Conservative legal experts slam judge’s ruling on anti-Israel activist

A federal district judge recently made a controversial ruling regarding the attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestine, anti-Israel activist. The judge, Michael Farbiarz, suggested that the Trump administration’s efforts to deport Khalil may be unconstitutional due to the vagueness of the order. Despite this ruling, Khalil will remain in custody for the time being.

Following the judge’s decision, lawyers for Khalil hailed the ruling as a victory, claiming that Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s use of immigration law to punish activists like Khalil is likely unconstitutional. However, conservative legal experts have strongly disagreed with the judge’s assessment.

Republican attorney Mehek Cooke criticized the judge’s ruling, arguing that Khalil’s ties to Hamas and his anti-American activities make him a threat to national security. Cooke pointed to previous Supreme Court decisions that uphold the President’s authority to exclude noncitizens deemed detrimental to U.S. interests, emphasizing that Khalil’s deportation is within the President’s constitutional authority.

Hans von Spakovsky, a legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, dismissed the judge’s ruling as meritless and biased. He pointed out that under federal immigration law, individuals who endorse or support terrorist activity can be deported, regardless of their legal residency status. Von Spakovsky criticized the judge for interfering with the President’s constitutional and statutory authority.

The White House also condemned the ruling, highlighting Khalil’s support for Hamas and his disruptive activities on college campuses. A White House spokeswoman defended Secretary of State Rubio’s decision to revoke green cards or visas for individuals who pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy and national security interests.

In conclusion, the debate over Mahmoud Khalil’s deportation highlights the ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary over immigration policy. While some view Khalil as a threat to national security, others argue that his deportation would violate constitutional rights. The case is likely to face further legal challenges as it moves through the appeals process.