause has long been that everyone born in the United States automatically becomes a citizen with exceptions for those not subject to its jurisdiction, like diplomats and enemy troops," Liptak added.

Frost's research found there were many members of Congress around the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment who wouldn't have met Trump's definition of a citizen, and she said that fact undercuts the president's arguments.

“If the executive order reflected the original public meaning, which is what the originalists say is relevant,” Frost said, “then somebody — a member of Congress, the opposing party, the losing candidate, a member of the public who had just listened to the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment, somebody — would have raised this.”