LOS ANGELES — Mahmoud Khalil and his legal team filed a preliminary injunction motion to counter the post-hoc charge following his detainment in an ICE detention center, the ACLU said in a press release.
Khalil’s legal team filed the motion to block the U.S. government’s new immigration charge against him.
The motion challenges the government’s post-hoc allegation of misrepresentation on Khalil’s green card.
This action is described as a retaliatory effort to silence Khalil for his civil rights advocacy, raising significant First Amendment and due process concerns.
The ACLU has raised broader concerns about the use of immigration enforcement to target activists, particularly those advocating for Palestinian rights.
Khalil’s case has become a focal point for civil liberties groups monitoring how federal authorities apply foreign policy determinations and immigration law to suppress dissent.
On March 8, Khalil was detained by the Trump administration after publicly speaking in support of Palestinian rights.
According to Amy Belsher, director of immigrants’ rights litigation at the NYCLU, “These flimsy accusations only reveal the targeted nature of his arrest and the ongoing attempts to silence and remove him.”
Following his detainment, Khalil was held for over three months in a remote Louisiana detention facility more than 1,400 miles away from his family and legal team.
He was released after Marco Rubio’s foreign policy “determination” was ruled unconstitutional by federal courts.
ACLU-NJ Senior Staff Attorney Weisberg responded to Khalil’s arrest, asserting, “The government has gone to extraordinary and outrageous lengths in its attempt to silence Mahmoud Khalil, including leveling unsubstantiated and retaliatory charges against him.”
Following Khalil’s release, the government filed a new charge alleging misrepresentations on his green card application.
This came one week after Khalil submitted a habeas petition challenging his previous detention, according to the ACLU.
Khalil’s legal team responded with a motion arguing the post-hoc charge violated his First Amendment and Fifth Amendment due process rights and is part of a retaliatory effort to continue his detention after courts blocked the original grounds for his arrest.
Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, stated, “This is textbook retaliation. The First Amendment squarely prohibits the government from abusing its powers to suppress dissent.”
The motion argues it is unlawful for the U.S. government to attempt to remove Khalil on the basis of the post-hoc charge.
The government detained Khalil on the post-hoc charge after the court enjoined the government from removing him, according to the injunction.
The motion claims Khalil’s First Amendment rights were violated when the post-hoc charge was added and he was detained.
It alleges Khalil’s support of Palestine and critique of Israel provoked retaliation from the U.S. government.
The injunction also argues that Khalil’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated because his detention was punitive, even though he was not a flight risk or a danger.
Khalil’s legal team maintains that his rights were violated and that he suffered reputational harm as a result of the detainment.
The filing claims his detention is one of the first examples of a retaliatory campaign to use immigration law to censor and punish dissenting viewpoints.
The injunction states the U.S. government relied on the Rubio determination to detain Khalil on grounds of opposition to U.S. and Israeli policy.
It argues the government used the determination to issue “additional charges of inadmissibility/deportability” by alleging that Khalil violated the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The motion explains that Khalil’s alleged violation stems from “misinterpreted or omitted material information” in his March 2024 green card application.
Immigration attorneys with more than 20 years of experience described the government’s post-hoc charge as “extraordinarily unusual.”
Experts said sections of the green card application, including advocacy group affiliations and student club involvement, are generally disregarded and have no bearing on admissibility.
Khalil, represented by the ACLU, filed the motion asking the court to enjoin the government from detaining him for his advocacy for Palestine.
The motion also asks the court to prevent any future detention based on the post-hoc charge and to require 72-hour notice if he is to be re-detained.
